SBR Recommended Rule List Discussion: Brawl

[Overswarm]

we can't give a time limit on how long they can do it, so yes, the technique itself is forbidden. You can down+b, but not extend it. If we said you could extend it for 3 seconds, we'd need a stop watch at every station and would force players to have to claim their opponent was cheating which most players wouldn't want to do.

 

[munkus beaver]

I'm sure ya'll are aware that distant planet has an instant kill hazard, yes? I'm looking for consistency in the ruling here, and listing that as reason for the banning of the Summit while allowing deep planet seems faulty.

I'm surprised that you didn't list stalling for Spear Pillar. To give a full reason why it's banned, you probably include that a faster character can infinitely flee the opposition.

Again, extremely surprised that Yoshi's Island (Pipes) made it in. The sheer factor of Fox/Falco's wave shine is what gave it the nix in Melee, and there are certainly more than one character in brawl that can chain grab the opponent to his demise off the side of the stage. The listing of it's effectiveness against lighter characters (specifically metaknight) seems to show a bias of decision makers by the panelists against them. I would think specifically to keep the option open to hurt metaknight, since he is consider by many (including some of the top players of each region) to be a very annoying and powerful character to play against, and I do not dispute that point. It just disturbs me that it entered into the reasoning process, and I would appreciate further clarification.

 

[[FBC] ESAM]

It's not even just 7 characters.

Zero Suit Samus
Kirby
Fox
Pikachu
GW
Zelda
Sheik
Meta Knight
Falco
Pokemon Trainer
Ice Climbers
D3
Olimar
Jigglypuff

Can all be used against a Dedede trying to counterpick a walkoff stage. That's over a 1/3 of the cast.

Im pretty sure charizard can be chaingrabbed...as can invysaur, and 1/3 of a character doesn't constitute it being a valid CP character. Any skilled DDD can tech-chase all of these characters, besides Ice Climbers since there are two of them. THat leads to only 2 valid CPs against DDD, Ice climbers and DDD...which is stupid considering you can just ban the stages with walk offs and not have to go through that.

 

[Turbo Ether]

Im pretty sure charizard can be chaingrabbed...as can invysaur, and 1/3 of a character doesn't constitute it being a valid CP character. Any skilled DDD can tech-chase all of these characters, besides Ice Climbers since there are two of them. THat leads to only 2 valid CPs against DDD, Ice climbers and DDD...which is stupid considering you can just ban the stages with walk offs and not have to go through that.

PT being partially immune to the chain grab grants more viability vs D3 than most of the cast on a walkoff stage.

D3 tech chasing people is far from broken, and it doesn't mean the matchups are in his favor at all. You're grasping for straws, far more than two characters can deal with D3 on a walkoff stage.

Flatout banning the walkoff stages because of D3, hurts characters that benefit from counterpicking those stages. If i'm Wolf, counterpicking Mario Circuit against Meta Knight is a good idea, but that wouldn't be possible if you just ban the stage because of D3.

You have two ways to get around it. Strike the stage or pick a character that can deal with it. What's the problem? You main a character that gets ***** by D3 on walkoffs and refuse to pick someone else? That's an issue with you, not the ruleset.

 

[Overswarm]

I'm sure ya'll are aware that distant planet has an instant kill hazard, yes? I'm looking for consistency in the ruling here, and listing that as reason for the banning of the Summit while allowing deep planet seems faulty.

You're kidding, right?

If you ever get killed by that thing, you deserve it.

I'm surprised that you didn't list stalling for Spear Pillar. To give a full reason why it's banned, you probably include that a faster character can infinitely flee the opposition.

It's there (circle camping), I just didn't put it in the description. I could have had mini essays on each one, but instead just put a few highlights.

Again, extremely surprised that Yoshi's Island (Pipes) made it in. The sheer factor of Fox/Falco's wave shine is what gave it the nix in Melee, and there are certainly more than one character in brawl that can chain grab the opponent to his demise off the side of the stage. The listing of it's effectiveness against lighter characters (specifically metaknight) seems to show a bias of decision makers by the panelists against them. I would think specifically to keep the option open to hurt metaknight, since he is consider by many (including some of the top players of each region) to be a very annoying and powerful character to play against, and I do not dispute that point. It just disturbs me that it entered into the reasoning process, and I would appreciate further clarification.

