SBR Recommended Rule List Discussion: Brawl

[Sinz]

I spent the past several days digging through this topic,

Overswarm, you've done a fantastic job explaining the logic behind some of these decisions, not to mention having an incredible amount of patience at the same time. You changed my mind about Pipes (Just so you know people's minds can be changed over the internets). I'm not convinced about some of the other stages though.

Also to address the SP issue, I agree the control flipping isn't a valid reason to ban it, but there is a HUGE circle camping problem with this level. That is why the level is (or should be) banned.

He is talking about Item Standard Play, which is still pretty fun.

 

[Sliq]

Not true at all.....

I attend plenty of tourneys and play MM friendlies with ISP.........

Ya "Nobody" gives a **** about ISP??? I would change that to "most".


I am a very competivite player sliq....but I love to try diffrent versions of brawl competition and ISP provides just that. A fair and competitive way for Item play.

.0000001 might as well just be written as 0, seeing as how that number is so insignificant that it doesn't warrant being written out. That is Item Standard Play.

Nobody that doesn't like items would go, and those that are pro items are more CASUAL, and with casualty does not come the strive to frequently attend tournaments in order to better your gameplay. A few MIGHT be that into it, but there won't be enough to really have a solid community. Nothing near the scale of what we have now, nor even what Melee had when it was on its way out.

 

[Supernova757]

I agree with all the rules, you guys came up with! It also looks like you guys had a quite a few arguments, while making each rule! Good job!

 

[RazeveX]

Quote from OP:

"Green Hill Zone

The odd layout, break-away floor, and checkpoints led to this being a counterpick."

Of course, the walk off ledges are fine as well.

 

[Strong Badam]

Sorry to bump a topic, but what does step 2 of "Set format" refer to when it says "stage striking procedure"?

 

[infomon]

Sorry to bump a topic, but what does step 2 of "Set format" refer to when it says "stage striking procedure"?

The third paragraph of the "Stage Lists" section:

The SBR Recommended rule list uses the stage striking system. In this system, players take turns striking stages from the starter list until only one remains; these stages are not banned and can be counterpicked later in the set. There must be an odd number of starter stages.

Not your fault for not noticing this, it's kinda buried >.> I was confused the first time I read the rules, too.

 

[Mr.Kitchen]

Good rule settings

 

[Flamingo777]

I lol'd at the color-blind thing, but I don't know why.

Well I could see if a person was color blind having a hard time deciphering their teammate from an opponent if they had the same character... but still.. there are still nametags above their heads..

 

[Frosty brawl]

thankz )))

 

[Odigo]

suicide KOs

Are the suicide KOs just for bowser or anyone that has a suicide move like gannondorf?

 

[[FBC] ESAM]

Are the suicide KOs just for bowser or anyone that has a suicide move like gannondorf?

Just bowser. Bowser's can be controlled by BOTH PLAYERS depending on their %s. It isn't the bowsers fault if the person wants to suicide if he has lower % when he just wanted damage. Ganons, DDDs, and Kirby's aren't controlled by %, so its just whoever had the lower %

 

[Supernova757]

just what i expected, lol

 

[Commander_Beef]

Why the hell was Green Greens even considered for ban? There isn't anything remotely broken on that stage.

Ok guy you don't know what your talking about, I am a so called "Kirby fan" also but Green Greens has the easily exploding bombs and the distance between the edges and the offstage is too short for Starter play. -_-

 

[Sihlus]

What line of thought lead you to make the decision to turn team attack on? I have never come across anyone who plays with team attack on. This type of rule encourages the players to pair off and fight one on one. This rule forces players to use free for all and or one on one tactics, instead of developing unique tactics specific to team battles. In effect it makes it too similar to one on one in my opinion.

 

[Overswarm]

What line of thought lead you to make the decision to turn team attack on? I have never come across anyone who plays with team attack on. This type of rule encourages the players to pair off and fight one on one. This rule forces players to use free for all and or one on one tactics, instead of developing unique tactics specific to team battles. In effect it makes it too similar to one on one in my opinion.

They built a time machine in 2001 and sent YOU? O_o

 

[infomon]

OS, there's no need to be a jerk to new members >.> as hilarious as that comment was.....

