Proposed Ruleset for Smash 4 Tournaments

[LiteralGrill]

That's not true
When you're big you get insane mobility, someone like Wario becomes terribly hard to catch.
He might get hit once or twice but realistically the effect isn't much different than Pictochat.

Being suddenly able to be infinite combed by possibly an invincible opponent 100% at random isn't that much different then PC? I don't know if I can say PC should be legal but that's pushing it.

Edit: Also, people do realize sometimes random chance is a part of a game's discrete win condition right?

 

[Ghostbone]

Being suddenly able to be infinite combed by possibly an invincible opponent 100% at random isn't that much different then PC? I don't know if I can say PC should be legal but that's pushing it.

They have to catch you first.
Someone like Snake, MK, Wario, ZSS, Pit, etc. can viably avoid a lot of attacks (or at least ones that set up infinites) during the giant vs invincible period.

And giant vs normal is weird, sure you can infinite the giant guy but he hits pretty hard, in reality it just gets planked out a lot of the time.

 

[Ulevo]

What on earth do you consider grounds of ban/brokenness then?

Also why not ban extremely obvious OP things if they are detrimental to the metagame?

When a character is overpowered to the degree that it becomes the only viable choice, and skill cannot compensate for the differential advantage provided by using that character if the opponent is not also using the same character. By this context, Meta Knight is imbalanced, but he isn't broken. That's just the territory you tread in when you play Brawl.

And you don't ban things that are merely overpowered because it sets a precedent that balance challenges can be handled by a ruleset rather than trying to figure out ways to beat them. You're trying to create balance and equilibrium in an imbalanced and poorly designed game. I do not agree with the idea of bending the rules to suit that preference. I'd rather go play something that was properly made, competitively speaking. The idea that we have things like LGR in place to artificially balance a character is a representation of how incapable a significant portion of our community is to accepting the truth.

 

[LiteralGrill]

When a character is overpowered to the degree that it becomes the only viable choice, and skill cannot compensate for the differential advantage provided by using that character if the opponent is not also using the same character. By this context, Meta Knight is imbalanced, but he isn't broken. That's just the territory you tread in when you play Brawl.

And you don't ban things that are merely overpowered because it sets a precedent that balance challenges can be handled by a ruleset rather than trying to figure out ways to beat them. You're trying to create balance and equilibrium in an imbalanced and poorly designed game. I do not agree with the idea of bending the rules to suit that preference, I'd rather go play something that was properly made, competitively speaking. The idea that we have things like LGR in place to artificially balance a character is a representation of how incapable a significant portion of our community is to accepting the truth.

We already did that when people banned stages just for MK. It's already been done.

 

[Ulevo]

We already did that when people banned stages just for MK. It's already been done.

I'm aware of that. I'm just saying that it isn't something that should be going on in a competitive fighting game community.

 

[LiteralGrill]

I'm aware of that. I'm just saying that it isn't something that should be going on in a competitive fighting game community.

We definitely agree then!

Also, gonna plop this here to raise some discussion on randomness being part of competitive play.

From Jack Kiser:

Spoiler

Let me ask you, are you a game designer? Have you crafted a game, in any form, before? I have experience making small text games for programming assignments, but other than that, I don't, and I'm willing to bet that most of the pro players in Brawl haven't, either (if they did, they wouldn't be playing; game design takes a LOT of time). Why is this important? Because we, as players, don't have PERSPECTIVE. We are looking at the game from the inside, out. We see the game as it is happening, and we have a goal, and we want that game to allow us to achieve that goal. For US to modify the game, necessarily, demonstrates a conflict of interests between us and the game; in theory, we could modify the rules so much so that we ALWAYS achieve a win state, couldn't we?

We, in essence, are screwed from the start.

Now, why does this matter when it comes to random chance? Let's look at the critically-acclaimed and award winning board game, Settlers of Catan. In this game, the win state revolves around resource collection. It's actually a very cerebral experience. However, the game board AND the resources collected, revolve around cards drawn and dice rolled. Now, we, as players playing competitively, may say, "Even the inkling of random chance means that I have less of an effect on how I win the game. Random = bad". However, we're saying this from the inside, out. Our objective is to win, and as good players, we want to do anything in our power to do that... even if it means degrading the game! Our allegiance isn't to game integrity, it's to OURSELVES. As such, we are biased. Players, necessarily, CANNOT MAKE THE RULES to a game they play, because of this essential conflict of interest. The game, in essence, is OUR ENEMY.