More than one? Falco under 40%, and D3 against some characters.. but that's bout it.

Regardless, staying on the left side = that's not an issue.

And yeah, this being a good counter to lighter characters does factor into the deicsion making process. Why wouldn't it? If there are only one or two stages good to pick against light characters and we are borderline banning one... why WOULDN'T we use that as a reason?

 

[munkus beaver]

Come again? I didn't think that light characters naturally had an advantage of some sort. Rather, I didn't think that there were only one or two stages good to pick against light characters, especially with the list you gave. If you don't mind, I'd ask that you elaborate a bit more as to the reasoning process.

And I've been knocked into the bugger's mouth before at a low %. And I've been knocked onto his back the moment he decided to retreat, which is faster than I can get up (in the same fashion as Big Blue).

 

[Genos]

This thread was a doozy! I came in thinking that chaingrabs were the bane of my existence, when they're actually not that bad. Sure, I still don't like how Melee-esque they are, but I'll deal. You've convinced me that Brawl is all about character matchups. This makes having more than one main very important, and causes your character picks to also be very important. It all reminds me of competitive Pokemon. That metagame has a lot to do with knowing when to switch Pokemon and who to switch to. Switching a Donphan in on a Garchomp would be like switching Ness in on a campy Zelda. There should be less "Who should I main" threads and more "Who else should I main" threads.

 

[[FBC] ESAM]

PT being partially immune to the chain grab grants more viability vs D3 than most of the cast on a walkoff stage.

D3 tech chasing people is far from broken, and it doesn't mean the matchups are in his favor at all. You're grasping for straws, far more than two characters can deal with D3 on a walkoff stage.

Flatout banning the walkoff stages because of D3, hurts characters that benefit from counterpicking those stages. If i'm Wolf, counterpicking Mario Circuit against Meta Knight is a good idea, but that wouldn't be possible if you just ban the stage because of D3.

You have two ways to get around it. Strike the stage or pick a character that can deal with it. What's the problem? You main a character that gets ***** by D3 on walkoffs and refuse to pick someone else? That's an issue with you, not the ruleset.

Did you not see in my first post that i said i played pikachu? It is not an issue for me, but more an issue for the community itself. I don't want to go to tournaments and see good players lose to worse ones because he CPed a stupid stage and either got infinited or knocked onto something that kills them. And hell, this list isn't even going to be for my community, since we all think the stages are less than adequate, and we have come up with our own.

All im saying is, if you give D3 too many places to CP, you will see a rise in his tournament rankings and a drop in every characters who can get chaingrabbed if you go by your stage set.

 

[Overswarm]

Come again? I didn't think that light characters naturally had an advantage of some sort. Rather, I didn't think that there were only one or two stages good to pick against light characters, especially with the list you gave. If you don't mind, I'd ask that you elaborate a bit more as to the reasoning process.

I didn't say they did have an advantage. But they would have an advantage if we banned stages that would be good against them; as such, it isn't too far out in left field to note that "this stage is a good CP against lightweights" when there aren't that many in existence.

And I've been knocked into the bugger's mouth before at a low %. And I've been knocked onto his back the moment he decided to retreat, which is faster than I can get up (in the same fashion as Big Blue).

You deserved it.

 

[munkus beaver]

Can you help me out here overswarm? I'm not trying to bait you, I'm looking for reasons why it should or should not be allowed. What are the other good lightweight CPs that exist and why are they insufficient? I can't really set up a tourney with this ruleset and explain why the stage is unbanned to a potential competitor and shrug my shoulders when they ask me to elaborate. I don't know all the stages which are good lightweight counterpicks. Hell, I'm only familiar with the mantra "Low ceiling = bad for lightweights," which isn't always true.

 

[Overswarm]

Can you help me out here overswarm? I'm not trying to bait you, I'm looking for reasons why it should or should not be allowed. What are the other good lightweight CPs that exist and why are they insufficient? I can't really set up a tourney with this ruleset and explain why the stage is unbanned to a potential competitor and shrug my shoulders when they ask me to elaborate. I don't know all the stages which are good lightweight counterpicks. Hell, I'm only familiar with the mantra "Low ceiling = bad for lightweights," which isn't always true.

