Official Stage Legality Discussion: Stage Specific

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Overall size, the fact that you can spike through the floor, etc. The little, but very serious things.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

enough to ban the stage?

 

[PieDisliker]

Some characters may break the platforms during their recovery, such as Ike, thus not being able to recover and they aren't even being gimped by an opponent. That alone, I think is enough to have it banned.

 

[Life]

1. LM isn't legal, thank you BRC for failing hard.

2. Breaking the Skyworld platform during your recovery is arguably a character weakness, not a flaw in the stage.

 

[Akaku94]

Didn't we ban a stage in Smash 64 because Ness' recovery was screwed over there?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Didn't we ban a stage in Smash 64 because Ness' recovery was screwed over there?

Smash 64 rule-sets are scrubby, your argument is invalid.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Okay... Here I go....
Another random Ruleset idea:

Spoiler

Game Settings
Stocks: 3
Timer: 09:00 minutes
Items are set on OFF and NONE
Pause: ON
Team Attack: ON

Before Game One
1. One player is chosen at random, via a Coin toss, a Rock-Paper-Scissors game, or whatever method they agree. Winner chooses if either chooses Ports first or makes the First Stage Strike*. The non-chosen option is given to the other part.
2. If needed, any Controller adjustments or settings are made.
3. Players select their characters.
3.1. If this selection isn't made quickly, a Double Blind Pick (telling their choice to a judge, both MUST choose the character they told him/her they would) may be called.
4. Stage Striking procedure begins.*
4.1. If both parts agree, they can choose any stage to play in, instead of the Strike process.
5. Game starts in the stage chosen in 4.

The Game
-The one who loses their 3 stocks first Loses de Game.
-If a Sudden Death is forced because of a "Suicidal Move"** that ends both players' last stocks at the same time, the winner is the one that initiated the Move. If while trying to do this, the last stock one that performed the move ends BEFORE the opponent's, the victory is still given to the one who tried the Move.
-If the timer runs out, the one with more Stocks left is declared the winner. If both are the same, the one with less damage is the winner.

Restrictions
-Any Lock/Infinite must end as soon as possible after reaching 150%. Otherwise, it might be considered unnecessary stalling.
-Any Glitch/Bug/Exploit that can be used to stall out the timer excessively, or that causes any game malfunction, interruption or freeze, is forbidden. ***
-In the event of a Timeout, a player may call the revision of the “Ledge Grabs” statistic at the results screen. If someone effectively exceeded the limit of 50 (40 for Meta Knight only), the victory is given to their opponent. If both players did, the winner is the one with less Ledge Grabs. If neither did, the stock-damage rule is followed. If the suspicious player doesn't allow this statistic to be revised, the win may be assigned to their opponent.
-Any non-compliance on these points can (and should) be reported to a judge/TO. The penalty of those is entirely their decision and players involved must abide them.

After Game One
1. Winner Selects character.
2. Loser Selects character.
3. Winner might announce up to 3 stage bans from the Stagelist.
4. Loser chooses any Stage from the Stagelist, except any of the ones mentioned in 3.
5. Next game starts
6. Repeat as many times as necessary until the Best-of-3 or Best-of-5 is decided.

*** "Infinite Dimensional Cape", "Sheik's Chain Exploit", "Rudder-camping" and "Halberd's Main Deck Glitch" are examples of these.

** Ganondorf's Flame Choke and Bowser's Flying Slam are examples of "Suicidal Moves". Kirby's/King Dedede's Inhale are not.

* For Stage Striking, is the usage of the Random Stage Screen is recommended, by turning "off" the Stages as they are stroke. The goal of this is remove, one by one, all stages until only one is left. From the given 23-stage list, the first player strikes 5 stages, then, from the 18 stages left the second player strikes 5; then the first player strikes 3, the second one 3, the first 2, the second 2, the first 1, and finally, the second strikes 1. If done correctly, there should be only 1 stage left.

StageList:
01- Battlefield
02- Final Destination
03- Delfino Plaza
04- Luigi's Mansion
05- Pirate Ship
06- Norfair
07- Frigate Orpheon
08- Yoshi's Island (Brawl)
09- Battleship Halberd
10- Lylat Cruise
11- Pokémon Stadium 2
12- Port Town Aero Drive
13- Castle Siege
14- Distant Planet
15- Smashville
16- Skyworld
17- Pictochat
18- Yoshi's Island (Melee)
19- Jungle Japes
20- Green Greens
21- Rainbow Cruise
22- Brinstar
23- Pokémon Stadium (Melee)

