Official BBR Recommended Rule Set 3.1

[Budget Player Cadet_]

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

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. It's narrow-minded to think winning determines the better player.

SCRUB. God dammit why won't people listen to me when I say that ADHD is a scrub. He *****es about "cheap" stages, and now he's saying the better player often isn't the winner. I'm sigging this. It's just so ridiculous.

ADHD, you are going against one of the most simple tenants of gaming. You're acting about as scrubby as my friends who john their *** off when I pick Zangief and spam 360 and grab them out of... everything, including their super. The better player is the one who won. It doesn't matter if the tactic he was using was cheap (oh well, you should've abused it too), it doesn't matter if the other player was using a low tier character (you lost at the CSS), it doesn't matter if the other player has given himself a ****ty matchup due to stages (you lost at the CSS again). It doesn't matter if you were able to input the super, the ultra, and a ****ton of dragon punches and he just blocked and threw you a lot. It doesn't matter if you sandbagged. You LOST. In that moment, your opponent is the better player than you.
Historically, this is the most basic sign of the scrub. People, listen to me when I tell you this over and over again!
ADHD is not a reliable person to listen to, and this is proof that a scrub is not necessarily someone who is bad at the game. ADHD is a massive scrub by traditional definition.

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

Apart from agreeing with you somewhat regarding ADHD in the past month for a number of his actions on SWF, he does speak the truth.

Let me use M2K for example. M2K is regarded by most if not all of smash as the best Brawl player. However, he does lose quiet a lot. Does this mean he is not the better player? No, it does not. DEHF has been taking near top 8-16 in recent touranments, and finally he takes first, over M2K. Do we suddenly say DEHF is the better than M2K? No. That is false logic. There are factors that dictate how well people do. Even if someone is extremely skilled, they can still lose if the situation is against them.

That is also the reason we do not use a single match or even a single stock to determine matches. We use a 'best of' method to determine who is really the winner. If there were not things that interferred with matches, we would rely on a single match to say who is the winner.

What ADHD says is fact. Brawl is full of factors that determine match results. A lesser 'skilled' player can always beat a more skilled player by merely choosing the right character, or making the right read to get a stock even though the more skilled player has been playing more consistantly.

Skill is still subjective though. I find it a measure of consistancy which I base off the idea of how we conduct matches with a best of system.

 

[Ganonsburg]

SCRUB. God dammit why won't people listen to me when I say that ADHD is a scrub. He *****es about "cheap" stages, and now he's saying the better player often isn't the winner. I'm sigging this. It's just so ridiculous.

ADHD, you are going against one of the most simple tenants of gaming. You're acting about as scrubby as my friends who john their *** off when I pick Zangief and spam 360 and grab them out of... everything, including their super. The better player is the one who won. It doesn't matter if the tactic he was using was cheap (oh well, you should've abused it too), it doesn't matter if the other player was using a low tier character (you lost at the CSS), it doesn't matter if the other player has given himself a ****ty matchup due to stages (you lost at the CSS again). It doesn't matter if you were able to input the super, the ultra, and a ****ton of dragon punches and he just blocked and threw you a lot. It doesn't matter if you sandbagged. You LOST. In that moment, your opponent is the better player than you.
Historically, this is the most basic sign of the scrub. People, listen to me when I tell you this over and over again!
ADHD is not a reliable person to listen to, and this is proof that a scrub is not necessarily someone who is bad at the game. ADHD is a massive scrub by traditional definition.

Hahahahaha. Hahahahaha. Funny.

But in all seriousness, Xeylode has it right. The better player is not always the one who wins the match. And just because you choose a LT doesn't make you a worse player. It just makes you a (insert skill level here) player with a bad character.

Take Twilight Prince for example. A month or two ago he switched from Ganon to MK. From what he said he went from winning some and losing some to winning almost every match, even against people he could never beat before. He's still the same player with the same skill level as before, it's just that he chose a different (better) character. And now he's back to Ganon, because in the immortal words of M2K:

ganon's better than metaknight he has triforce of power mk is just a tiny bat

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Apart from agreeing with you somewhat regarding ADHD in the past month for a number of his actions on SWF, he does speak the truth.

Let me use M2K for example. M2K is regarded by most if not all of smash as the best Brawl player. However, he does lose quiet a lot. Does this mean he is not the better player? No, it does not. DEHF has been taking near top 8-16 in recent touranments, and finally he takes first, over M2K. Do we suddenly say DEHF is the better than M2K? No. That is false logic. There are factors that dictate how well people do. Even if someone is extremely skilled, they can still lose if the situation is against them.