The designer, however, has no personal stake in wins or losses. His job is to design a game where there is a discreet win state and an objective way to achieve it. Sometimes, such as the case of SoC, random chance is A NECESSARY COMPONENT of the game, in order to create the necessary rules AS A COLLECTIVE that allows for a discreet win state. We, as players, will NEVER know this. We have to trust that the game is not out to get us, that there is a discreet win state, and that we can achieve it.

How does this apply to Brawl? It applies to ALL competitive fighting games in the mantras "don't ban until gamebreaking" and "ban as little as possible". Why is this? Why ban at all? First of all, no designer, however good, is perfect, and no game is either. Oversights happen, especially in video games, and sometimes those oversights (such as the IC freeze glitch in Melee) have to be corrected after the fact or else the game loses its discreet win state (and thus, its integrity). However, the reason we should only ban the most egregious offenders is because we, as players, are BIASED AGAINST THE GAME. If we allow one change to lead to another, and another, and another, we can destroy the integrity of the game without knowing it. This is personified BEST in Brawl with stage bans.

By banning stages preemptively, we remove elements from the game and CHANGE IT INTO ANOTHER GAME. Brawl, in its native state, is about multitasking. It's about juggling many different opponents (in whatever form) at once and coming out on top. Sometimes your opponent is a foe, sometimes it's a stage hazard, and sometimes it's an inanimate object, just as a Waddle Dee or banana peel... but, IN ITS NATIVE STATE, Brawl is a game about multitasking. Now, is our CURRENT game about multitasking? Most of the interactive stages are gone. Items are gone. It's 1v1.

We, through overuse of bans, have literally changed the win conditions of Brawl.

Because we are PLAYERS and not DESIGNERS, we have NO IDEA whether what we are doing is helpful or not... all we know, as players, is that our changes allow us an EASIER time of achieving our (now modified) win state, and that we, as players, enjoy the game more... but as to whether the game has its original integrity, we cannot say, because we lack PERSPECTIVE.

What if we are doing that?

 

[[Corn]]

When a character is overpowered to the degree that it becomes the only viable choice, and skill cannot compensate for the differential advantage provided by using that character if the opponent is not also using the same character. By this context, Meta Knight is imbalanced, but he isn't broken. That's just the territory you tread in when you play Brawl.

And you don't ban things that are merely overpowered because it sets a precedent that balance challenges can be handled by a ruleset rather than trying to figure out ways to beat them. You're trying to create balance and equilibrium in an imbalanced and poorly designed game. I do not agree with the idea of bending the rules to suit that preference. I'd rather go play something that was properly made, competitively speaking. The idea that we have things like LGR in place to artificially balance a character is a representation of how incapable a significant portion of our community is to accepting the truth.

I dont exactly understand here. I was under the impression that you didnt believe MK was a problem.

But yes rulesets are by definition made to make large changes in the way the game is played. I cant name anything that had a set of perfect tools and rules formatted to make a game in initial releases.

 

[Ghostbone]

Keeping up with the modern metagame in which apparently Delfino and Halberd are not "obviously legal" is kinda missing the point. The current rules are crazy; I've said this before. Delfino and Halberd are just overwhelmingly non-offensive stages (MK clipping into Halberd is the only problem, and that's as easily banned as Peach wallbomber stall in Melee). That these stages are seriously held to be on the chopping block to me is just a further sign about how things have gone way too far.

Well it's more that you act like you know what you're talking about but don't even follow the game to know that Halberd isn't legal anymore? Yea....
The current rules are crazy in your opinion, in my opinion your rules are crazy, what's the difference?

Halberd is actually an overwhelmingly offensive stage and there's various cases of visual proof of the claw putting people into unavoidable death traps/giving opponents free punishes. (and it's a 50-50 chance either way, to either screw over someone's momentum or make punishes impossible to avoid, or just set up a free punish for one player)
The other hazards generally don't do much, but the laser can set itself at the ledge creating ridiculously impossible recovery scenarios, but that doesn't happen very often at all, it's really just the claw that gets the stage banned.