What line of thought lead you to make the decision to turn team attack on? I have never come across anyone who plays with team attack on. This type of rule encourages the players to pair off and fight one on one. This rule forces players to use free for all and or one on one tactics, instead of developing unique tactics specific to team battles. In effect it makes it too similar to one on one in my opinion.

Hmmmmm, actually it adds a lot of depth to the team battles, from what I've seen. With team attack off, it's optimal to just throw hitboxes around wildly, massive projectile spamming etc., since it's way too chaotic for much defense to be effective. With team attack on, you actually have to work with your partner, rather than ignoring them entirely. It introduces a lot of crazy things, like helping your partner's recovery, team-healing with Ness and Lucas, filling G&W's bucket, etc. Matches sometimes look like 1v1s, but they're really not, if you're playing them well.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Sihlus]

They built a time machine in 2001 and sent YOU? O_o

Cute joke, next time just answer the question. I have no time for people uninterested in serious discussion.

 

[Overswarm]

Cute joke, next time just answer the question. I have no time for people uninterested in serious discussion.

I thought it was cute too, thanks.

Most of the serious discussion goes on elsewhere, but reasoning for team attack off:

1. Broken/ridiculously annoying strategies

These are incredibly common. Two Falco's spamming blasters? A DK spamming down+b with an MK spamming tornado or a ROB shooting lasers and gyros? D3 throwing out random forward smashes while his Snake teammate goes ballistic with tilts?

None of these really showcase skill, but rather a pre-determined strategy that has very littler variance to it.

2. Ease of play

Team Attack off = easy. You pick it up, you play, and it isn't difficult to imagine scenarios where a more skilled player can be hurt simply because he is forced into a situation he can't do aynthing about because there is no longer any punishment. With team attack on, you can't whiff an f-smash at will, knowing your teammate will be there to cover you up. It takes better thought, spacing, and planning... on everyone's part. Generally, the more complex something is, the larger the skill gap becomes.

3. Spam factor

You should never win by randomly pressing buttons. With team attack off, this is possible because punishment is reduced.

4. History

It has always been on, and no one that plays in tournaments would play with it off... so no TO will leave it off.

5. Insanely altered gameplay

Above all else, it is a different game with team attack off... just like it is different with items. Tiers are shifted, stages have to be reevaluated, etc., etc.

 

[Sihlus]

OS, there's no need to be a jerk to new members >.> as hilarious as that comment was.....



Hmmmmm, actually it adds a lot of depth to the team battles, from what I've seen. With team attack off, it's optimal to just throw hitboxes around wildly, massive projectile spamming etc., since it's way too chaotic for much defense to be effective. With team attack on, you actually have to work with your partner, rather than ignoring them entirely. It introduces a lot of crazy things, like helping your partner's recovery, team-healing with Ness and Lucas, filling G&W's bucket, etc. Matches sometimes look like 1v1s, but they're really not, if you're playing them well.

Just my thoughts.

Well you have a point. I understand how some may think that by having team attack off it limits defense, and this may be true but by turning team attack on you severely limit close proximity team combos. Let me just put it this way, its not that I dislike having team attack on its just that I don't really see how its better than having it off. You may impose more order upon the game and limit spamming of projectiles but you also hurt projectile wielding characters because you stop them from spamming but not characters with good Up Tilts. Additionally you can’t deny that allies typically avoid each other. It just seems that it was a choice maid by people whose style favors one on one combat. I’ve always thought of team battles as completely different from 1 on 1s. Like I said before it just seems that the powers that be, who are in all likelihood great players and all great at tournament one on one battles chose these team rules be cause it makes team battles more similar to one on one battles. I’ve met several players that are great at one on one but can’t cut it in team battles with team attack off, because “it’s too different”. I just think that team attack on matches are boring because they emulate one on ones.

P.S. Thanks for the input.

 

[Inui]

What line of thought lead you to make the decision to turn team attack on? I have never come across anyone who plays with team attack on. This type of rule encourages the players to pair off and fight one on one. This rule forces players to use free for all and or one on one tactics, instead of developing unique tactics specific to team battles. In effect it makes it too similar to one on one in my opinion.

LMAO

Good joke btw, Overswarm.

 

[Sihlus]

I thought it was cute too, thanks.