DEHF may not be better than M2K. But (IIRC they played; if they didn't then whoops) during the sets where DEHF beat M2K, yes he was the better player. He won, and therefore he was better. I mean, sure, if Daigo loses as a fluke at a street fighter tournament we aren't going to stop saying he's the best player (in the same way we're still gonna say that M2K is the best player), he was simply beaten by a player who, at that time for whatever reason, was better than him. No johns.

That is also the reason we do not use a single match or even a single stock to determine matches. We use a 'best of' method to determine who is really the winner. If there were not things that interferred with matches, we would rely on a single match to say who is the winner.

Well of course. And we have at least 3 matches in finals sets. So DEHF really was better than M2K... At the time.

What ADHD says is fact. Brawl is full of factors that determine match results. A lesser 'skilled' player can always beat a more skilled player by merely choosing the right character, or making the right read to get a stock even though the more skilled player has been playing more consistantly.

The first half of this is a skill requirement you're complaining about. If I pick DK, I expect to get my *** ***** by DDDs; I chose to lose at the CSS. Surely you won't hear top Zangiefs johning about how they "only lose because their opponent picked Blanka/Sagat". Getting gayed by character counterpicks is an intrinsical part of every fighting game. Stage counterpicks is a big part of brawl that plays a major role in how effective character counterpicks are-if the only stage was FD, MK wouldn't be so hot against Falco, would he? If the only stage was RC, who would pick Falco or Diddy? If you picked a ****ty character with hard counter matchups, you were not playing to win from the CSS out. No johns.

The second part? He got outplayed! In that moment, he is the lesser skilled player! If M2K makes a lapse in judgement and rolls into San's Fsmash, then even if it was just a moment of poor judgement that cost him the game, he was a worse player that match.

Skill is still subjective though. I find it a measure of consistancy which I base off the idea of how we conduct matches with a best of system.

Yes. Indeed. It's obvious that DEHF is not a better player than M2K; we know. He was merely a better player long enough to beat him in WF, the same way Broodmate probably isn't overall better than M2K and was only better long enough to **** him in LF. But to claim that the better player doesn't win because of any subjective measures is to go against the only objective measure of better we have-the results at the result screen. And going against that except in the case of a rule (one that is necessary to make is the game competitively playable, such as the LGL) is the single most scrubby thing you can do.


EDIT: @Ganonsburg: No, he stopped choosing to lose. It's pretty simple. You can't john about you having tons of skill because your character is trash and you still win. You literally give up a lot of this skill at the character select screen.

 

[Shaya]

chill out with the hate campaign.

Yes ADHD doesn't know how to articulate his opinions properly at all, and comes off as a scrub.

Alas he da bess on SV, FD, BF. The only three stages that people care about on EC or something. Because he's good at dat reading and abusing dat **** character. But "good" players are never the scholars, the articulator, etc
their brains are too mushy on what they excel in to care about big words, logic and reasonably backed up theory.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

He "comes off" as a scrub?

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

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. It's narrow-minded to think winning determines the better player.

That's literally as scrubby as my friends where I can't play Zangief because they can't beat 360 spam!

 

[Shaya]

Tripping.

Random.

Someone yells in your ear.

Winning consistently determines the better player.
Winning one match may not necessarily mean someone is better than another.

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

I understand what he is getting at after the emphasis on the 'momentary' win.

Alas he da bess on SV, FD, BF. The only three stages that people care about on EC or something. Because he's good at dat reading and abusing dat **** character. But "good" players are never the scholars, the articulator, etc
their brains are too mushy on what they excel in to care about big words, logic and reasonably backed up theory.

You are basically insulting pretty much every top player.

That's literally as scrubby as my friends where I can't play Zangief because they can't beat 360 spam!

I know those woes lol Playing Falco gets all sorts of hate.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

It's kinda sad because if my friend plays a gay enough Akuma, I have a lot of trouble approaching him. I'm not a good player lol. But he doesn't like using akuma.

 

[Shaya]

ESAM likes Green Greens.

He's legit I hear.

He will probably have a cap in skill level, unless he allows his brain to become mushy and play on SV, FD and BF only.