Stage Ban Criteria:
If a stage contains any of the following elements, it will be considered banned from the stagelist:
[Permanent Wall] Allows inescapable setups in most cases and helps to rack up high amounts of damage, even if skill is not involved.
[Permanent Flat Walk-off] Creates a high risk-high reward situation, and/or an easy way to take stocks via Chain-Throwing; any of them is unsuitable for competitive play. However, if there's a slope that leads to the walkoff, these situations can be avoided in most cases, so they're allowed.
[Permanent Ceiling] When a non-passable platform is permanently above the lowest one allows characters to live up to very high damages, even if there's no DI/TechSkill involved, so it doesn't fit in competitive play.
[Permanent Circle] "Circle Camping" is defined as the action of avoid direct confrontation by running away through the stage layout. This is used to stall out the timer after getting a stock/damage lead, which may make them win by exploiting a rule, even if they're not as skilled as their opponents. However, if a spot can be reached by any character but opponents difficult it, is not considered "Circle", but just "Camping".
[Wario Ware] This stage has specific ban criteria because of its unique Reward System: After a mini-event happens, the game determines a "winner", and rewards him/her/them by either providing a small damage recovery, a transformation into Giant that lasts a couple seconds, or a Starman Invincibility effect that also lasts some seconds. The game is changed drastically depending on these rewards, and may or may not affect the result. This is not considered random, but obstructive in terms of skill.

Borderline Stages:
Given the former ban criteria, there may be some public disagreements with stage legality. I’ll step back a little and explain the ones I think should be the most common ones:
-"Permanent ceiling" implies that if it is destroyable, or somehow removable, is allowed, so stages like Skyworld, Luigi's Mansion and Yoshi's Island (Melee) remains legal in the list.
-Port Town Aero Drive doesn’t fall for any of the criteria mentioned above.
-Green Greens may or may not fall under the “Circle” criteria. It is pretty much subjective.

Banned Stages:
Mushroomy Kingdom [Walkoff]
Mario Circuit [Walkoff]
Bridge of Eldin [Walkoff]
Spear Pillar [Ceiling/Circle]
Wario Ware
New Pork Town [Ceiling/Circle]
Summit [Ceiling/Circle]
75m. [Circle]
Mario Bros. [Ceiling/Walkoff]
Flat Zone 2 [Walkoff]
Hanenbow [Circle]
Shadow Mosses Island [Wall]
Green Hills Zone [Walkoff]
Temple [Wall/Ceiling/Circle]
Onett [Walkoff/Wall]
Corneria [Wall]
Big Blue [Circle]

The TL;DR

Spoiler

Time: 9mins [max 3mins average per stock, that's a ****load of time...]

Before game 1: choose chars first, then start Stage Strike.
FULL 23-STAGE LIST STRIKE (5-5-3-3-2-2-1-1) [see below]
Before game 2 and further: winner choose char, loser choose char, winner bans up to 3 stages, loser choose stage. [no more pocket surprises]

Suicide move wins no matter screen result. Inhale is not a Suicide Move. [you lolwut, you lose]
Timeout: Stock/damage. LGL: 50 (40 for MetaKnight) [Well, that was subjective, any better idea?]
Infinites must end ASAP @150%. [Infinites no longer solves everything, but if you can't manage from that, you're an idiot]
IDC, Sheik's Chain glitch, Ruddercamping and Halberd stupid glitch are forbidden [Moslty under "stalling"]

Da List:
BF
FD
Delfino
Mansion [!]
Pirate Ship
Norfair
Orpheon
YI:B
Halberd
Lylat
PS2
PTAD [!]
Siege
Distant Planet
SV
Skyworld [!!]
Picto
YI:M
Japes
GGs
RC
Brinstar
PS1

Ban criteria:
Permanent wall, perma walkoff, perma ceiling, perma circle and WarioWare. Everything else is allowed. [WW's case is explained]
Skyworld, Mansion and YI:M doesn't have permanent ceilings, so they're fine. [I was surprised too]
PTAD doesn't fall on any criteria.
GGs maybe falls under Circle. [Innocent until proven bannable]

Banned:
Mushroomy Kingdom [Walkoff]
Mario Circuit [Walkoff]
Bridge of Eldin [Walkoff]
Spear Pillar [Ceiling/Circle]
Wario Ware
New Pork Town [Ceiling/Circle]
Summit [Ceiling/Circle]
75m. [Circle]
Mario Bros. [Ceiling/Walkoff]
Flat Zone 2 [Walkoff]
Hanenbow [Circle]
Shadow Mosses Island [Wall]
Green Hills Zone [Walkoff]
Temple [Wall/Ceiling/Circle]
Onett [Walkoff]
Corneria [Wall]
Big Blue [Circle]

Discuss and feel free to ask.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

"-Any Lock/Infinite must end as soon as possible after reaching 150%. Otherwise, it might be considered unnecessary stalling."