I'd say to keep delfino legal (as well as PS2, for 9 legal stages with neutrals + CS and PS1), but really if people think it's too polar a stage then that's what they think and it's going to get banned.

 

[Ulevo]

I dont exactly understand here. I was under the impression that you didnt believe MK was a problem.

But yes rulesets are by definition made to make large changes in the way the game is played. I cant name anything that had a set of perfect tools and rules formatted to make a game in initial releases.

Rules are used to set fair play, reduce elements that deviate from competition and emphasize luck or other random elements, and as last resorts to salvage a game from being unplayable competitively due to bugs, glitches, oversights, or severe balance problems like in cases of Akuma. Nothing more or less.

And I do think he is a problem. I think a lot of things in Brawl are a problem. But he doesn't meet the criteria for a ban, people would just like to not have to deal with him.

I think a lot my recent posts have been misinterpreted because while I was responding to OS, I was using devils advocate. Anyway.

 

[Ghostbone]

I think MK was deserving of a ban, but it was left too late

A lot of the reason for that was because we kept stages like RC and Brinstar legal for far too long, and it was easy to blame MK's dominance on the stages he's ridiculously strong on. So by the time we had a stagelist that didn't drastically favour MK, the community had already shifted to accept his permanent legality.
So yea maybe if we started out with like 9 max legal stages, MK himself would have been seen as a problem rather than just MK on a few stages.

I do honestly feel like MK is the main problem with Brawl, and the game would be better off without him (though the game would also be better off without Ice Climbers but they're never going to have the dominance MK had, and even if he was banned they wouldn't)
So next smash, instead of worrying about which stages to ban for 3 years which we all know are going to be banned anyway, we can actually identify when a character's a problem.

 

[[Corn]]

Rules are used to set fair play, reduce elements that deviate from competition and emphasize luck or other random elements, and as last resorts to salvage a game from being unplayable competitively due to bugs, glitches, oversights, or severe balance problems like in cases of Akuma. Nothing more or less.

And I do think he is a problem. I think a lot of things in Brawl are a problem. But he doesn't meet the criteria for a ban, people would just like to not have to deal with him.

I think a lot my recent posts have been misinterpreted because while I was responding to OS, I was using devils advocate. Anyway.

Balance is part of fair play. I dont understand that banning a character is only used as last resort either. The severe balance problem you address are entirely subjective as well.

Rulesets should assume roughly equal skill level. Having the option to pick a character who has no specific weakness to anything, yet has numerous advantages against nearly all other characters, fairly easy to play at all levels, and is basically immune to the counterpick system established just screams that we threw fair play out the window to me with MK pro rulesets. The mindset that we should only ban things that make the game unplayable is simply ludicrous. It always reminds of if Brawl was sports and MK was Steroids, but then they decided to keep the steriods in use because the game was still playable. Would you still have a chance at winning? Sure but you would have to accept that regardless of how hard you trained or whatever you would probably still be at a disadvantage and be working much harder then them.

We left MK alone and we got Super Smash Bros Meta Knight. We have the disgusting statistics on his usage and his win percentage, and many specific rules dealing with him. When nearly half of the playerbase is either maining a character or pocketing one, you have a severe problem in itself. When we let the entire choice of characters comes down to the threat of a single option your opponent can take to even/make advantegous the odds you have a destroyed metagame and counterpick system. This is all from pure logic and applies to many other games.

Tell me that the removal of MK would have negative effect on the metagame or overall game itself.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

I thought we all agreed to be amicable here. But, if when sitting down to compromise someone truly decided to be a jerk and present it that way, I'd question their reason and lose respect for them as a TO. You are blatantly presenting the idea and this argument poorly. Fallacies are bad. :/

If you were a sane TO that was in touch with your community then you probably wouldn't do that anyway. In that scenario you would deserve ridicule. Additionally, one of the subtle points of the post is that I am not seeing where a compromise between a few forum members, or the community at large, would benefit everyone.

I never agreed to be amicable, ever, anywhere. I am not sure what fallacies you mean, but I think it's fair game to be colorful with an illustration. You could say I oversimplified, but I think I kept the necessary parts.