Most of the serious discussion goes on elsewhere, but reasoning for team attack off:

1. Broken/ridiculously annoying strategies

These are incredibly common. Two Falco's spamming blasters? A DK spamming down+b with an MK spamming tornado or a ROB shooting lasers and gyros? D3 throwing out random forward smashes while his Snake teammate goes ballistic with tilts?

None of these really showcase skill, but rather a pre-determined strategy that has very littler variance to it.

2. Ease of play

Team Attack off = easy. You pick it up, you play, and it isn't difficult to imagine scenarios where a more skilled player can be hurt simply because he is forced into a situation he can't do aynthing about because there is no longer any punishment. With team attack on, you can't whiff an f-smash at will, knowing your teammate will be there to cover you up. It takes better thought, spacing, and planning... on everyone's part. Generally, the more complex something is, the larger the skill gap becomes.

3. Spam factor

You should never win by randomly pressing buttons. With team attack off, this is possible because punishment is reduced.

4. History

It has always been on, and no one that plays in tournaments would play with it off... so no TO will leave it off.

5. Insanely altered gameplay

Above all else, it is a different game with team attack off... just like it is different with items. Tiers are shifted, stages have to be reevaluated, etc., etc.

I’ve read your answer and still am not convinced.

1. Broken/ annoying strategies
You could make the same argument for team attack on. Saving your partner by hitting them, Filling G&W’s bucket. Some say these are clever but it seems to me that they are the excuse to turn team attack on. It seems that the rules were maid only after realizing that these “cool tricks” could be pulled off, and not to stop annoying strategies as you claim.

2. Ease of play
You just finished telling me in part one that the strategies frustrate you. If your getting frustrated by easy things you need a chill pill. A good player doesn’t make excuses. I’ve been beat by annoying simple strategies before and do you know what I do… I figure out a counter strategy I don’t make up some rule to change the game in my favor. Sure I may continue to lose for several matches but the satisfaction I get after beating an opponent who thought he could spam his way out of anything, is unrivaled.

3. Spamming
Let the spammers spam I say. It’s a hollow victory, you know it I know it, and at the end of the day the Meta game will change and a new strategy will come along that they can’t spam their way out of. Spamming may give a player a temporary edge but in the end I believe that players with solid variety and flexibility in their arsenal will win.

4. History
If no one ever challenged the established order or asked questions there would have been no Protestant reformation, no America Revolution, no Civil Rights movement. I know this is a dramatic example but it gets the point across.

5. Insanely altered game play
That’s the whole point to have variety, I think these rules make team battles too similar to one on one battles. They tried to conform team battles to fit the pre-established rules they had already created for one on one rather than taking the effort to try something new.

“Above all else, it is a different game with team attack off... just like it is different with items. Tiers are shifted, stages have to be reevaluated”- My point exactly, I could not have said it better myself. In my opinion the most important part of this statement is the part about tiers and stages. I just guess I’ve always considered team battles as a completely different event from one on one and these rules are trying their best to make them similar.

If I haven’t changed your mind (which I have no delusions that I have) I hope you can at least understand and respect my point of view even if you don’t agree.

Btw- thanks for a serious answer, your all right.

 

[Inui]

Dude... Competitive teams play would be awful without team attack on. It's been done before. It's horrible.

 

[Sihlus]

Dude... Competitive teams play would be awful without team attack on. It's been done before. It's horrible.

Awful, I just can’t even begin to imagine what is so awful about it. I have never had such a negative experience. I personally have played both versions of team battles. You seem more concerned with keeping the statuesque in terms of tiers and who wins than actual play. I just don’t see the difference between team attack on and one on ones in terms of strategic approach. I recognize that many in fact most prefer team attack on, but team attack on and off are two very different things and if you can’t see that I value them equally but differently then your blind. I never once suggested that we should replace one with the other. Though now that I think about it would be interesting to have a tournament in which both events are offered.

 

[Inui]

You don't play in real tournaments, bro. You're apparently super new to Smash going by your join date. I'm a veteran tournament player and a top player in Brawl. I've played without team attack and it's terrible. It's nothing but lame spamming and it decreases the amount of teamwork needed.

Teams is my forte. Atomsk and I are actually quite possibly the best static team in the country at this point, lol.

 

[Ignatius]

I’ve read your answer and still am not convinced.

