Official BBR Recommended Rule Set 3.1

[-Vocal-]

Indeed.

So how about that rule NJ tournaments are using, that you need a 50% lead to be declared the victor in case of tied stocks?

I support it because it goes closer to, well, what the game says (% lead does not matter when time runs out(.

Explain to me how you're going to have a 50% lead on Jigglypuff. I believe the rule we have now works better than this proposal.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Wut

No, if you have a stock lead, you win. But if you have the same number of stocks, it counts as a tie unless you have a 50% or higher lead. Basically, the BBR ruleset has it as a 1% lead necessary; they have it as a 50% lead, the game has it as a 1000% lead.

 

[-Vocal-]

Wut

No, if you have a stock lead, you win. But if you have the same number of stocks, it counts as a tie unless you have a 50% or higher lead. Basically, the BBR ruleset has it as a 1% lead necessary; they have it as a 50% lead, the game has it as a 1000% lead.

My point stated more clearly:

This rule will make it easier to time out some characters while it will likely not happen against others. Take Snake for instance - he lives forever, and chances are you're going to have a 50% advantage on him if you're trying to kill him. He'd be very viable to time out. Jiggs, on the other hand, is a different story. She dies at low percentages, so having a 50% lead on her isn't nearly as feasible, and perhaps you just have a really difficult time killing that particular player.

Honestly I don't see any advantages to this rule compared to the current one, not to mention a few downsides. Instead of trying to time people out to win, people will be timing out to get rematches, which will make tourneys last longer. On a less objective note, watching two players fight it out for that tiny percentage advantage at the end of a match is exciting stuff if it's a close match - that's not going to happen if you change it to 50%. I guess if people wouldn't mind tourneys lasting longer then it would be fine (both rules are subjective anyways), but I personally prefer the current rule to this one.

 

[moomoomamoo]

Not to break off the already going conversation, but what forms of 'stalling' that is bannable that isn't already listed in the rules provided in rule set 3.1?

Edit: Figured I'd ask here before I assume there are none.

 

[-Vocal-]

I think they're all mentioned in some way, shape, or form in the rule.

Except for PPlanking. But no need to bring up that conversation again I guess.

 

[moomoomamoo]

I think they're all mentioned in some way, shape, or form in the rule.

Except for PPlanking. But no need to bring up that conversation again I guess.

Thanks. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't making a bad assumption.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

My point stated more clearly:

This rule will make it easier to time out some characters while it will likely not happen against others. Take Snake for instance - he lives forever, and chances are you're going to have a 50% advantage on him if you're trying to kill him. He'd be very viable to time out. Jiggs, on the other hand, is a different story. She dies at low percentages, so having a 50% lead on her isn't nearly as feasible, and perhaps you just have a really difficult time killing that particular player.

So... you not only can't kill the player, but for some reason you're RIGHT in that uncanny valley where you can't get a large % lead but also can't kill them... I hope you realize how silly this sounds.
If you can get and keep a 50% lead against a char who is ridiculously good at wracking damage and killing, kudos, you deserved to win.

Honestly I don't see any advantages to this rule compared to the current one,

Well, here's the big one. In normal brawl, without rules, the game ignores % leads. If time runs out, your % lead does not matter. You need to have a stock lead in order to win and not to draw. This rule is a fairly simple compromise, although I still prefer not going by % lead.

not to mention a few downsides. Instead of trying to time people out to win, people will be timing out to get rematches, which will make tourneys last longer.

Which is why you plan every tournament as if every match would go to time. And yeah, people will be struggling to time out for that rematch. So?

On a less objective note, watching two players fight it out for that tiny percentage advantage at the end of a match is exciting stuff if it's a close match - that's not going to happen if you change it to 50%. I guess if people wouldn't mind tourneys lasting longer then it would be fine (both rules are subjective anyways), but I personally prefer the current rule to this one.

I don't really see tournaments lasting that much longer because of this.

 

[-Vocal-]

So... you not only can't kill the player, but for some reason you're RIGHT in that uncanny valley where you can't get a large % lead but also can't kill them... I hope you realize how silly this sounds.
If you can get and keep a 50% lead against a char who is ridiculously good at wracking damage and killing, kudos, you deserved to win.



Well, here's the big one. In normal brawl, without rules, the game ignores % leads. If time runs out, your % lead does not matter. You need to have a stock lead in order to win and not to draw. This rule is a fairly simple compromise, although I still prefer not going by % lead.



Which is why you plan every tournament as if every match would go to time. And yeah, people will be struggling to time out for that rematch. So?



I don't really see tournaments lasting that much longer because of this.

1) Concerning your plan tournaments as if many matches will go to time and will require rematches: no one wants tournaments to last longer. They already take many hours, and increasing it more would not be a good idea. Several characters rely on time out as a strategy in some matches, and if those characters are going to be getting rematches all the time because they couldn't kill but avoided being killed (Samus comes to mind) then tournaments will be noticeably longer.