You seem uninitiated into the culture of an actual competitive community regardless of how your PSASBR tenure went, so I will fill you in. Many us care more about the game and community more than our own egos (I am not counting our glory from winning). With that in mind, we value good and useful information, and we especially listen to the experienced have to stay. This is how we improve our understanding of the game. So, we don't dismiss people or their thoughts just because they don't have mannerisms like Mr. Rogers. People like t0mmy really believe they can stay ahead of their peers while ignoring people that aren't nice enough to satisfy their egos, but what they are really doing is distancing themselves from good talent and good insight from smart, not necessarily polite, people. I am not saying we should start slinging names at each other, but when someone inexperienced starts talking about and making suggestions for things they have little experience in and don't understand then putting them through the crucible is usually a good thing for them.

P.S. This thread makes me sad

 

[Ulevo]

Tell me that the removal of MK would have negative effect on the metagame or overall game itself.

You don't instate bans because it will make the game "better." You do it because its necessary for the games competitive survival. I don't really have anything more to say on the matter.

 

[[Corn]]

You don't instate bans because it will make the game "better." You do it because its necessary for the games competitive survival. I don't really have anything more to say on the matter.

Im talking about the competitive sense of play, of which the Meta game is a large part in Brawl.

 

[MopedOfJustice]

What on earth do you consider grounds of ban/brokenness then?

Also why not ban extremely obvious OP things if they are detrimental to the metagame?

When you say "things," what are you mostly referring to?

 

[LiteralGrill]

You don't instate bans because it will make the game "better." You do it because its necessary for the games competitive survival. I don't really have anything more to say on the matter.

Im talking about the competitive sense of play, of which the Meta game is a large part in Brawl.

The game has survived competitively, but it's become stale and lost so much as well. Some of it whether we like it or not is about what we like or not.

 

[Overswarm]

I don't know if I'd say many people agreed in the liberal days. If if was a solid majority, they really should've spoken up because I only remember arguing.

I don't see going with majority as a bad thing considering that we alter so much with Smash to play it competitively to begin with. People want to play the game how they see fit. Having more stages does add depth, but if a group prefers fights on stages with zero interference, I don't see why they shouldn't play that way. I don't think maximizing competitive depth is every TO and player's goal in other words.

It isn't, but it should be. Longterm growth depends on it.

Let's take Wobbling as an example in Melee. It didn't exist as a known tactic, then it did. People said "this is so stupid, it's too easy to do and takes no skill". That had no bearing on anything, but it's what people thought.

"If a group prefer fighting with zero wobbling, I don't see why they shouldn't play that way" fits the same line of thinking, but doesn't make any sense.

Wobbling hasn't been overcentralizing or created random placements. The only guy who has ever done anything notable with it at all has the technique named after him, so I think it's pretty important to note that people were blowing smoke when they said the world was going to end.

But to this day you will find people that want to ban wobbling because "it's dumb".

There's no room for that in a competitive community. The game lacks depth when you don't have a rigid framework that allows for expression of the players. Would Melee be fun if it literally WAS Fox only, Final Destination? Yeah, it'd be fun. But it wouldn't be nearly as big because the depth would be siphoned out. Banning tactics like Wobbling or stages that people just "don't like" removes entire sections of the game that could grow and enhance the metagame, and that's important.

 

[Overswarm]

A lot of the reason for that was because we kept stages like RC and Brinstar legal for far too long, and it was easy to blame MK's dominance on the stages he's ridiculously strong on.

As of MLG, MK's win rate on Brinstar and Rainbow Cruise were not higher than average, although certain characters had higher than average loss rates across the board. Rainbow Cruise and Brinstar aren't good stages for MK, he just isn't bamboozled by them like some characters are.

 

[LiteralGrill]

There is seriously a lot of good stuff in this thread now.

I think we need to get this to be the topic: what do we actually do moving forward?

 

[IhaveSonar]

Even though I'm more of a conservative stagelist person, I'd be willing to play competitive matches on stages like Kongo Jungle 64.

As long as the stage isn't excessively large, doesn't have walkoffs or walls, and doesn't have unpredictable, unescapable hazards, it's reasonable.

 

[Overswarm]

There is seriously a lot of good stuff in this thread now.