Top Players need to learn how to be uber good at pwning noobs in politics. If they say "gay" that doesn't sell an opinion like "ADHD thinks the stage may be too severe in terms of circle camping and hence play on the stage is degenerative; he won some tournament, so his opinion is legit."

 

[Laem]

BPC is so wack
and german

and for the record
SV and BF are the best stages
can't we just nazi the others out

 

[Shaya]

if stage striking was fair with only two stages, I'd have BF and SV as like the only starters too

... maybe.

 

[ADHD]

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.

If the best player in the world is being "outplayed" on a stage by a random Rob on LM he 3-stocked the previous game, shouldn't that raise some eyebrows and say something about the stage?

@ BPC, noob. If you're going to sig something to make me look bad THEN YOU BETTER NOT TWIST THE WORDS AND SIG THE WHOLE POST OR I WILL MYSELF.

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.

 

[Luxor]

If M2K lost to an unranked player in a matchup that is like 65:35 in his favor on his own counterpick, that tells me M2K was playing with his feet for lols. Maybe he wanted to make the ROB feel good inside, if he did that to me I know my self-esteem would go up.

1 match =/= proof
consistent, easily replicated results = proof
Science 101

If you come back with multiple examples of a lesser-skilled player beating someone superior there, we'll listen. I would love seeing Luigi's banned, since I hate it and don't feel like learning it.

 

[ADHD]

If M2K lost to an unranked player in a matchup that is like 65:35 in his favor on his own counterpick, that tells me M2K was playing with his feet for lols. Maybe he wanted to make the ROB feel good inside, if he did that to me I know my self-esteem would go up.

1 match =/= proof
consistent, easily replicated results = proof
Science 101

I have yet to see anything consistent presented about Luigi's Mansion . . . The stage is too strong of a counterpick for certain characters. If you miss a tech, you'll be caught in some ******** lock. If you're in kill percentage, you are more than capable to living beyond 200% and shifting the match entirely in your favor. If you have a lead, you can circle camp. I just see nothing good every coming from ceilings directly above you. There are only so many videos of good players on Luigi's Mansion.

 

[Luxor]

What on earth is inconsistent about it? It's completely, 100% nonrandom. Even bannable, broken stages like Hyrule Temple are consistent. All Fox, all day. Any stage without random elements gives consistent results, and stages with a few random elements (YI) are still consistent. The only real "inconsistent" stage in the game is Warioware and maybe Mario Bros. or Flat Zone; everything else gives consistent results, even if they are woefully imbalanced.

Come back with concrete evidence Luigi's makes the worse player win.

 

[ADHD]

What on earth is inconsistent about it? It's completely, 100% nonrandom. Even bannable, broken stages like Hyrule Temple are consistent. All Fox, all day. Any stage without random elements gives consistent results, and stages with a few random elements (YI) are still consistent. The only real "inconsistent" stage in the game is Warioware and maybe Mario Bros. or Flat Zone; everything else gives consistent results, even if they are woefully imbalanced.

Come back with concrete evidence Luigi's makes the worse player win.

Inconsistent as it having the notably better player lose.

I'm going to Pierce's today, and we'll record some matches on some of these stages and post them up later. I use Metaknight now, too, so I'll try a few things. I've also practiced timing out players on the AiB ladder, LMAO.

 

[ADHD]

----------------------

 

[Luxor]

Inconsistent as it having the notably better player lose.

I already said why your ONE piece of anecdotal evidence (without proof it even happened) is invalid to label the stage as inconsistent. If I played you there, who would win? You, since you're better. What if you try arguing Luigi's on Smashboards and playing me at the same time? That game wouldn't really count. However, if we met in a tournament and we both really try to win the match (I'm good enough tht it's not an auto-win for you, let's say) you would win because you're better. Bring me a case where someone IN BRACKETS WHERE IT COUNTS lost to someone on Luigi's. I'm not even going to care about the skill levels anymore, just bring up some evidence beyond your amusing anecdote.

I'm expecting an answer after I shower.

Edit: recording some matches of you vs. Pierce on Luigi's would be great, both of you abuse the stage as much as possible and share the results.

 

[ADHD]

I already said why your ONE piece of anecdotal evidence (without proof it even happened) is invalid to label the stage as inconsistent. If I played you there, who would win? You, since you're better. What if you try arguing Luigi's on Smashboards and playing me at the same time? That game wouldn't really count. However, if we met in a tournament and we both really try to win the match (I'm good enough tht it's not an auto-win for you, let's say) you would win because you're better. Bring me a case where someone IN BRACKETS WHERE IT COUNTS lost to someone on Luigi's. I'm not even going to care about the skill levels anymore, just bring up some evidence beyond your amusing anecdote.