It's basically the only one, really.


But don't look at a stage and say "why aren't you banned". There are no reasons to not ban something, only reasons to ban something. For the most part, anyway.

People brought up all sorts of things about Pipes, but it basically boiled down to this:
D3 and Falco can beat everyone here with CG


Which we know not only isn't true, but this can only work on one side... and thus can be countered by standing to the left.

 

[Turbo Ether]

Did you not see in my first post that i said i played pikachu? It is not an issue for me, but more an issue for the community itself. I don't want to go to tournaments and see good players lose to worse ones because he CPed a stupid stage and either got infinited or knocked onto something that kills them. And hell, this list isn't even going to be for my community, since we all think the stages are less than adequate, and we have come up with our own.

All im saying is, if you give D3 too many places to CP, you will see a rise in his tournament rankings and a drop in every characters who can get chaingrabbed if you go by your stage set.

Wat.

I know you main Pikachu, my situation was hypothetical, not aimed directly at you. You beat someone game one, they choose a CP stage for game two. You can pick a character suitable for the stage if need be. If you win, you 2-0'd the guy. If you lose it goes to game three allowing you to CP a stage. If you win on your CP stage, grats. If you lose again you got outplayed. Either way, the better player wins. I don't see what the problem is.

If you end up getting chained grabbed off the screen by D3, you made some poor decisions and deserved to lose.

 

[munkus beaver]

It's basically the only one, really.


But don't look at a stage and say "why aren't you banned". There are no reasons to not ban something, only reasons to ban something. For the most part, anyway.

People brought up all sorts of things about Pipes, but it basically boiled down to this:
D3 and Falco can beat everyone here with CG


Which we know not only isn't true, but this can only work on one side... and thus can be countered by standing to the left.

This appears to be the complete opposite reasoning from why the stage was banned in Melee, you realize? Is Yoshi's Island Pipes going to make a comeback on the melee scene as a counterpick now?

 

[AlphaZealot]

No, the reasoning in Melee was entirely that Fox would always win regardless of the match up. He wouldn't win just because of the walk off, but it was the walk off in combination with the low ceiling, meaning even if you play on the left side you'll still be KO'd around 60-70% (depends if your on the hill, I believe the highest perfect is around 80%) from drillshine upsmash, which if you remember anything from Melee, is unblockable for most characters (at least if the drill lands). Throw in Fox laser camping the right side and your only out being edge stalling the left side and you have tons of other problems. In Brawl, there are far more projectiles that are viable, and D3 doesn't have a quick ranged projectile, therefor a D3 can't camp right side against, say, Pit, and expect to still be dealing damage.

 

[gallax]

yeah the reasons for banning things and not banning things seemed to have made a complete 180 degree turnaround. in my mind cp's should only give a slight advantage to the person picking it. not a big enough advantage to switch characters to overcome the advantage.

y cant we reason around DDD like we did fox then?

 

[MajinSweet]

I always thought Melee was too ban happy on the stages anyway.

 

[Overswarm]

This appears to be the complete opposite reasoning from why the stage was banned in Melee, you realize? Is Yoshi's Island Pipes going to make a comeback on the melee scene as a counterpick now?

In Melee, Fox and Falco were the primary reason it was banned.

Fox could easily manuever himself to get a shine off and then shine you up the wall with minimal effort; this worked on a large section of the cast. Fox could also KO you off the top at ridiculously low %. Even better for Fox, there was little to no recovery on this stage! One of his few flaws, his recovery's gimpability, was removed. Characters such as Marth, who normally had a decent match, suddenly were in a lot of trouble. Those that didn't have a decent match in the first place were completely hosed.

Falco also had the ability to kill off the top at ridiculous % with his double shine.

The stage WAS banned prematurely in Melee; we didn't have the systems in place that we have now, and it just became common to ban the stage. It is likely that the stage would ultimately have been banned anyways though, as Fox completely dominated on that stage.