I think we need to get this to be the topic: what do we actually do moving forward?

Convince TOs to collect Data. I'll be creating printable data sheets in the future. Once we have data collected, ridicule anyone that wants to make a decision without data to back it up.

"Man, Castle Siege is so ****ing stupid, I fell through the stage. It should be banned!"

Honest statement, actual problem (falling through the stage), no idea how severe this issue is. Is it a once in a while thing, is there a solution to solving it (like jumping), and more importantly how often does it happen? Just mark it down and collect data. When it comes to show that it occurs in less than 1% of the matches we can tell 'em to stop complaining.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Convince TOs to collect Data. I'll be creating printable data sheets in the future. Once we have data collected, ridicule anyone that wants to make a decision without data to back it up.

"Man, Castle Siege is so ****ing stupid, I fell through the stage. It should be banned!"

Honest statement, actual problem (falling through the stage), no idea how severe this issue is. Is it a once in a while thing, is there a solution to solving it (like jumping), and more importantly how often does it happen? Just mark it down and collect data. When it comes to show that it occurs in less than 1% of the matches we can tell 'em to stop complaining.

Why do pen and paper, why not have the bracket program take it and upload it to a viewable database?

I'm working on making this happen, and we're actually making some progress on it. It should definitely be ready by sm4sh.

 

[Xyro77]

When I started my melee scene here in Houston back in 2004, I went with the MLG ruleset. To this day it is the best melee ruleset I have ever used. The crap we have now is absolutely terrible.

As for brawl at first, I used a ruleset to what I felt would be similar to the mlg ruleset (lol little did I know in 2010 mlg's actual ruleset was HORRIBLE) aka a bit more liberal (open). Then the rise of mk happened around HOBO 11 and WHOBO 1 so I decided to ban mk (every once in a while) because I already knew he would present a problem for the rest of brawls life....and I was right. As I collected more data and saw the game "grow" (in terms of gayness) I of course could not allow pictochat/porttown/luigis mansion anymore. I refused to follow Japanese ruleset/apex ruleset or whatever bogus BS I have witnessed over the years because the more you reduce a stage list/increase timer....ect the more you cater to top tiers.

So when it comes to smash 4, I will be doing the same thing. I will look at the rules/stages of brawl (since ssb4 is like brawl) and create a ruleset I feel is correct for the beginning of smash. I am not a sheep and I will not just follow a ruleset that other TOs create. I say this because they do not believe is what I do: Smash is about ALL characters. So i need to make a ruleset/stage list that can at least ATTEMPT to cater to as many characters as possible but be "reasonable" about it at the same time.




and I don't remember where I saw it in this thread but someone said mk has bad MUs? That is 110% incorrect. AT WORST (ICs+FD or something) its 50-50. NEVER is mk at a disadvantage. Meaning he cannot be countered and that is why I feel he needs to go.

 

[Xyro77]

When I started my melee scene here in Houston back in 2004, I went with the MLG ruleset. To this day it is the best melee ruleset I have ever used. The crap we have now is absolutely terrible.

As for brawl at first, I used a ruleset to what I felt would be similar to the mlg ruleset (lol little did I know in 2010 mlg's actual ruleset was HORRIBLE) aka a bit more liberal (open). Then the rise of mk happened around HOBO 11 and WHOBO 1 so I decided to ban mk (every once in a while) because I already knew he would present a problem for the rest of brawls life....and I was right. As I collected more data and saw the game "grow" (in terms of gayness) I of course could not allow pictochat/porttown/luigis mansion anymore. I refused to follow Japanese ruleset/apex ruleset or whatever bogus BS I have witnessed over the years because the more you reduce a stage list/increase timer....ect the more you cater to top tiers.

So when it comes to smash 4, I will be doing the same thing. I will look at the rules/stages of brawl (since ssb4 is like brawl) and create a ruleset I feel is correct for the beginning of smash. I am not a sheep and I will not just follow a ruleset that other TOs create. I say this because they do not believe is what I do: Smash is about ALL characters. So i need to make a ruleset/stage list that can at least ATTEMPT to cater to as many characters as possible but be "reasonable" about it at the same time.




and I don't remember where I saw it in this thread but someone said mk has bad MUs? That is 110% incorrect. AT WORST (ICs+FD or something) its 50-50. NEVER is mk at a disadvantage. Meaning he cannot be countered and that is why I feel he needs to go.