2) Any win based off of percentages is subjective. A 50% rule has absolutely no logical reason to be more acceptable than a 1% lead - the number is arbitrary. As such, I prefer the arbitrary 1% over the arbitrary 50%, for several personal reasons and the very practical reason that no one wants time outs to result in rematches all the time.

Any change in the percentage necessary to win a time out would just be based upon personal opinions of what should constitute a victory, but from an objective standpoint no percentage is better than any other.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

All right then, I'll come right out and say it.

By placing a rule in the game that % leads count towards victory in the case of a time-out, we are going against the ruling of the game and placing too much value on % leads.

 

[ADHD]

Wut

No, if you have a stock lead, you win. But if you have the same number of stocks, it counts as a tie unless you have a 50% or higher lead. Basically, the BBR ruleset has it as a 1% lead necessary; they have it as a 50% lead, the game has it as a 1000% lead.

The problem with time-out ties is that if the opponent is aircamping and stalling you the entire time and you manage to turn it around with a minor lead when the timer runs out you don't win like you deserve to on the spot.

Is that really fair to you? It's happened to me and plenty others before. It basically promotes timing out even more because of the safeness of the stock tie. Talk about "over centralizing and degenerative tactics."

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

The problem with time-out ties is that if the opponent is aircamping and stalling you the entire time and you manage to turn it around with a minor lead when the timer runs out you don't win like you deserve to on the spot.

Is that really fair to you? It's happened to me and plenty others before. It basically promotes timing out even more because of the safeness of the stock tie. Talk about "over centralizing and degenerative tactics."

I dunno if it's really degenerate or overcentralizing (I kinda doubt it in fact), but keep this in mind. You claim "you deserve" to win with a small lead. Why do you assume this? Especially when the game claims you only deserve to win (and not tie) in the case of a time-out when you have at least one stock more than your opponent. It doesn't really matter if it's fair according to our perception of fairness in-game, it's what the game defines as "fair". If it does prove to be overcentralizing (how the **** would THAT happen with this rule?) you would change it. But how many top-level matches go for 8 minutes without a single stock loss?

It means that if you want to win via a time-out, you have to work harder for it. I understand the sentiment against it very well, I just disagree with it on a philosophical level.

 

[-Vocal-]

All right then, I'll come right out and say it.

By placing a rule in the game that % leads count towards victory in the case of a time-out, we are going against the ruling of the game and placing too much value on % leads.

Shaya will probably come in in a day or two and answer this better than I can. I'd just muddle it in the meantime so I won't try

 

[Raziek]

Long story short is: We've yet to come up with a better answer that isn't plagued by logical holes, or extends the tournament DRASTICALLY, because you have to name a winner EVENTUALLY.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

The reason why I think the 50% rule won't work is because it doesn't force any character to approach when they have percentage differences between 1-49%. I think more matches will have to be replayed if we use this rule.

 

[Placebo Effect]

So. Um. Dude.

You realize the community makes the rules, right? We can't do anything about gay gameplay, but unwinnable gameplay is something we can attack.

Btw, this thread died big time

That's what I was saying, I need to learn how to word things. x_x
Peope misunderstand me alot lol.

 

[-Vocal-]

Long story short is: We've yet to come up with a better answer that isn't plagued by logical holes, or extends the tournament DRASTICALLY, because you have to name a winner EVENTUALLY.

They aren't logical holes because it's not something logic can determine. How does logic determine that we should play three stocks? Or an 8 minute timer? It doesn't, but it's not supposed to.

There is some merit to saying "honor the game" concerning percentage leads, but there's logically only two choices: ignore percentages as a victory condition or allow percentages as a victory condition. Values are not important, and are only decided subjectively if we choose to go with the latter option.

 

[Raziek]

Well, sudden death is clearly anti-competitive, so we NEED a solution.

% is just the most obvious and easy to implement one.

 

[-Vocal-]

Well, sudden death is clearly anti-competitive, so we NEED a solution.

% is just the most obvious and easy to implement one.

Exactly. Then it's just the subjective decision part, and I think the current rule is fine. You could get 50% rule added by popular opinion, just not by logic.

 

[Tesh]

Sudden death isn't anti competitive. The better player still wins. You just have to be good at landing a move first.

 

[vVv Rapture]

Sudden death isn't anti competitive. The better player still wins. You just have to be good at landing a move first.

Or be good at dodging randomly-spawning Bomb-ombs?

 

[WindMajor]

Not even. Just camp that ledge and the game will never end.

 

[Raziek]

Not even. Just camp that ledge and the game will never end.

Exactly.

Picture this:

Sudden Death starts, MK runs to the ledge and begins Pplanking.

WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW?

 

[Nidtendofreak]

*had picked Frigate while using MK as well*

*grabs the one grabbable ledge at the start of the match*

:D

 

[lpgautogas]

Nice post... interesting !