150% is too early, won't always kill.

"Any Glitch/Bug/Exploit that can be used to stall out the timer excessively, or that causes any game malfunction, interruption or freeze, is forbidden. ***"

Too vague, and why only glitches/bugs/exploits? What makes them any less legitimate than intentional tactics?

"If a Sudden Death is forced because of a "Suicidal Move"** that ends both players' last stocks at the same time, the winner is the one that initiated the Move. If while trying to do this, the last stock one that performed the move ends BEFORE the opponent's, the victory is still given to the one who tried the Move."

Why?

"*** "Infinite Dimensional Cape", "Sheik's Chain Exploit", "Rudder-camping" and "Halberd's Main Deck Glitch" are examples of these."

Sheik's chain glitch, rudder camping and the Halberd glitch aren't ban-worthy.

"16- Skyworld
17- Pictochat"

Skyworld turns every match-up against MK into an extreme advantage for him, even against someone who doesn't main him. This means that you would have to ban Skyworld every single game (otherwise your opponent might pick MK).

Pictochat... just... this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CnEd8Rxepw

"Stage Ban Criteria:"

The only criteria for banning is if the stage causes inconsistent results (i.e. uncompetitive).

"Onett [Walkoff/Wall]"

Neither are permanent, so this stage should be legal by your own criteria.

"Mario Bros. [Ceiling/Walkoff]"

The ceilings and walk-offs are balanced out by the hazards.

 

[ぱみゅ]

First off, I'm not a supporter of "results" but I rather support the "play", so player actions are priority (either allow/ban them is important in this Ruleset).
Winner is determined by playing the game. Abusing any glitch/bug/exploit isn't something the game intended to do, is an action players abuse, so it shouldn't be allowed.

150% is too early, won't always kill

Infines now should be strong advantages rather than MU solutions. If you can't manage from 150, you're an idiot.

Too vague, and why only glitches/bugs/exploits? What makes them any less legitimate than intentional tactics?

(top) They aren't game intended.

Why?

(top) In order to make prioritary the "play" over the "game", I make player actions more important than Screen Results.

Sheik's chain glitch, rudder camping and the Halberd glitch aren't ban-worthy

(top) They aren't game intended.

Skyworld turns every match-up against MK into an extreme advantage for him, even against someone who doesn't main him. This means that you would have to ban Skyworld every single game (otherwise your opponent might pick MK).

That's why players choose first characters, then stages.
Also, Skyworld's legality is an accident due to the ban criteria.

Pictochat... just... this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CnEd8Rxepw

Neither Randomness nor Hazards are ban criteria.

The only criteria for banning is if the stage causes inconsistent results (i.e. uncompetitive).

(top) I rather considered skill-degenerative as the main criteria.

"Onett [Walkoff/Wall]"

Neither are permanent, so this stage should be legal by your own criteria.

"Mario Bros. [Ceiling/Walkoff]"

The ceilings and walk-offs are balanced out by the hazards.

Hazardous elements are not considered for allow/ban stages.
So, Onett's Walkoffs and Walls are considered permanent, and MarioBros' Walkoffs are still walkoffs.


I hope that was well-worded, my english debating still sucks...

 

[Grim Tuesday]

First off, I'm not a supporter of "results" but I rather support the "play", so player actions are priority (either allow/ban them is important in this Ruleset).

I don't understand what you mean here.

Winner is determined by playing the game. Abusing any glitch/bug/exploit isn't something the game intended to do, is an action players abuse, so it shouldn't be allowed.

Glitches/bugs/exploits are as much part of the game as Snake's up tilt is. Unless you can find evidence where Sakurai said that extending dimensional cape wasn't intentional, you can't define it as such anyway.

Infines now should be strong advantages rather than MU solutions. If you can't manage from 150, you're an idiot.

Erm... no. The reason we put a cap on infinites at KO percentages is because until you reach that KO percentage, the infiniting player ISN'T stalling. It's not some random number chosen by preference.

In order to make prioritary the "play" over the "game", I try to make player actions more important than Screen Results.

You need to have a logical reason for this, rather than just thinking is is "better that way".

That's why players choose first characters, then stages.
Also, Skyworld's legality is an accident due to the ban criteria.

Even better then, you'd have to always pick Meta Knight or risk being taken to Skyworld.

Your ban criteria has no logical backing.

Neither Randomness nor Hazards are ban criteria.

Your ban criteria has no logical backing.

(top) I rather considered skill-degenerative as the main criteria.

Your ban criteria has no logical backing.