 

[LiteralGrill]

and I don't remember where I saw it in this thread but someone said mk has bad MUs? That is 110% incorrect. AT WORST (ICs+FD or something) its 50-50. NEVER is mk at a disadvantage. Meaning he cannot be countered and that is why I feel he needs to go.

You have a decent philosophy, though I must comment on MK: the BBR says he is even with Pikachu if I remember right. A lot of people believe what they say is true. Check out thier MU thread, some of it is "interesting".

 

[Xyro77]

You have a decent philosophy, though I must comment on MK: the BBR says he is even with Pikachu if I remember right. A lot of people believe what they say is true. Check out thier MU thread, some of it is "interesting".

Ive seen the MU thread and I even helped make that one (the Samus MU part) and several others. The first things you should know is that the BBR is not god when it comes to MU charts (lol they think pika is EVEN vs mk)/ tier lists (they literally think mr gw is MID TIER) and rulesets (they allow distant planet in their stagelist lmao). they screw up a lot on all 3 of those and that is why you should take what they produce with a grain of salt.

 

[Xyro77]

edit: double post. I apologize

 

[LiteralGrill]

Ive seen the MU thread and I even helped make that one (the Samus MU part) and several others. The first things you should know is that the BBR is not god when it comes to MU charts (lol they think pika is EVEN vs mk)/ tier lists (they literally think mr gw is MID TIER) and rulesets (they allow distant planet in their stagelist lmao). they screw up a lot on all 3 of those and that is why you should take what they produce with a grain of salt.

I do take what they say into consideration as it is reasonable at times, but I also do know when to question them.

However, many people do take what they say as law, especially in tier and MU lists. It's too bad really.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

As of MLG, MK's win rate on Brinstar and Rainbow Cruise were not higher than average, although certain characters had higher than average loss rates across the board. Rainbow Cruise and Brinstar aren't good stages for MK, he just isn't bamboozled by them like some characters are.

MLG data for things like this is mostly irrelevant. When people were taken to Norfair/Brinstar/Rainbow Cruise they often switched off of their mains for secondaries better suited toward the stages (like mk). These secondaries often lost because, well, they're secondaries lol, not the player's best character. This needs to be taken into account when looking at the data.

If meta knight was the only character ever used on rainbow cruise he'd have a 50/50 win rate on the stage - does that make it balanced?

and I don't remember where I saw it in this thread but someone said mk has bad MUs? That is 110% incorrect. AT WORST (ICs+FD or something) its 50-50. NEVER is mk at a disadvantage. Meaning he cannot be countered and that is why I feel he needs to go.

That's kinda close-minded, ICs+FD could be argued as slightly ICs favour vs. mk

 

[[Corn]]

That's kinda close-minded, ICs+FD could be argued as slightly ICs favour vs. mk

Its at the most 55:45 in IC favor, but the best stage for a character like that, it isnt exactly a bad matchup when nearly every other stage choice available is in MK favor.

And of course striking FD is fairly common.

 

[Xyro77]

That's kinda close-minded, ICs+FD could be argued as slightly ICs favour vs. mk

You can "argue" just about anything lmao. The results over the past 5 years have shown that NO character nor stage causes MK to be at a disadvantage.

 

[Xyro77]

wtf why is it always double posting. I apologize

 

[LiteralGrill]

wtf why is it always double posting. I apologize

Crashboards has issues at times :/

 

[Kewkky]