Imagine Dedede having the ability to d-throw you, run to the other side of you, grab, and then start d-throwing again... then make his u-tilt kill you at 60%. Then you've got yourself a comparison.

 

[munkus beaver]

Fair enough, but it still doesn't explain why it's a good CP against light characters. I know, as a Metaknight user, that low ceilings have been an advantage to me in recent tournies because of my reliance on the glide attack and shuttleloop. Both kill off the top of the stage, and with any sort of DR, won't do it until high %s unless the ceiling is lower.

It's easier for me to kill fox (who has a great upsmash for killing off the top) on a low ceiling stage than vice versa, since he can't 'spam' the attack and must wait for the proper situation to present itself, whereas my glide attack is one of my best approaching manuevers.

 

[Overswarm]

MK has 0 KO moves on Yoshi's Island if your opponent DI's properly or is standing underneath the blocks. It takes a much larger amount of knockback than normal for MK to KO here; not to mention he can't use his tornado quite as liberally. Not only does he have a chance to kill himself, but every block he hits counts as a stale move if I recall correctly.

 

[munkus beaver]

0 kills moves on Yoshi's Island if they DI properly? You are mistaken, sir. Glide attack send you up and shuttle loop sends you straight up with the initial hit. Blocks that allow MK to reset DR are also to the disadvantage of his opponent, I always like having DR on it so I have a better shot at killing with one of my other moves.

 

[Overswarm]

I am no stranger to the stage nor competitive play; I know of which I speak. =P

But let's keep this thread about the rule list and not about CPs.

 

[NinjaFoxX]

yes,about the ICs, is wobbling legit or is it also stopped at a certain %?

 

[Skyflyer]

Nevermind.
Delete this post.

 

[Overswarm]

AOB was the first joke vote on Battlefield. Others soon followed on votes that couldn't be harmed in that way

 

[RT]

Who the the hell voted for battlefield and FD to be banned?

...you didn't read the first post at all didn't you? They were joke votes.

 

[Skyflyer]

...you didn't read the first post at all didn't you? They were joke votes.

Oops. My bad.

 

[munkus beaver]

I am no stranger to the stage nor competitive play; I know of which I speak. =P

But let's keep this thread about the rule list and not about CPs.

It's a valid avenue of discussion to understand the underlying logic behind the decisions.

 

[Overswarm]

Not to me! I'd rather not discuss a stage's viability based off of a single character's disadvantage there.

 

[munkus beaver]

Fair enough, but your brought it upon yourself by including it in your reasoning so specifically. And this is for our benefit, not yours! you already have heard the arguments, now it's our turn to hear the final reasoning.

 

[Mmac]

I think the Infinite Chaingrab Stalling Limit being at 300% is too high. Almost all of the Infinite's can be Killed out of well before 200%, so I think the limit should be lowered to 200%

 

[Overswarm]

We didn't have to have a discussion page. We're just nice =P

 

[SamuraiPanda]

I think the Infinite Chaingrab Stalling Limit being at 300% is too high. Almost all of the Infinite's can be Killed out of well before 200%, so I think the limit should be lowered to 200%

I've seen people DI D3's back throw up to 250% after a wall infinite, so unfortunately 300% is the best number there.

Also, I don't understand the controversy surrounding Pipes. Has anybody actually played a D3 or a Falco there? I personally have, and its ridiculously easy to avoid getting CG'ed. You have to be grabbed on the right side past the blocks in the middle (the blocks will prevent CGs by breaking open as you get thrown onto them). Its so easy to avoid getting CG'ed that it shouldn't even be an issue at all.

 

[Vyse]

Also, I don't understand the controversy surrounding Pipes. Has anybody actually played a D3 or a Falco there? I personally have, and its ridiculously easy to avoid getting CG'ed. You have to be grabbed on the right side past the blocks in the middle (the blocks will prevent CGs by breaking open as you get thrown onto them). Its so easy to avoid getting CG'ed that it shouldn't even be an issue at all.

You raise a good point.

Though, being stuck with only half the stage to play with isn't the greatest thing in the world, but it doesn't mean to say that TO's can't modfiy rules for Dedede stage bans.