Hazardous elements are not considered for allow/ban stages.
So, Onett's Walkoffs and Walls are considered permanent, and MarioBros' Walkoffs are still walkoffs.

...Why would you just ignore a stage element when considering whether they should be legal?

 

[Ghostbone]

Anything that's in the game, whether intentional or not, is still legitimate for use in a competitive environment....it's all part of the game.

And who's to say what was intentional and what isn't?

Sakurai probably intended for players to play with all items on high, but we don't care about that.

 

[ぱみゅ]

By "playing" I meant that player actions and anything that can be player-activated are priority.

The game (competitively speaking) is suposed to be about characters using their moveset and stage elements to fight each other. For "not game intended" is understood that players activate something not included in the character regular moveset or stage regular behavior and abuse them in order to manage the results (game or ruleset-wise) even if skill is not involved at all, in order to prevent this to happen, these posibilities remain banned.

Erm... no. The reason we put a cap on infinites at KO percentages is because until you reach that KO percentage, the infiniting player ISN'T stalling. It's not some random number chosen by preference

I consider infinites player-ignited exploits. These situations are impossible to avoid since they'd edit MUs drastically, but they can be limited.

You need to have a logical reason for this, rather than just thinking is is "better that way".

Some times, the game doesn't have the same results when the same action is replied. Players ignite it, and following the Rulset logic, the player action must be respeted over the game's arbitrary result.

Then I would suggest banning Peach's down special as well.

And spawning, because the position is random.

And Smashville, because the balloon is random.

Random is not a criteria.

The only criteria backup I have is the phrase "skill degenerative":

[Permanent Wall] Allows inescapable setups in most cases and helps to rack up high amounts of damage, even if skill is not involved.
[Permanent Flat Walk-off] Creates a high risk-high reward situation, and/or an easy way to take stocks via Chain-Throwing; any of them is unsuitable for competitive play. However, if there's a slope that leads to the walkoff, these situations can be avoided in most cases, so they're allowed. I didn't pointed it, but I'm sure most people can get it
[Permanent Ceiling] When a non-passable platform is permanently above the lowest one allows characters to live up to very high damages, even if there's no DI/TechSkill involved, so it doesn't fit in competitive play.
[Permanent Circle] "Circle Camping" is defined as the action of avoid direct confrontation by running away through the stage layout. This is used to stall out the timer after getting a stock/damage lead, which may make them win by exploiting a rule, even if they're not as skilled as their opponents. However, if a spot can be reached by any character but opponents difficult it, is not considered "Circle", but just "Camping".
[Wario Ware] This stage has specific ban criteria because of its unique Reward System: After a mini-event happens, the game determines a "winner", and rewards him/her/them by either providing a small damage recovery, a transformation into Giant that lasts a couple seconds, or a Starman Invincibility effect that also lasts some seconds. The game is changed drastically depending on these rewards, and may or may not affect the result. This is not considered random, but obstructive in terms of skill.

Random or Harzardous is usually not skill degenerative, since players can prevent them to interfere in the game.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

By "playing" I meant that player actions and anything that can be player-activated are priority.

Why are they a priority?

The game (competitively speaking) is suposed to be about characters using their moveset and stage elements to fight each other. For "not game intended" is understood that players activate something not included in the character regular moveset or stage regular behavior and abuse them in order to manage the results (game or ruleset-wise) even if skill is not involved at all, in order to prevent this to happen, these posibilities remain banned.

Citation needed for the game being about characters using their moveset and stage elements to fight each other, who are you to say that?

This whole paragraph is so filled with subjectivity, it's a joke.

I consider infinites player-ignited exploits. These situations are impossible to avoid since they'd edit MUs drastically, but they can be limited.

Why limit what isn't broken? Basing a ruleset around what YOU consider an exploit is incredibly scrubby.

Some times, the game doesn't have the same results when the same action is replied. Players ignite it, and following the Rulset logic, the player action must be respeted over the game's arbitrary result.

Erm... no. It's not inconsistent, try adjusting your controller port and see if that changes the out-come.

Random is not a criteria.

I wrote that in response to something you edited out (but put back into this post I am replying to now, see right above) about suicide KOs being random.

The only criteria backup I have is the phrase "skill degenerative":

Random or Harzardous is usually not skill degenerative, since players can prevent them to interfere in the game.

So... you are saying that walls take no skill, walk-offs take no skill, ceilings take no skill and circle camping takes no skill?

Or are you saying that they take less skill than stages without them?

Wut.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Why are they a priority?

Because game changes arround them.

Citation needed for the game being about characters using their moveset and stage elements to fight each other, who are you to say that?