1. Broken/ annoying strategies
You could make the same argument for team attack on. Saving your partner by hitting them, Filling G&W’s bucket. Some say these are clever but it seems to me that they are the excuse to turn team attack on. It seems that the rules were maid only after realizing that these “cool tricks” could be pulled off, and not to stop annoying strategies as you claim.

Actually, the rules were made as it allowed for a more interesting and rewarding experience in teams. High level play isn't just two split 1v1's. There's an importance to aiming your attacks well and attacking around your teammate without hitting him; as well as times that it can be beneficial to hit both your teammate and the enemy, as it'd kill the enemy and your teammate would survive. It adds another interesting layer into the game.

3. Spamming
Let the spammers spam I say. It’s a hollow victory, you know it I know it, and at the end of the day the Meta game will change and a new strategy will come along that they can’t spam their way out of. Spamming may give a player a temporary edge but in the end I believe that players with solid variety and flexibility in their arsenal will win.

OS is exaggerating, you still won't win by randomly pressing buttons. The only thing his spamming reminded me of was spamming of moves; double falco/samus in melee was pretty annoying, but not unbeatable. The game play is just much less interesting to both play and watch though.

4. History
If no one ever challenged the established order or asked questions there would have been no Protestant reformation, no America Revolution, no Civil Rights movement. I know this is a dramatic example but it gets the point across.

OS is a bit off on this as well, back at the start of melee EC used to play with Team Attack Off, and that was probably one of the least enjoyable experiences I had in teams ever. There wasn't really much coordination between any of the teams in team attack off, they just through out whatever moves they could whenever.

5. Insanely altered game play
That’s the whole point to have variety, I think these rules make team battles too similar to one on one battles. They tried to conform team battles to fit the pre-established rules they had already created for one on one rather than taking the effort to try something new.

“Above all else, it is a different game with team attack off... just like it is different with items. Tiers are shifted, stages have to be reevaluated”- My point exactly, I could not have said it better myself. In my opinion the most important part of this statement is the part about tiers and stages. I just guess I’ve always considered team battles as a completely different event from one on one and these rules are trying their best to make them similar.

If I haven’t changed your mind (which I have no delusions that I have) I hope you can at least understand and respect my point of view even if you don’t agree.

Btw- thanks for a serious answer, your all right.

I think Team Attack Off makes the game too similar to one on one battles, you really don't have to coordinate with your teammate as much, you can just throw out anything anytime with less of a penalty. In high level play in team attack on, you actually have to constantly be conscience of where your teammate is, and the different ways in which you can help him.

You're right, team attack off and on have different characters performing well, but there's not really anything to say that one is more right than the other. What we do have to go bye, is what people enjoy playing; and that's team attack on, as there are a lot more options open to you to actually do things that require teamwork.

 

[Sihlus]

You don't play in real tournaments, bro. You're apparently super new to Smash going by your join date. I'm a veteran tournament player and a top player in Brawl. I've played without team attack and it's terrible. It's nothing but lame spamming and it decreases the amount of teamwork needed.

Teams is my forte. Atomsk and I are actually quite possibly the best static team in the country at this point, lol.

I've been playing the game since the beginning quite literally and playing in tournaments (nothing big mind you) nearly just as long. I've played SSB, SSBM, and SSBB. When I said in my first post that I don't know anyone who plays with team attack on I meant in none tournament play, you know casually. In retrospect I should have chosen my words more carefully. I find it odd that you would jump to conclusions that I'm new to the game because I'm new to the community. Your inability to recognize a fellow players opinion is what distresses me most of all. This is a forum for the exchange of ideas not a sight dedicated to enforcing the rules, which they arbitrarily made up by the way. You obviously don't like spamming that seems to be everyone’s biggest complaint. To be honest I don't condone it myself but I could care less if someone tried it on me. I've never been so angered by a strategy (cheap or legit, after all, alls fair in love and war) that it kept me from playing a particular mode of smash brothers. I do understand the pros of team attack on, I just happen to also see the pros of team attack off.

As I revised this, I realized it sounded defensive and curt. I assure you that this is not my intention. I don’t wish to argue, merely debate.

P.S. Thanks for the input

 

[Inui]

Read Ignatius's post.