 

[Overswarm]

It's also a counterpick; an advantage is acceptable.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

Indeed, as OS says, the purpose of counterpicks is to provide an advantage. Also, it seems many people are forgetting this, but if there was somehow a magical "insta-win" stage/character combination with one of these stages so even a scrub can beat a top player, then that means the top player is only losing one out of 3 games. But thats a silly point anyways, because this doesn't exist at all.

 

[[FBC] ESAM]

Yeah, the main reason i dislike the half walk-off stages is because you should have the whole stage available to play on...not a limited amount. Sure, snakes c-4s mildly stop you from going to one side...but you can just shield it and it is gone until they plant it again. It's not like there is a permanent GIGANTIC c-4 on half of the stage that is an instant death situation. I agree with mmac, you should lower it to 200%. DDD can't kill of of one grab because you can DI his back throw? OH NO!!!

 

[TheKiest]

The only problem I had with this is the Stage Striking.

I understand why it's useful and the reasoning behind this. My problem is that it would take time out of the matches to strike out the starters. It wouldn't be too bad with 3 starters or 5, but 7 and up for every match makes a difference in 17+ people events. Also, the players would have to be constantly reminded of what stages are neutral instead of letting the Wii settle it with random.

The controversy in what stages are counter-picked/banned also leads to players having to memorize which tournes use which stages.

Not that this is a big problem, but a minor annoyance that could lead to disruptions for newcomers (players and TOs) as well as TOs who don't run/attend tournaments as quickly. (I didn't even know about the banning a CP stage rule until Overswarm mentioned it to me in person.)

What I'll prolly try to do at the next tournament my group host to limit the stage list and help with the memorization, is have a vote as we make people preregister (BTW: We make people preregister so that A) we know how many we have. B) We can seed the bracket well in advance. C) We can put names and control settings into the Wiis before hand.).
We would have the full starter list displayed and people can choose the starter stage they would prefer to start on and a starter stage they wouldn't prefer to start on. Then do the same for CPs. Use the votes for a newer more compacted stage list.
Then when people arrive, either use the strike rule with only a few stages (3, probably) or keep it random like before.

It is technically more work for the TOs, but I strongly believe that the time saved during a tournament FAR OUTWEIGHS the time spent to save the tourne time. (Just like with the Wii-profile setting up).

Other than that: Everything looks good. I think it might be a good idea to post the discussion of this decision to the public (don't allow people to comment on it there, but here instead) so that people can understand what the elite did/went through to come up with this structured rule set.

Thanks for reading and the ruleset!

 

[Overswarm]

The only problem I had with this is the Stage Striking.

I understand why it's useful and the reasoning behind this. My problem is that it would take time out of the matches to strike out the starters. It wouldn't be too bad with 3 starters or 5, but 7 and up for every match makes a difference in 17+ people events. Also, the players would have to be constantly reminded of what stages are neutral instead of letting the Wii settle it with random.

We've done several tournaments with stage striking in the midwest and it has added no more than a minute or two to a set; you lose more time from people needing to go to the bathroom.

The controversy in what stages are counter-picked/banned also leads to players having to memorize which tournes use which stages.

The purpose wasn't to let everyone know what the rules would be 100% of the time. Besides, it's not like everyone knew the rules BEFORE this. Each tournament had a specific ruleset unique to it, and this will likely be the same.

Not that this is a big problem, but a minor annoyance that could lead to disruptions for newcomers (players and TOs) as well as TOs who don't run/attend tournaments as quickly. (I didn't even know about the banning a CP stage rule until Overswarm mentioned it to me in person.)

Many of these rules have been in the smash community for years; ignorance of them can make entry into the tournament scene more difficult... but it is worth it and they aren't just "fluff" rules.

 

[Doggalina]

Is there any reason why stage striking doesn't use the classic "1st pick or next 2" rule we always used in the schoolyard? That way, no matter who wins the toss, each person gets some sort of "advantage."

*cough* ddddddddddddddddd

 

[Overswarm]

It doesn't really change much; the only "advantage" is whoever picks last. The alternative, taking turns, is a lot simpler and much easier to manage. Many players have had difficulty with 1221 for some reason when it comes to stage striking.

But that doesn't mean TOs still can't do it! ^_^