 

[Scarlet Jile]

Not convinced OP meant to write "Port Slob."

 

[Tesh]

Exactly.

Picture this:

Sudden Death Any match starts, MK runs to the ledge and begins Pplanking.

WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW?

Just put an LGL on sudden death, you can only grab the ledge 3 times.

 

[Kitamerby]

Just put an LGL on sudden death, you can only grab the ledge 3 times.

Then it becomes a game of luck due to the randomly spawning bob-ombs. Sudden death is very anti-competitive.

 

[vVv Rapture]

You know, we could just make our own Sudden Death. Just get rid of the bomb-ombs and make it 0% each, or maybe 50% each. It'd take maybe half a minute to set that up.

 

[Tesh]

Or you could just play a 1 stock match in special brawl, no bombs there. I thought everyone was only crying about unbeatable stalling, not general camping.

Also, dodging bombs can take skill too. In fact, instant throwing them at your opponent is even cooler.

 

[John12346]

Dodging bombs can take skill, but there have been more than countless times where a bomb landed on your face during the endlag of your upwards killing move.

 

[Spelt]

Are we seriously discussing how viable sudden death is in a competitive environment?
I'm sure my 2 year old niece could contribute to this discussion as well as most people here.

 

[Orion*]

Are we seriously discussing how viable sudden death is in a competitive environment?
I'm sure my 2 year old niece could contribute to this discussion as well as most people here.

apparently

Dodging bombs can take skill, but there have been more than countless times where a bomb landed on your face during the endlag of your upwards killing move.

then your bad for picking a move that has end lag obviously

 

[Tesh]

John, perhaps your opponent mindgamed you into killing him off the top for that very reason. He planned the whole thing out and left you looking like a fool.

Also Spelt, people don't like sudden death for the same reason they don't like PTAD/ Japes. No one wants to be punished so hard for 1 single mistake.

That doesn't mean it doesn't take skill to land the first hit. Without an LGL, all a MK has to do is land 1 hit first and then its just sudden death + 8 minutes of waiting.

 

[Trillion]

Pikachu
Invincibility Frames - 34
Ledge Grab Lag Frames - 12
Ledge Drop Frame - 14

This data was taken from here: http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=8257705&postcount=56
It was compiled by K Prime over a year ago.

As you can see, Pikachu is capable of playing the ledge in such a way that he has permanent invincibility. Yet, the BBR feels that this does not meet the definition of "game breaking" ?

 

['V']

I think that we have determined in the past that the bbr is ******** in the definitions department. It's part of the reason why this game doesn't work.

 

[sunshade]

Pikachu
Invincibility Frames - 34
Ledge Grab Lag Frames - 12
Ledge Drop Frame - 14

This data was taken from here: http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=8257705&postcount=56
It was compiled by K Prime over a year ago.

As you can see, Pikachu is capable of playing the ledge in such a way that he has permanent invincibility. Yet, the BBR feels that this does not meet the definition of "game breaking" ?

Something is not gamebreaking until it actually wins something. How can you call something game breaking when it has yet to break the game at any point ever?

The BBR is apposed to knee jerk reactions. They dont ban something until it actually causes issues.

I think that we have determined in the past that the bbr is ******** in the definitions department. It's part of the reason why this game doesn't work.

What are you even talking about? There is only one thing in the BBR ruleset with even the slightest bit of confusion and thats the stalling rule. How does brawl not work? There are working tournaments constantly.

 

[Flayl]

Something is not gamebreaking until it actually wins something. How can you call something game breaking when it has yet to break the game at any point ever?

The BBR is apposed to knee jerk reactions. They dont ban something until it actually causes issues.

Infinite Dimensional Cape.

I'd love to see you explain that.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Infinite Dimensional Cape.

I'd love to see you explain that.

Probably shown to be broken internally. Plus, you know, it's a stalling tactic that relies on absolutely nothing beyond getting the lead.

Pikachu
Invincibility Frames - 34
Ledge Grab Lag Frames - 12
Ledge Drop Frame - 14

This data was taken from here: http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=8257705&postcount=56
It was compiled by K Prime over a year ago.

As you can see, Pikachu is capable of playing the ledge in such a way that he has permanent invincibility. Yet, the BBR feels that this does not meet the definition of "game breaking" ?

I wonder why no pikachu has won tournaments with this strategy. There are some with no LGLs. And furthermore, what happens if someone steals the ledge from him? And how soon after frame 14 can he regrab the ledge? Many chars just can't regrab the ledge with correct timing, is that data included?

 

[Flayl]

Probably shown to be broken internally. Plus, you know, it's a stalling tactic that relies on absolutely nothing beyond getting the lead.

Don't try to answer for others, specially if you're going to do it poorly. Nothing you said is different from perfect planking (which has been tested internally).

 

[Krystedez]

Can you insta-throw active bob-ombs?

No.

Can you insta-throw sudden death bob-ombs?

Depends: Are they active?