Also, to Kewwky, if we start with few stages, we're never going to unban any. Surely you know that; that's just not how things work, and trying to do that early is just going to result in the same split with perhaps a faster play-out (Midwest will not go along at all). The only way we are going to know if stages are fair is to play on them; that much is obvious. How long we should tolerate this or that stage is a thing reasonable people could debate, and if you want to bridge the gap, I think compromise and establishing an early ruleset we take a strong stand is going to be static for the game's entire lifespan (and we are serious about it, not supporting events that deviate either direction more liberal or conservative) is the best way to do this. I remember Melee's MLG ruleset and the way that for years it let the game grow without ruleset issues, and honestly if Brawl had never come out (and taken most of the "liberals" away to a new game), I suspect that ruleset would still be used today. I'd like something like that for smash 4, a reasonable middle of the road ruleset that we just stick with and never relitigate. We've learned things with stage striking and Brawl's particular balance issues (flats and plats have a lot more obvious character biases in Brawl than in Melee and skew the game when they are forced game 1) that we're going to carry forward as lessons, but the general tone of how much is legal I feel was about right with that MLG ruleset that I'd point out worked very well for many years. Obviously I "really want" almost everything legal, but I'm realistic enough to know that won't happen but maintain that to be clear what the compromise is (halfway in-between my offer and banning everything is not a fair compromise since my real position has so much more legal than I'd accept as a fair middle ground).

We will unban if there's any to unban. Remember Pokemon Stadium 2? I remember it going legal after being banned for forever. And I remember movements for other stages, and people testing them out as well. It'll happen if stages are tourney-worthy but banned right off the bat, which I have to admit, is the method I prefer.

 

[LiteralGrill]

We will unban if there's any to unban. Remember Pokemon Stadium 2? I remember it going legal after being banned for forever. And I remember movements for other stages, and people testing them out as well. It'll happen if stages are tourney-worthy but banned right off the bat, which I have to admit, is the method I prefer.

How many are still legal now? And how many were only re-legalized in certain regions? If it could be done with no bias, I'd be all for it. But I don't think it will be.

The ideas of creating a "safe" group 1,2, and 3? Then there may be a better shot.

 

[[Corn]]

We will unban if there's any to unban. Remember Pokemon Stadium 2? I remember it going legal after being banned for forever. And I remember movements for other stages, and people testing them out as well. It'll happen if stages are tourney-worthy but banned right off the bat, which I have to admit, is the method I prefer.

I do agree with Banning questionable stages immediately as long as we are also testing them at the same time.
This is more because techs, character strats, and general stratagies and such are usually discovered on neutral stages much quicker then the others. This is especially true in all of the games early lifespan.

 

[ぱみゅ]

It still cracks me down that the BBR Ruleset v3 was all optional, it pretty much said "these stages could be considered to be fair for some, and not for others, but you're the damn TO you can take your own decisions" and people still complained about it.


And no Kewkky, PS2 was NOT un-banned on like 90% of the regions.

 

[LiteralGrill]

It still cracks me down that the BBR Ruleset v3 was all optional, it pretty much said "these stages could be considered to be fair for some, and not for others, but you're the damn TO you can take your own decisions" and people still complained about it.


And no Kewkky, PS2 was NOT un-banned on like 90% of the regions.

3.1 you mean. After the insanity that was 3.0. Anyone who ever says people don't mistreat those who like larger lists at times, that thread is the one I point to.

 

[Ghostbone]

You can "argue" just about anything lmao. The results over the past 5 years have shown that NO character nor stage causes MK to be at a disadvantage.

First of all, results aren't necessarily the be all end all, are you trying to say they are?
Because purely looking at recent results, technically Diddy and Snake could be argued to beat MK (from this thread http://smashboards.com/threads/result-based-matchup-chart-1-1-13-30-6-13.338282/)

And it's not like FD ever gets played on in the ICs vs MK matchup, so I'm not sure what results you're looking at to say that Ice Climbers definitely don't win?

 

[[Corn]]

First of all, results aren't necessarily the be all end all, are you trying to say they are?
Because purely looking at recent results, technically Diddy and Snake could be argued to beat MK (from this thread http://smashboards.com/threads/result-based-matchup-chart-1-1-13-30-6-13.338282/)

And it's not like FD ever gets played on in the ICs vs MK matchup, so I'm not sure what results you're looking at to say that Ice Climbers definitely don't win?

Thats an extremely small percentage of matches that hasnt been updated since its original post. Even so the results arent overwhelming.

Regarding the IC vs MK on FD thing, MK has all the tools to beat IC if he plays correctly on any stage. Its just that the nature of IC is that every mistake on the opponents part can achieve a stock. That makes it really hard to determine matchups where one side has nearly nonpunishable moves even when making mistakes. FD just doesnt allow IC's tools to be inhibited.