I'm expecting an answer after I shower.

Edit: recording some matches of you vs. Pierce on Luigi's would be great, both of you abuse the stage as much as possible and share the results.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHXT67C5e_Y

This is an example of both characters living beyond 200 because of the house. Alphazealot knew he was in kill range and therefor knew to stay under a secure roof. He did this multiple times. Okay, using the stage strategically, but..

If one is to gain a massive lead, he or she can simply camp on the bottom level of the mansion and completely reverse the situation. This means that if you truly want to score a KO, you will have to take time to destroy the mansion and wash out the camper-or just be lucky with knockback/DI from attacks inside the house. If any stage requires you to temporarily stop what you're doing and knock down the house (and decay valuable moves from your moveset) then it is flat-out counterproductive. I'm not talking about WarioWare's "counterproductivity," because this is realistically counterproductive in the sense that it ceases fighting, or you risk not being able to KO your opponent. This also makes weight-class irrelevant.

Another example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qIvUd783O8

Let's assume this isn't 2008, OS isn't gnw for some reason, and is bad and mis-spaces aerials/maybe it wasn't knowledgable that gnw can up b out of the tornado. Instead, let's assume OS was some typical character that has trouble against the tornado such as DK. In the first place, the ceiling allows for the perfect height for the tornado to auto-cancel. For those of you who are unaware, the tornado lands lagless if it ends about 2-3 feet above ground. Combined with the ceiling, even if you tech, or immediately fall and try to get-up attack, he can land lagless or retreat, shield and punish. After your shield is low, there's nothing to stop him from repeating this. DK has nothing other than ftilt, fsmash, and maybe uptilt to stop it and all of these options must be well-timed. Metaknight's tornado doesn't exactly have the laggiest start-up or inability to be mobilized with perfect spacing. If someone is intelligent with using this move, they are capable of baiting over and over and avoiding all of DK's options to stop the tornado. Yes, the video may be somewhat irrelevant to what I'm talking about, but it made remember how powerful the B button can be on LM if you chose Metaknight against a non-metaknight character.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFDSIOSgfaY

This doesn't occur with only samus. You can indeed DI to avoid being jab locked such a distance against SOME characters, but others will jab lock you for all eternity. I don't see how being uthrowed to 80-damage-death combos results in you being outplayed. Although, I suppose that is subjective. BPC would disagree.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgj-yd906W0

Oh, and if someone could help me explain how you approach this, then that'd be great. Olimar's only blind spot (diagonally left and right above his head) is reenforced by the ceiling. WHICH MAKES ME THINK OF ANOTHER POINT.

If a character that's currently camping would normally have a blindspot from above to stop it, like falco, wolf, olimar, Rob, etc., then that character gains a massive advantage by staying stationary below the ceilings.

 

[Luxor]

Much better, and some theorycraft too! Now I just have to watch the videos and read the post.

Edit: Watched and read. Your points:

1. Gameplay overcentralizes around the cave of life.
2. Although the cave of life is removable, players should not be forced to take the time to destroy it.
3. MK is good here, perhaps bannably so.

1 is obviously true, but 2 is rather subjective. However, if the BBR goes as far as to say that ledge-based play is equal with "traditional" play, I think it's safe to assume that they are not opposed to "forcing" (since they don't "force" the ruleset anyway) one player to destroy the mansion.
3 is iffy, since it is established that a stage is bannable if it causes extreme character imbalance. The only issue is that we don't know how imbalanced is too imbalanced or how imblanced MK even is on this stage. Getting data on stage overpoweredness would be really hard, though.

 

[ADHD]

I'm looking forward to play on all these banned stages and recording them for better evidence lol.

 

[Laem]

Why
ridic **** will happen and ppl will call ignorance regarding such stages

 

[lordhelmet]

I agree with ADHD on a lot of his points.

On LM you are forced to literally fight the stage if you don't want to get ceiling *****. While you are fighting the stage your opponent is free to punish/shark you especially well if you don't have a projectile.

 

[Luxor]

I agree with ADHD on a lot of his points.