This whole paragraph is so filled with subjectivity, it's a joke.

What is it about then?
That's just the Ruleset main assumption, and every rule was written based on that.

Why limit what isn't broken? Basing a ruleset around what YOU consider an exploit is incredibly scrubby.

Is an exploit. A character weakness exploit. If not, what is it?

Erm... no. It's not inconsistent, try adjusting your controller port and see if that changes the out-come.

I'm sure that may affect Bowser. Ganon's case is special, sometimes opponent dies first, sometimes both dies, sometimes Ganon does.
If there's a formula for make it consistent, this particular rule might be edited.

I wrote that in response to something you edited out (but put back into this post I am replying to now, see right above) about suicide KOs being random.

I didn't edited anything important IIRC....
Anything a character moveset is able to do is player activated (so Peach, GW and anything else character-wise is fine for the ruleset).
If avoidable or non-obstructive, Stage behavior is not considered ban-worthy.

So... you are saying that walls take no skill, walk-offs take no skill, ceilings take no skill and circle camping takes no skill?

Or are you saying that they take less skill than stages without them?

The second one.

Wut.

So you just lost. lol

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Because game changes arround them.

Why, competitively, is it a priority?

What makes them important enough to base a rule-set around non-sensically.

What is it about then?
That's just the Ruleset main assumption, and every rule was written based on that.

You shouldn't assume there is a specific way to play the game, you just play exactly as it came out of the package and ban things when they fit the criteria I mentioned earlier.

Is an exploit. A character weakness exploit. If not, what is it?

Read what I just said then, you shouldn't be trying to say what is and isn't an exploit, because you don't know.

I'm sure that may affect Bowser. Ganon's case is special, sometimes opponent dies first, sometimes both dies, sometimes Ganon does.
If there's a formula for make it consistent, this particular rule might be edited.

Ganon's is the same iirc.

The second one.

I was hoping you'd say that, though it was a win-win situation for me anyway.

If that is your reasoning, every stage except the most skillful one should be banned.

So you just lost. lol

Trying to lead people into realizing they are wrong one post at a time is my style, so I get this stuff a lot.

 

[Ghostbone]

To clarify, I'm 99.9999% sure Ganon ties with a lower port and loses with a higher port with flame choke suicides.

 

[Orion*]

Neither Randomness nor Hazards are ban criteria.

What the doodoo....

You should probably elaborate on that lol

 

[ぱみゅ]

Why, competitively, is it a priority?

What makes them important enough to base a rule-set around non-sensically.

You shouldn't assume there is a specific way to play the game, you just play exactly as it came out of the package and ban things when they fit the criteria I mentioned earlier.

Basically, main assumption in the Ruleset basis is that Brawl is not a competitive game; players use it for competition, thus a Ruleset (that might be arbitrary (current one is btw)) is made in order to provide a game to compete with.

I'd compare it with a sport.
Why you can't use hands in soccer? Feet in Basketball, or just randomly run on Baseball?
This is just the same. Players makes the results by playing the game under the given rules.

(Scrubby? maybe
Unhealthy, considering current "standard" has many arbitrary assumptions like these? it's all up to you)

Ganon's is the same iirc.

Quotation needed.

I was hoping you'd say that, though it was a win-win situation for me anyway.

If that is your reasoning, every stage except the most skillful one should be banned.

No. The criteria is "skill marginalization", not "skill increase/maximization".

Trying to lead people into realizing they are wrong one post at a time is my style, so I get this stuff a lot.

And that's what I want you to do (:

To clarify, I'm 99.9999% sure Ganon ties with a lower port and loses with a higher port with flame choke suicides.

Interesting.... I still need the quotation.
In any case, if the player ignited it, why should he lose?

What the doodoo....

You should probably elaborate on that lol

As for this Ruleset, as long as players themselves (with no opponent's action) can avoid matches being affected by stages' randomness/hazards, they are not considered obsctructive.
So in most cases Random/Hazardous elements are neither good or bad, and they're just ignored. Only "random" element is WW's Reward system, which regardless your action it will provide a random reward that players can't control in any way.
Trying to make it clearer, judgements after minievents wouldn't be considered "random" since players ignites them. Only the reward itself is.



Fun facts:

This far, major concers are about Ruleset Ideal (arguably scrubby as hell), forced Sudden Death resolutions (Ganon/Bowsercides), restrictions (although Sheik's chain might be edited, it only causes a Wii malfunction IIRC; and infinites may ot may not stand) and stage legality (even with an attempt for solid criteria!).
Nobody has commented about:
-9 minute Timer
-Full Stagelist Striking
-the fact that people chooses character first, then stages
-the LGLs
-the ban criteria itself (only minor troubling with "Random" because I suck at wording it properly).

