Official BBR Tier List v5

[Kantrip]

How do we know if a stage is broken or if it is not if we are not banning it because of characters? Looking at matchups and things characters can do to break things is a huge factor in determining stage bans. Chaingrabs and banana locks were definitely contributing factors to the banning of some walk-off stages.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

@Gheb- technically with planking he's broken no matter where you take him lol

Planking is a problem of the rules, not the character.

 

[Kaffei]

The stage isn't broken.

He's saying that no other character can scrooge like MK

 

[Kantrip]

Planking is a problem of the rules, not the character.

But is it? Some characters can plank effectively and some can't. Similarly, some characters can do something about planking effectively and some can't. If a stage helps a certain character to plank more effectively than usual, is that not about the character in relation to the stage in question?

 

[TheReflexWonder]

I want to know what makes Rainbow Cruise broken on a fundamental level.

As for other stages..., say, Brinstar, it's because people think it's too degenerative, though that's very arguable. Brinstar's worse than other sharking stages because it's constant, unlike Delfino and Halberd, but, is that enough to push it over the edge? If sharking is really that bad, then why should we put up with it for any amount of time in other stages?

 

[Raziek]

It's not the character, it's the stage. RC is broken period.

Explain.

The stage isn't broken.

It is when MK planks or scrooges!

You don't ban stages because of characters.

You do if that character has a degenerate tactic that overcentralizes the game.

Either a stage is broken or is not. RC is broken, PTAD is quite broken, Brinstar is borderline. Smashville is perfectly OK. No need to misconstrue simple logic for a srubby attempt to make MK look uncompetitive. It's not him that's uncompetitive.

HEY LOOK, UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS.

Planking and Scrooging break most of the stages in this game, Gheb. What are you even talking about?

 

[Kantrip]

Rainbow Cruise has predictable obstacles, an unchanging circuit, and scrolls around (being the only legal stage that moves the camera without the stage, it plays for air characters in a unique way).

I think some people just don't like the uniqueness of a moving stage, tbh.

 

[BSP]

You could theorize against cruise, but I doubt you could find sufficient ban evidence against it that doesn't involve the bat.

Same as how you probably couldn't find brinstar ban evidence that doesn't involve the bat.

Did we consider just not letting MK pick these stages?

@Crimson- that works too

 

[Kantrip]

I would prefer getting 2 stage bans over discriminating. MK isn't the same on any other stages as he is on RC/Brinstar.

 

[Kaffei]

I would prefer getting 2 stage bans over discriminating. MK isn't the same on any other stages as he is on RC/Brinstar.

But then won't everyone just ban RC/Brinstar against air characters? o.0 It's almost like there's no point in having those stages.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

There are reasons to use Rainbow Cruise and Brinstar as a counterpick even if your character doesn't do particularly well in the air. Besides, I'd argue that Rainbow Cruise isn't a big deal overall, and that Brinstar is only stupid because of Meta Knight. Wario/Toon Link can take slow characters there, and Kirby/G&W/Peach/I dunno can go there to abuse the fact that there isn't much space and the extended hitboxes caused by membrane and stuff help.

 

[Kantrip]

But then won't everyone just ban RC/Brinstar against air characters? o.0 It's almost like there's no point in having those stages.

And smashville/fd against ground-based characters. I think this would then promote learning new stages, then when people get used to different stages, bans may begin to be switched to counter different stages. Like if suddenly some aerial characters find some shenanigans on Pokemon Stadium, people use their RC/Brinstar ban on it.

 

[Kaffei]

And smashville/fd against ground-based characters. I think this would then promote learning new stages, then when people get used to different stages, bans may begin to be switched to counter different stages. Like if suddenly some aerial characters find some shenanigans on Pokemon Stadium, people use their RC/Brinstar ban on it.

Ohh I see. Ok that makes sense.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

What does this have to do with the tier list?

 

[Kaffei]

Idk. I saw them talking about it so I got curious and wanted to learn

 

[Kantrip]

Oh, this is the tier list thread?

Changes affecting stages correlate directly to characters that are affected, thus having an impact on the tier list. If we were to use two stage bans, it could possibly play a part in closing the large gap created by the Brinstar/RC combo.

-goes back to lurking Stage Discussion-

 

[~ Gheb ~]

He's saying that no other character can scrooge like MK

I know he's saying that.
Scrooging is powerful because the rules allow it to be.

But is it? Some characters can plank effectively and some can't. Similarly, some characters can do something about planking effectively and some can't. If a stage helps a certain character to plank more effectively than usual, is that not about the character in relation to the stage in question?