On LM you are forced to literally fight the stage if you don't want to get ceiling *****. While you are fighting the stage your opponent is free to punish/shark you especially well if you don't have a projectile.

The issue is not getting r@@@@@ped by the ceiling, that's just stage knowledge and tech skill put to the test. The issue is that it's an overpowered camping position for some characters, forcing you to break the mansion. If they leave to fight you, you don't need to get hit while breaking the pillars because you can ignore the stage and continue playing. If they don't stop camping, break the stage and make them. It's more of a hassle than anything IMO.

Btw guys, IIRC the best way to not get ***** by the Nado is to bounce off the ceiling, THEN tech the floor. The more you know

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

If the best player in the world is being "outplayed" on a stage by a random Rob on LM he 3-stocked the previous game, shouldn't that raise some eyebrows and say something about the stage?

If the best player in the world is being "outplayed" after picking Ganondorf by a random Sheik he 3-stocked the previous game, shouldn't that raise some eyebrows and say something about the character?

Oh look what I just did. Why are stages less valid of a reason to gain a matchup-based advantage than characters?

@ BPC, noob. If you're going to sig something to make me look bad THEN YOU BETTER NOT TWIST THE WORDS AND SIG THE WHOLE POST OR I WILL MYSELF.

Fair enough, I'll see if the stupidly restrictive SWF sigs allow for it. You still look incredibly scrubby with it changed though... Really, saying "the better player didn't win" is pretty much the most simple tenant of scrub logic.

I'm looking forward to play on all these banned stages and recording them for better evidence lol.

Now this is an improvement. This is what we (the pro-stage crowd) have been wanting from people like you the whole time. We aren't "too pro" and we probably can't figure out everything wrong with the stages.

Why does the rule set cater to someone who only uses one character?

that's stupid.

the best player wins with this rule set.
Your ideals of what the best player is is different from what it really is.

If I say "distant planet" and you're using Ganondorf (bad example, he does okay here) and stay ganondorf, that is your problem, that is your weakness, I am abusing it.

However, if I say "distant planet" and you were using ganondorf and go "well my character doesn't do well here, best use my brain and pick ROB" than you are playing to win.

Rule sets being shaped because someone doesn't want to play to win to the full extent available to them is silly.
But it really comes down to what people consider winning in this game, what is the goal of competitive smash?

This touches on a very important point regarding counterpick stages. Really. A lot of this feels like people playing characters like Diddy or Falco who are only good on a few stages, and saying "I don't want to have to adapt/I want my character to be good on every legal stage; ban the other stages". So what if your character can never catch that ROB on DP? Your char is not in the majority. It's not a stage where the faster character insta-wins (hard circle) or even where character viability is ridiculously limited; it's a stage that makes certain characters with certain abusable weaknesses act in certain matchups like... Other characters with other certain abusable weaknesses act in certain other matchups! And for some reason, it's not a problem when Falco completely shuts down Ganon or Ike (or any other char that falco basically destroys with SHDL) on FD, but it is an issue when MK shuts down Falco on RC or Brinstar (hell, this is even far more winnable for the disadvantaged party than in the aforementioned matchup).

TBH, we really need to stop thinking of matchups as "this matchup on starter stages" and start thinking "this matchup on stage X, stage Y, and stage Z". Like:
Falco vs. MK on FD: 55-45
Falco vs. MK on BF: 50-50
Falco vs. MK on RC: 30-70
DDD vs. Ganon on FD: 90-10
DDD vs. Ganon on SV: 85-15
DDD vs. Ganon on Norfair: 65-35

(definitely not actual values, just somewhat realistic ones)

Kind of like that. Because it's obvious that once you move away from falco's best stages, Falco-MK goes from "fairly even" to "outright unfair". When you play DDD or ICs or Olimar vs. Ganon on a stage that isn't one of Ganon's very best stages, Ganon has literally no chance whatsoever.

People still seem to think that anything that favours time outs, a completely fair and readily available method of winning the match that has been apart of every competitive fighting game like EVER should be instantly removed/nerfed/banned/ridiculed/etc.

DEAR GOD THIS. Stop thinking like this people; time-out is a perfectly legit way of winning. There's even a game mode where it's the only way of winning. The way we have arranged our settings, it is still a way of winning. And come on guys; which fighting game doesn't have this option? We literally set up our rules to work like any normal fighting game, and now you're complaining about time outs?