 

[Deleted member]

With TA off, you need much LESS coordination, just play how you normally play, it doesnt matter where ur ally is. with it on, you need to know your partner well, watch out for him and the other players, and doing team "combos" requires a lot of teamwork and coordination to do successfully.

Team attack off is much less strategic, and pretty much doesnt punish you for anything.

 

[Sihlus]

I think the problem is that I must have had a much different experience with the matter then most. I have played the game since 1999 and never once run across the types of things I’m hearing from you guys with regards to team attack off. Let me just put it this way the 30 or so people I play to varying degrees of regularity have found ways to make it work on the same level that I hear you guys refer to team attack on. We are going to have to realize that people have different perspectives and with good reason. As for your statement regarding “what people enjoy playing” I find that I like both (mind you I’ve had a different experience with the entire matter). It’s unfortunate that all of you who have chimed in have had such bad experiences with the issue. It’s obvious that some ideas can’t be expressed in words because it seems we are describing two different things in a similar way. There is unfortunately little more either side can argue, because to truly understand one another we would need concrete examples and (as lame as it sounds) side by side comparisons and trials… experiments if you will. It’s been fun guys I really do enjoy a good discussion. Thanks to all who cared enough to chime in. And for all of you out there who absolutely have to win an argument you win. Just take away with you this, just because someone believes something that is unpopular makes him no more or less wrong than those who believe in the popular. (Within reasonable limits)

 

[Inui]

You probably don't really have high level experience at all.

Btw, playing with team attack off has been done in tournaments before. This resulted in boredom, stupid looking matches, and less teamwork.

 

[Sihlus]

You probably don't really have high level experience at all.

Btw, playing with team attack off has been done in tournaments before. This resulted in boredom, stupid looking matches, and less teamwork.

Believe whatever you like. Why would I need to lie to a perfect stranger? I obviously am not interested in “winning” the debate (if you even bothered to read my last post). I’m just a guy who likes to share ideas with others. But rather than find people who share a general enthusiasm for the game I find people with such strong convictions to their opinions that they resort to mocking me for my own (This of course does not apply to all who responded). This has gotten off topic so please don’t bother responding. I'm done with this topic. It's been fun Sadaharu Inui, no hard feelings.

 

[infomon]

Sihlus: don't be discouraged by them, and thanks for coming in here making reasonable arguments about a reasonable question. It's a nontrivial decision to make, TA on or off, and it inevitably comes down to tournament organizers to do what they feel is best.

Please try and understand that you're talking with pros, who rank really high across the US. They've had countless people come in here making all sorts of complaints about the generally-accepted rules, and the arguments are usually very naive. It's wrong for anyone to be condescending, especially for stupid reasons like smashboards post-count, and I worry about how much the competitive smash community is segregated from the more casual pockets of smashers. But I'm sure you can have some sympathy for the fact that ppl here are mostly exhausted from having these types of arguments with newcomers.

Aaanyway, doubles play is really fun with TA off, and I definitely used to prefer it that way. I still enjoy such battles, and if your smash circles prefer to play that way, that's totally cool. However it's possible that as you play more games with TA off, and if you do so competitively, you'll eventually find that the optimal strategies are really..... not fun. Like the spam-laser-and-tornado example. The experience of the pros is that once people discover these strategies dominate competitively, the game is much less enjoyable for everyone, and likely less competitive as well (the outcome of a match could be determined by which team gets into an unstoppable formation first, or something like that).

They might be wrong, and likely it would require months of competitive play to really flesh out the optimal strategies, to determine if the game is really broken/sucky with TA off. But the competitive scene already has huge momentum with TA on, in which the game is still very fun, has a lot of depth of strategy to it, and is unlikely to yield many ridiculous, dominant strategies.

*shrug* Play the game how you like, but that should be enough to explain why the competitive scene favours one option over another. They're both as arbitrary.

 

[Inui]

I'm not trying to mock you. I'm a top player that dominates the strongest region in the country in teams. Teams is my ****, lol. So, I may come off as arrogant...because I'm arrogant.

 

[Sihlus]

Sihlus: don't be discouraged by them, and thanks for coming in here making reasonable arguments about a reasonable question. It's a nontrivial decision to make, TA on or off, and it inevitably comes down to tournament organizers to do what they feel is best.