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Basically, main assumption in the Ruleset basis is that Brawl is not a competitive game; players use it for competition, thus a Ruleset (that might be arbitrary (current one is btw)) is made in order to provide a game to compete with.

I'd compare it with a sport.
Why you can't use hands in soccer? Feet in Basketball, or just randomly run on Baseball?
This is just the same. Players makes the results by playing the game under the given rules.

(Scrubby? maybe
Unhealthy, considering current "standard" has many arbitrary assumptions like these? it's all up to you)

I don't agree with the current rule-set and it's arbitrary rules either >_>

Sure, we can add whatever we want. But we need to have a good reason for it. Basing the game around the players is just... why...?

Quotation needed.

I just tested it myself.

No. The criteria is "skill marginalization", not "skill increase/maximization".

Those stages don't marginalize skill though... o_O

Interesting.... I still need the quotation.
In any case, if the player ignited it, why should he lose?

If the player ignited it, why should he win?

Fun facts:

This far, major concers are about Ruleset Ideal (arguably scrubby as hell), forced Sudden Death resolutions (Ganon/Bowsercides), restrictions (although Sheik's chain might be edited, it only causes a Wii malfunction IIRC; and infinites may ot may not stand) and stage legality (even with an attempt for solid criteria!).
Nobody has commented about:
-9 minute Timer
-Full Stagelist Striking
-the fact that people chooses character first, then stages
-the LGLs
-and the ban criteria itself (only minor troubling with "Random" because I suck at wording it properly).

That's because you don't critique what you agree with...?

And I commented heaps on your ban criteria, what are you talking about?

 

[Ghostbone]

Basically, main assumption in the Ruleset basis is that Brawl is not a competitive game; players use it for competition, thus a Ruleset (that might be arbitrary (current one is btw)) is made in order to provide a game to compete with.

It is a competitive game, we play it competitively, by changing the rules the game allows us to, and banning things that are over-centralizing. (for the most part)

No. The criteria is "skill marginalization", not "skill increase/maximization".

Stages that don't require the most skill require less skill than those stages, so they marginalize skill.

In any case, if the player ignited it, why should he lose?

Because the game said so? And that's a quality of the move.
We don't allow falco players an extra stock if they suicide with side-b...

As for this Ruleset, as long as players themselves (with no opponent's action) can avoid matches being affected by stages' randomness/hazards, they are not considered obsctructive.

Except it's been shown that this can't be done with Pictochat.

Nobody has commented about:
-9 minute Timer

Awesomesauce

-Full Stagelist Striking

Awesomesauce

-the fact that people chooses character first, then stages

Haven't we always done this??

Edit:
Oh wait no we haven't.

Bad idea imo, I don't like not giving people a chance to choose their character based on the stage the opponent counter-picks

-the LGLs

Should be 25 for MK, none for anyone else

-the ban criteria itself (only minor troubling with "Random" because I suck at wording it properly)

seems alright...but every stage really needs to be looked at individually. (for example the permanent wall on Onett isn't bad because of the cars, skyworld is still terrible because of MK)

 

[ぱみゅ]

I don't agree with the current rule-set and it's arbitrary rules either >_>

Sure, we can add whatever we want. But we need to have a good reason for it. Basing the game around the players is just... why...?

Because game isn't competitive itself. Players turn it into a competition.
>>Implying that was not sarcasm.

It is a competitive game, we play it competitively, by changing the rules the game allows us to, and banning things that are over-centralizing. (for the most part)

Personally, I'd give you that point. lol
I agree on "banning things that are over-centralizing", but that's arbitrary enough that allows me to stand my point on make changes from a player-based point of view.

Those stages don't marginalize skill though... o_O

Stages that don't require the most skill require less skill than those stages, so they marginalize skill.

I didn't meant "marginalizing" but "degenerative". Stages overcentralize upon certain tactics, degenerating any other skills.
I'm pretty sure that was fault of mine and my english wording issues. Sorry about that.

If the player ignited it, why should he win?

Once again, the player-based stance: They make it happen.

I just tested it myself.

Because the game said so? And that's a quality of the move.
We don't allow falco players an extra stock if they suicide with side-b...

So.... It is not random and can be prevented.... That's enough for me.
Rule now says "If a Sudden Death is forced because of a "Suicidal Move" that ends both players' last stocks at the same time, the winner is the one that initiated the Move".

Except it's been shown that this can't be done with Pictochat.

Read again.
If can be avoided by players themselves (when opponent is not involved) is not ban-worthy. Everything in Pictochat can be avoided.