 

[lordhelmet]

Didn't read what BPC just said but I can guarantee it's full of terrible, wifi brawl minus logic. There are certain people in this world that are so stubborn and thick-skulled that it doesn't matter what you say to them, they always think they are right.

See: PWN1N

 

[Luxor]

Oh the irony in the post above me

 

[HyL!]

if anyone knows who PWN1N is you would agree with lordy in a heartbeat

 

[Espy Rose]

i·ro·ny
[ahy-ruh-nee, ahy-er-]
–noun, plural -nies.

1. the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, “How nice!” when I said I had to work all weekend.

2. Literature .
a. a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated.
b. (esp. in contemporary writing) a manner of organizing a work so as to give full expression to contradictory or complementary impulses, attitudes, etc., esp. as a means of indicating detachment from a subject, theme, or emotion.

It's not irony. It's just funny.

 

[Luxor]

Irony, hypocrisy, they're easy to mix up.
I meant that lordhelmet is pretty stubborn also but whatever.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to ADHD reporting back.

 

[Eddie G]

Didn't read what BPC just said but I can guarantee it's full of terrible, wifi brawl minus logic. There are certain people in this world that are so stubborn and thick-skulled that it doesn't matter what you say to them, they always think they are right.

See: PWN1N

*facepalm* Read his post...

 

[lordhelmet]

At least I admit when I'm wrong and keep an open mind to the opposing non-nazi (in my words: someone who is reasonable enough to attempt arguing with) opinions. And yes I played a lot of matches on the stages I do not deem "competitive quality".

 

[Eddie G]

At least I admit when I'm wrong and keep an open mind to the opposing non-nazi (in my words: someone who is reasonable enough to attempt arguing with) opinions. And yes I played a lot of matches on the stages I do not deem "competitive quality".

That's all fine and dandy, but you were completely wrong about the context of his post. You may admit when you're wrong, but you'd never have to with an initial dismissal habit like that. Just sayin'.

 

[ADHD]

Oh look what I just did. Why are stages less valid of a reason to gain a matchup-based advantage than characters?

This is an obvious one.. The characters are controlled by the players, the stages are not. Characters can adapt to matchups (unless it's so terribly bad, like Ganon vs Ice Climbers), but some stages are restrictive to things like recovery, aerial/ground speed, number of jumps, platform game, etc. that it's near impossible to compensate. Eh, that's really not competitive to me and alot of people.

DEAR GOD THIS. Stop thinking like this people; time-out is a perfectly legit way of winning. There's even a game mode where it's the only way of winning. The way we have arranged our settings, it is still a way of winning. And come on guys; which fighting game doesn't have this option? We literally set up our rules to work like any normal fighting game, and now you're complaining about time outs?

Umm.. you do not promote circle camping; I know this because of your opinion on Hanenbow and Hyrule. Luigi's Mansion is OBVIOUS that it's setting allows easy circle camping. You can drop through the center, jump to the middle level, heighest level, and repeat. Any character with a good ground speed or aerial speed can do this with ease. I can do this with DIDDY KONG, LOL. You have to destroy the house to prevent this, and then even still the stage is another FD that still enables moderate air camping. I believe Metaknight even has an infinite glide scrooge below the ledge. There's just no reason to fight here when characters like Olimar allow very minimal options to approach--none at all in theory.

To sum the problems of Luigi's Mansion in order from worst to least worst:

-Circle camping.
-"Cave of Life" or destroy the house, which is counterproductive to fighting.
-Tornado can be autocanceled, and even if teched Meta has enough time to follow-up.
-Promotes heavy camping, while certain blindspots are covered by the ceiling which is a legitimate reason to circle camp instead of approaching.
-Locks if a player misses a ceiling tech and DI is read.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Actually, so do I. See also: Luxor's sig. To claim I'm stubborn is fair. To claim I don't even look at opposing arguments, or to claim that I don't change my mind even when presented with sufficient evidence showing that my stance is wrong, is flat-out wrong.

EDIT: Whoops ninja'd by ADHD. I'll reply to it when I think of a good argument.

 

[lordhelmet]

If the best player in the world is being "outplayed" after picking Ganondorf by a random Sheik he 3-stocked the previous game, shouldn't that raise some eyebrows and say something about the character?

Oh look what I just did. Why are stages less valid of a reason to gain a matchup-based advantage than characters?

*reading*

Characters =/= stages.