Please try and understand that you're talking with pros, who rank really high across the US. They've had countless people come in here making all sorts of complaints about the generally-accepted rules, and the arguments are usually very naive. It's wrong for anyone to be condescending, especially for stupid reasons like smashboards post-count, and I worry about how much the competitive smash community is segregated from the more casual pockets of smashers. But I'm sure you can have some sympathy for the fact that ppl here are mostly exhausted from having these types of arguments with newcomers.

Aaanyway, doubles play is really fun with TA off, and I definitely used to prefer it that way. I still enjoy such battles, and if your smash circles prefer to play that way, that's totally cool. However it's possible that as you play more games with TA off, and if you do so competitively, you'll eventually find that the optimal strategies are really..... not fun. Like the spam-laser-and-tornado example. The experience of the pros is that once people discover these strategies dominate competitively, the game is much less enjoyable for everyone, and likely less competitive as well (the outcome of a match could be determined by which team gets into an unstoppable formation first, or something like that).

They might be wrong, and likely it would require months of competitive play to really flesh out the optimal strategies, to determine if the game is really broken/sucky with TA off. But the competitive scene already has huge momentum with TA on, in which the game is still very fun, has a lot of depth of strategy to it, and is unlikely to yield many ridiculous, dominant strategies.

*shrug* Play the game how you like, but that should be enough to explain why the competitive scene favours one option over another. They're both as arbitrary.

I really appreciate what you’re trying to do. But whether you meant to or not your own explanation came off a tad condescending. I am in fact a long time player of the game and I’ve been to tournaments and my oppinions are well infromed. Surely you were playing the game long before you joined the smash board? Just because it says n00b under my SN doesn’t mean a **** thing with regards to my experience and skill level, only my naiveté about the temperament of those on the boards! So thanks but I’m a big kid. You can’t sweat the small stuff, am I right…. Anyway I would hate to see what they did to the poor kid that questioned the items off rule.

I give you a sincere thanks infzy.

 

[NES n00b]

I really appreciate what you’re trying to do. But whether you meant to or not your own explanation came off a tad condescending. I am in fact a long time player of the game and I’ve been to tournaments and my oppinions are well infromed. Surely you were playing the game long before you joined the smash board? Just because it says n00b under my SN doesn’t mean a **** thing with regards to my experience and skill level, only my naiveté about the temperament of those on the boards! So thanks but I’m a big kid. You can’t sweat the small stuff, am I right…. Anyway I would hate to see what they did to the poor kid that questioned the items off rule.

I give you a sincere thanks infzy.

It doesn't matter how long you have played the games. It only matters how long you have been playing at a high level or at least a decent level of play.

Going to local tournies and your friend's house only doesn't count.

 

[ProBrawler]

LOL, are people actually arguing for team attack being off? It's not really even a debate. It has about as much weight as doing tourney matches with 4-man FFA's. Sorry for being harsh, but anyone with enough experience at top levels of play knows that doubles are more fun and interesting with TA on. The strategies, timing, and coordination between teammates is pretty cool. Without TA, it turns into a gey fest with two MK's spamming tornado, two Falcos/Foxs/Wolfs spamming lasers, etc. Plus it makes 2v1 nearly impossible and unfair.

 

[Sihlus]

I'm not trying to mock you. I'm a top player that dominates the strongest region in the country in teams. Teams is my ****, lol. So, I may come off as arrogant...because I'm arrogant.

I was once just as arrogant, over smash brothers (amongst other things), no joke, so I understand you just got a little fiery. No hard feelings.

 

[Inui]

Arrogant based on...what? You keep saying you've been playing forever and have been active in the tournament scene, but I've never heard of you, you apparently just registered here, and your opinions with regards to team attack show a pretty big lack of high-level experience.

 

[B@sic Sausage]

Arrogant based on...what? You keep saying you've been playing forever and have been active in the tournament scene, but I've never heard of you, you apparently just registered here, and your opinions with regards to team attack show a pretty big lack of high-level experience.

Brawl Rules should be

Items : smashballs veryhigh
Hitratio .5
Handicap level 1
Time limit 4 minutes
Stocks = 3
Metaknight + Olimar + Diddy Kong banned
Standing Infinite Chaingrabs legal.

 

[[FBC] ESAM]

Your sarcasm is overwhelming