That's because you don't critique what you agree with...?

I had doubts in some of them, so I was just surprised nobody else did. lol

And I commented heaps on your ban criteria, what are you talking about?

If you want me to address, you should elaborate then, I easily ignored it. =P

Haven't we always done this??

Edit:
Oh wait no we haven't.

Bad idea imo, I don't like not giving people a chance to choose their character based on the stage the opponent counter-picks

Why would we even allow to CP then?
The way this Ruleset tries and prevents possible CP abuses to an extent was by allowing 3 stagebans.

Should be 25 for MK, none for anyone else

25 is very easily reached (even with no stalling intent).
I increased the overall LGL in order to try and don't hurt their playstile too much, but they still need a limit in order to prevent possible abuses.
BTW, numbers were thrown randomly, so don't spect me to explain them.

seems alright...but every stage really needs to be looked at individually. (for example the permanent wall on Onett isn't bad because of the cars, skyworld is still terrible because of MK)

Both Onett and Skyworld were criteria accidents:
-Despite I love Onett: "If avoidable, Random/Hazardous elements are neither good or bad and they're just ignored", so there's a perma-wall and a perma-walkoff, so it is banned.
-"Permanent ceiling" implies that if it is destroyable, or somehow removable, is allowed, so stages like Skyworld, Luigi's Mansion and Yoshi's Island (Melee) remains legal in the list. If criteria is changed into just "Having a Ceiling", Skyworld and Mansion would be banned, and YI would be another "maybe" in the list.
If there's more stages to be revised, I'll elaborate on request.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Because game isn't competitive itself. Players turn it into a competition.
>>Implying that was not sarcasm.

I'm not implying it wasn't sarcasm o_O

Brawl isn't competitive, sure. I'm asking you to justify your specific method of making it competitive and explain why it is better than sticking to what makes sense?

Personally, I'd give you that point. lol
I agree on "banning things that are over-centralizing", but that's arbitrary enough that allows me to stand my point on make changes from a player-based point of view.

In this list, you banned stages that are centralizing as well as over-centralizing. Like I've said before, you only need to ban a stage when it is uncompetitive (the better player can't consistently win).

I didn't meant "marginalizing" but "degenerative". Stages overcentralize upon certain tactics, degenerating any other skills.
I'm pretty sure that was fault of mine and my english wording issues. Sorry about that.

The tactics on those stages aren't degenerative, they are different.

Once again, the player-based stance: They make it happen.

^Top^ Justify this stance.

So.... It is not random and can be prevented.... That's enough for me.
Rule now says "If a Sudden Death is forced because of a "Suicidal Move" that ends both players' last stocks at the same time, the winner is the one that initiated the Move".

^Top^ Justify your stance on player interaction meaning more than what the game says.

Read again.
If can be avoided by players themselves (when opponent is not involved) is not ban-worthy. Everything in Pictochat can be avoided.

Every hazard can be avoided when the opponent isn't involved, what are you talking about? And why would you assume that the opponent isn't involved? Ban criteria should be banned off situations that will actually happen, and the opponent will always be present.

I had doubts in some of them, so I was just surprised nobody else did. lol

If you want me to address, you should elaborate then, I easily ignored it. =P

Your ban criteria has no competitive backing. It is purely subjective over whether it is better for the game or not.

Why would we even allow to CP then?
The way this Ruleset tries and prevents possible CP abuses to an extent was by allowing 3 stagebans.

CP allows for greater depth.

25 is very easily reached (even with no stalling intent).
I increased the overall LGL in order to try and don't hurt their playstile too much, but they still need a limit in order to prevent possible abuses.
BTW, numbers were thrown randomly, so don't spect me to explain them.

25 is fine. 15 is about average for a non-planking match. And the LGL should be MK only because only his planking is broken.

Both Onett and Skyworld were criteria accidents:
-Despite I love Onett: "If avoidable, Random/Hazardous elements are neither good or bad and they're just ignored", so there's a perma-wall and a perma-walkoff, so it is banned.
-"Permanent ceiling" implies that if it is destroyable, or somehow removable, is allowed, so stages like Skyworld, Luigi's Mansion and Yoshi's Island (Melee) remains legal in the list. If criteria is changed into just "Having a Ceiling", Skyworld and Mansion would be banned, and YI would be another "maybe" in the list.
If there's more stages to be revised, I'll elaborate on request.

Your criteria is non-sensical.

 

[Ghostbone]

25 is very easily reached (even with no stalling intent).

It is, but with anything more Meta Knight can stall for way too long.
(he can grab the ledge as little as possible, and then abuse the ledge near the end of the game)

 

[-LzR-]

If you let MK abuse the ledge in the end of a match it's all your fault.