A character is someone you find fun to play or someone you want to use. Characters are unbalanced, so, some simply destroy others. We can help limit this unfairness by allowing "fair stages". Characters play on stages. Some stages give certain characters advantages over others. Stagelists are made to remove stages that mitigate player skill or favor certain characters too heavily.

I fail to understand your god-like logic. Why don't we legalize all stages and simply learn each stage's match-up? Beats me, I'm out.

EDIT: and what ADHD said

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

This is an obvious one.. The characters are controlled by the players, the stages are not. Characters can adapt to matchups (unless it's so terribly bad, like Ganon vs Ice Climbers), but some stages are restrictive to things like recovery, aerial/ground speed, number of jumps, platform game, etc. that it's near impossible to compensate. Eh, that's really not competitive to me and alot of people.

<same stuff as above>

This makes sense. You pick one character, you have to pick every stage at some point essentially. Now. Similar logic: why is a character's ability to perform on a stage something we should limit? After all, when you play against Diddy on RC as Oli, it's not really an issue for the olimar. However, you play against MK and he will **** your ****. Seeing as how good you are on a stage is heavily matchup-dependant (in fact, most low/mid tier matchups and most dittos are fair on virtually any stage that doesn't have a hard circle and and isn't warioware; at least, fair to the character. You go for an Ike ditto on RC? Just as fair to the character as it is on FD)... It's as if it's a part of MK's character to be able to **** on RC. After all, sooner or later you're going to be forced to play him on this stage (and with our system, he can easily force you to play there unless you want to play on Brinstar, in which case replace RC with brinstar above). So why limit this part of his character? If it's broken to the extent where MK is the only char with a chance on that stage and he virtually auto-wins (see below for explanation of this), then sure, we ban the stage. But beyond that... Why limit it?

Does this make any sense or am I talking out of my *** again? Basically the simple version is "characters who are good on stages deserve to not have these benefits removed unless the stage contains a tactic which is flat-out broken".

<stuff>

Wasn't talking about luigi's mansion. More about TKD's latest blog where he touts anti-airtime rules as a way to stop time outs, or how people want to ban stages where timeouts are more common, or how a common argument against PS2's legality is "It causes too many time-outs because you have to stall on certain transformations." However, with Luigi's Mansion, you can get rid of the circle. It's not a hard circle permanently. I guess this may be too disruptive? LM is a stage where my knowledge is very limited.

To sum the problems of Luigi's Mansion in order from worst to least worst:

-Circle camping.
-"Cave of Life" or destroy the house, which is counterproductive to fighting.
-Tornado can be autocanceled, and even if teched Meta has enough time to follow-up.
-Promotes heavy camping, while certain blindspots are covered by the ceiling which is a legitimate reason to circle camp instead of approaching.
-Locks if a player misses a ceiling tech and DI is read.

I'm also very dubious about Luigi's Mansion (and Distant Planet) and would appreciate seeing vids showing them as "broken".

I fail to understand your god-like logic. Why don't we legalize all stages and simply learn each stage's match-up? Beats me, I'm out.

Because with all stages legal and our current counterpick system, brawl is both anticompetitive (warioware is likely to produce results that are very inconsistent and is the only stage in the game that is without any further doubt anticompetitive) and incredibly limited (if Temple/Spear Pillar/etc. are legal, fox is pretty much the only viable character; maybe one or two others but still...). That's not part of my logic. I'm leaving behind the originalist line of thought because you have to abandon that to even ban Temple Hyrule (unless I'm very much mistaken). I'm going back to my argument of what stages offer the game, competitively-a ridiculously large amount. Only when they start removing a lot (stages with permanent straight walkoffs remove all but a few characters who don't get CG'd and remove a lot of combat strategy; stages with circles remove all but the very fastest character, etc.) is it not worthwhile. For more details, check this post out.

 

[Crow!]

Didn't read what BPC just said but I can guarantee it's full of terrible, wifi brawl minus logic. There are certain people in this world that are so stubborn and thick-skulled that it doesn't matter what you say to them, they always think they are right.

See: PWN1N

I hope this post was meant to be ironic.

In case it wasn't, or for anyone who might have missed the irony, tl;dr-ing stuff while simultaneously claiming it's crap is the epitomy of being "so stubborn and thick-skulled that it doesn't matter what you say to them, they always think they are right."

 

[GhllieShdeKnife]

agreed^ warioware is anti comp