It's about the rules making scrooging an effective tactic to begin with. To be more specific, using % as determinator in case of a time-out is arbitrary and supports MK more than any character [in addition to buffing planking, scrooging and other semi-stalling tactics].

I want to know what makes Rainbow Cruise broken on a fundamental level.

We choose to play this game in a manner of competition in which beating the opposing player in a 1vs1 battle is the ultimate goal. Rainbow Cruise requies more adaption than your opponent and contradicts the reason we play this game.

Planking and Scrooging break most of the stages in this game, Gheb. What are you even talking about?

Planking and scrooging also are supported / encouraged by the current ruleset for no logical reason. The tactic is broken because you make it available in the first place. If it weren't MK but another hypothetical character who has unbeatable planking it'd still be the tactic that's broken, not the character.

Use a non-aribitrary time-out rule that doesn't hand free wins to the character who is already the strongest anyway.

Edit: This is completely off-topic <_<

 

[Coney]

@ cony - I know that but it's quite annoying when anyone comes close in any games they "should have" won. I "should have" lost to tons of different people if winning close games means I should have lost. It gets really annoying to hear that all the time. I don't mean disrespect I was just trying to clear that up. I understand I speak a lot out of frustration so i apoloize for that

alright then; then i apologize if it ever sounded like i said i "should have" beaten you, because that's obviously not the case. you're the best smash player for a reason, and you're obviously leagues ahead of me. but i don't think it's at all a stretch to say that i could have, which is very, very different.

but yeah, i agree. people said nickriddle "should've" beaten me, when both of us know it could've gone either way, just with an unfortunate ending

 

[Raziek]

Use a non-aribitrary time-out rule that doesn't hand free wins to the character who is already the strongest anyway.

Implying this exists? Do you have such a magical rule?

 

[Orion*]

Implying this exists? Do you have such a magical rule?

I kinda agree with you for once LOOOL

/wants*

 

[Spelt]

Implying this exists? Do you have such a magical rule?

You could always, use know, have a discussion about it.

but that's not even possible because it will just turn into an argument and it'll devolve into insulting each others intelligence.

 

[Raziek]

I'm legitimately curious, Spelt, because if someone has a way to fix timeouts that doesn't include food, one-stock or sudden death, and actually has a chance at legitimate implementation, I want to hear it.

 

[Steam]

if the match ends in timeout, MK automatically loses regardless of stock and %

yay

 

[etecoon]

if the match ends in timeout, MK automatically loses regardless of stock and %

yay

wow

you can actually feel your brain being assaulted while reading this thread

 

[Steam]

wow

you can actually feel your brain being assaulted while reading this thread

It was a sarcastic reply to raziek's post... lol.

but tbh the more I think about it the more I like it.

 

[DMG]

Lol.

I heard 1 suggestion that wasn't all that bad. Basically, you scrap the % rule and make stocks the defining measurement of who is ahead in the match. So basically, if the game goes to time and both players have the same amount of stock, they do a 1 stock rematch.

Other suggestions are pretty bad though. Switching from % to another measurement like Weight, Knockback, Damage Dealt, Air time, etc those are BAD alternatives. Having % in that case is a noticeable improvement.

 

[x After Dawn x]

mk must have 1 more stock than the other player to win the timeout, otherwise he always loses it

lololol

 

[Spelt]

Lol.

I heard 1 suggestion that wasn't all that bad. Basically, you scrap the % rule and make stocks the defining measurement of who is ahead in the match. So basically, if the game goes to time and both players have the same amount of stock, they do a 1 stock rematch.

i don't like it...

if snake is at 210% and meta knight is at 0% is means they tie

mk must have 1 more stock than the other player to win the timeout, otherwise he always loses it

uh, no.

 

[Steam]

mk must have 1 more stock than the other player to win the timeout, otherwise he always loses it

lololol

^^^ yus : 3

 

[DMG]

Edit: Whoops this was already posted. My bad

 

[BSP]

i don't like it...

if snake is at 210% and meta knight is at 0% is means they tie



.

What if we had a margin of %? Like...if you're within 50% (great, deciding more numbers lol) of each other when time is called, you do a 1 stock rematch. If you're over, then one player "clearly" got outplayed more.

Was # of successful attacks considered?

 

[TheReflexWonder]

What if we had a margin of %? Like...if you're within 50% (great, deciding more numbers lol) of each other when time is called, you do a 1 stock rematch. If you're over, then one player "clearly" got outplayed more.

Was # of successful attacks considered?