 

[DMG]

The question basically boils down to how long can MK grab the edge before it's unacceptable. LGL for example, you could have two different scenarios: 1 guy grabs the edge consistently 35 times and loses, and the other guy grabs it 4.2 times a minute for 35 total edge grabs and loses.


Why would MK grabbing the edge non stop for a minute or two be ok because he stayed under the LGL, but grabbing it incredibly sporadically over the course of the match and going over the LGL is not ok? I never liked that aspect of a LGL.

 

[Tesh]

LGL beats the alternatives. I have yet to see someone suggest something thats better than an LGL (without changing the overall game).

At some point you just gotta say "no johns, you are playing mk". Sure someone might lose because he grabbed over 40 times throughout a long match without trying to stall. But he knew the risks.

 

[Ghostbone]

IMO it's unacceptable for MK to be able to be able to plank for any amount of time....

A LGL to me is like if there was a stage that started out as FD but after 6 minutes morphed into temple.
The faster character just has to stall to that point and runaway.

Same thing with MK, if he gets the lead in those last few minutes he's basically won.

 

[-LzR-]

Same thing with MK, if he gets the lead in those last few minutes he's basically won.

How did you get a lead in the last few minutes again?

Oh wait, you don't get it, you keep it. Your argument is invalid.

 

[Ghostbone]

How did you get a lead in the last few minutes again?

Oh wait, you don't get it, you keep it. Your argument is invalid.

Wait what?

That was my point...MK can just camp and keep the lead and he basically wins before the game's even finished....

There's also the possibility that he might be going really even with the other player, but if there's only 1:30 left on the clock and he has a small percentage (like 5%) lead he can just plank for the rest of the match and win.

I'm basically saying, you wouldn't (or at least probably shouldn't) have a stage that morphs into a circle camping stage in the last few minutes legal, so why have a LGL which does the same thing?

Unless I'm misunderstanding you....

 

[Tesh]

So are you saying the solution is to have an LGL of like 5? Lets ban spotdodging too. MK could fight for 7 minutes and 59 seconds and THEN BECOME COMPLETELY INVINCIBLE FOR THE REST OF THE GAME!!!.

 

[Ghostbone]

So are you saying the solution is to have an LGL of like 5? Lets ban spotdodging too. MK could fight for 7 minutes and 59 seconds and THEN BECOME COMPLETELY INVINCIBLE FOR THE REST OF THE GAME!!!.

lol.

Not exactly.

The solution is to not have a LGL at all and cut the problem at its source....

But if we're going to have a LGL it needs to be really low, like 25.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

New Rule:
Meta Knight cannot grab the ledge.

 

[DMG]

Welcome to Brawl

 

[Browny]

Lol this would all be solved if you all just ate some concrete, hardened the fk up and banned Metaknight already.

*runs*

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Ghostbone, if MK can only plank perfectly for 2 minutes tops, then the tactic is not broken. Seriously. You had 6 minutes to get a solid lead on him or end the matchup, he's probably grabbed the ledge a lot by then, and it's simply not a big deal.

 

[Ghostbone]

Yea uhh....

So when the other player is forced to largely outplay a character by a large amount when they already have a reasonable disadvantage against said character it's fine? Yea I don't think so.

It may not be unbeatable, but it's certainly extremely powerful....

And MK's stalling abilities even with a low LGL are still really strong.

 

[WindMajor]

Ghostbone, if MK can only plank perfectly for 2 minutes tops, then the tactic is not broken. Seriously. You had 6 minutes to get a solid lead on him or end the matchup, he's probably grabbed the ledge a lot by then, and it's simply not a big deal.

If you can make your character unhittable for 2 minutes via a broken tactic, I'd consider that as stalling and broken regardless if I had 6 other minutes to beat him. The game still gives you two minutes to make up for your lost 6, and the other character is basically making it impossible to capitalize on it. Just because you couldn't get the lead in 6 minutes doesn't mean you should be damned to hell and not deserve those last two minutes of game time.

(this is under the assumption that PPlanking is actually unhittable though)

 

[DMG]

If 2 minutes is an acceptable duration, what would be an unacceptable duration?

 

[Life]

If 2 minutes is an acceptable duration, what would be an unacceptable duration?

This works both ways, of course, and is the main reason I dislike LGLs and generally try to look for other options--where do you draw the line? 2 minutes? 3 minutes? 1:59? 0:30?

+1 DMG (as odd as it feels to say that).

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Guys, making it so Meta Knight can't grab the edge at all is the least scrubby way of going about it (aside from banning Meta Knight, though that arguably removes a ****-ton of depth from the game).