Problem with a margin of percent is, who is to say when a difference is enough to judge "being outplayed?" Better to just leave any difference at all as the deciding factor if we're going to use the margin of percent.

As for number of successful attacks, that would end up buffing characters who require more hits to be effective with (Meta Knight and Sheik, for example). A gimp could end up working in the favor of a person who got gimped, too. That doesn't seem to create an accurate representation of who is doing better in a match.

 

[ShadowLink84]

I know he's saying that.
Scrooging is powerful because the rules allow it to be.

When MK does it yes.

It's about the rules making scrooging an effective tactic to begin with. To be more specific, using % as determinator in case of a time-out is arbitrary and supports MK more than any character [in addition to buffing planking, scrooging and other semi-stalling tactics].

OKay so let's play sudden death then.
Going by percent is easily defined, easily monitored by the players, and does not require a referee hanging over the shoulders of the player for the entire set.

Its an arbitrary rule that is based upon necessity and is well supported by...well...many games that reward the win to the person with the most health.

We choose to play this game in a manner of competition in which beating the opposing player in a 1vs1 battle is the ultimate goal. Rainbow Cruise requies more adaption than your opponent and contradicts the reason we play this game.

So, because it requires you to adapt it is a contradiction to the way we play this game, even though the game is based on PvP+S with S being the stage.

Planking and scrooging also are supported / encouraged by the current ruleset for no logical reason. The tactic is broken because you make it available in the first place. If it weren't MK but another hypothetical character who has unbeatable planking it'd still be the tactic that's broken, not the character.

This has to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
Planking and scrooging are not supported/encouraged.
I think the only reason you say such a thing is because there is no rule that outright tries to fight planking in the first place.

Planking/Scrooging as a tactic in itself is not broken.
The only one who can perform unbeatable planking/scrooging is MetaKnight a.k.a MeatKnight a.k.a the guy that takes your money.

Trying to argue that the tactic in itself is broken is a fallacy, because it depends upon the character to determine as to the effectiveness of the tactic since if we presume that the definition of planking is "remaining on the ledge to fight defensively" you would need to prove that every single character uses this tactic in a way that degenerates gameplay.

It is why you never hear people saying that camping is broken, or such and such tactic is broken. They usually say X,Y,Z character breaks the game when using this tactic.

Use a non-aribitrary time-out rule that doesn't hand free wins to the character who is already the strongest anyway.

Suggest one.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Thebest1pj]

Keep arguing and never getting any better.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Keep arguing and never getting any better.

BECAUSE WHEN YOU GET BETTER, THE GAME MAGICALLY CHANGES!

You haven't learned to use your tongue so be quiet bro.

 

[x After Dawn x]

shadow just got told

 

[Thebest1pj]

BECAUSE WHEN YOU GET BETTER, THE GAME MAGICALLY CHANGES!

You haven't learned to use your tongue so be quiet bro.

When you get better the game does change.

You haven't learned to not suck so keep training bro.

 

[TP]

At my tourney last week, I implemented a 9 minute time limit. There wasn't a single timeout. Obviously not enough data by itself, but I just wanted to point out that so far, it works.

 

[Tesh]

All of that is wrong.

RC is broken with or without MK
Brinstar is questionable with or without MK
All other stages MK is not broken on.

:/

Lol.

I heard 1 suggestion that wasn't all that bad. Basically, you scrap the % rule and make stocks the defining measurement of who is ahead in the match. So basically, if the game goes to time and both players have the same amount of stock, they do a 1 stock rematch.

Other suggestions are pretty bad though. Switching from % to another measurement like Weight, Knockback, Damage Dealt, Air time, etc those are BAD alternatives. Having % in that case is a noticeable improvement.

If its a 1 stock 3 minute rematch, can't I just time it out again? Its not like tied percents, where its extremely unlikely to happen twice in a row. If I am MK vs a Snake or Falco of similar skill, I can still camp the hell out of them on battlefield or smashville for 3 minutes without dying. You just have to be patient and avoid the stuff that kills. If I time out a 3 minute rematch with 160% damage and my opponent has like 40% (from stale dairs and tornadoes), then what? Another rematch? Eventually you wind up having to decide a winner with tied stocks. It just happens to be a common enough occurrence.

At my tourney last week, I implemented a 9 minute time limit. There wasn't a single timeout. Obviously not enough data by itself, but I just wanted to point out that so far, it works.

how often do you normally have timeouts with 8 minutes? Did you have any matches that ended between the 8 and 9 minute mark?

 

[Spelt]

When you get better the game does change.

420 was yesterday bro