Legality Tentative: MBR Official Ruleset for 2012

[Krynxe]

No one is arguing BS is too good for certain characters. People are just tired of random stage hazards interfering with game play, such as lava. You can't really call something balanced just because it has the potential to screw both players over equally. The lack of consistency is what people take issue with.

Right, but as I said it can also be a very useful tool for recovery for characters with weaker recovery options. I do understand people not wanting to win because of the stage, but as I said it's the fault of the player or fault of their opponent that they hit the lava. Though some may argue having to focus on avoiding the lava takes away from the game and causing players to be "playing against the stage." I'm a bit neutral on it, but I think I'd like to see BS return.

 

[Bones0]

And that's a fair point. Personally, I have fun on MC and RC (sometimes), but if I was in a tournament set, I guess I'd want as little "BS" as possible. Or maybe some to benefit me. I dunno.

And Bones, the argument that I've often heard people make for banning Brinstar was that it was "auto-win" for Peach/Puff. A lot of people, by the same hand, know this to not be true, but that's often what I, at least, hear getting thrown around.

Almost no one that is pro-banning BS has mentioned matchups. The only people mentioning matchups are the people who are claiming people only want to ban it because of Peach/Puff. I even mentioned this absurd straw man a while ago. People keep insisting that the arguments for banning of the cps has something to do with characters or being bad on the stage, but I know a good Puff player that cps Brinstar all the time and does great on it, but even he thinks it should be banned.

Right, but as I said it can also be a very useful tool for recovery for characters with weaker recovery options. I do understand people not wanting to win because of the stage, but as I said it's the fault of the player or fault of their opponent that they hit the lava. Though some may argue having to focus on avoiding the lava takes away from the game and causing players to be "playing against the stage." I'm a bit neutral on it, but I think I'd like to see BS return.

Lava is virtually never used for recovery. Obviously it can delay your death for a little, but any time someone gets hit by lava against a decent player, you're essentially playing T-ball and you'll die the large majority of the time anyway.

As far as it being the player's fault, there is simply no way for players to have enough foresight to avoid being forced into the lava. The simplest example Cactuar gave a while ago was Kage killed him right before the lava rose, so Kage was forced to sit on the top platform as Cactuar respawned right on top of him. The only way to have avoid the situation was to not kill Cactuar in the first place, which is dumb because the lava could just have easily been anywhere else. He got UNLUCKY.

 

[Cactuar]

@Bones:

I need to check something with someone (matchup ratio on each stage is actually very important to this discussion) before I fully flesh out my response through example, but in the meantime:

Reducing the difficulty of the stages played on is not one of the objectives of the DSR change.

The objectives thus far were to increase the number of stages played on during sets to test player ability on communally determined "fairest" stages, and to adjust the advantage gained by taking a first round win and keeping a match lead throughout a set.

With the current system, we will see players play on stages that their characters have the greatest disadvantage on in the second and third match. This has a twofold effect. The first is that the straight odds of the matchup will more frequently lead to a round 4/5 as the set lead is gained and lost. The second is that the players will be tested frequently on stages that their character is weak on in that specific matchup, and we will see a development of character strategy on stages/matchups they are generally regarded as being weak in.

To state again: These are not things we are trying to avoid, given that those stages have been determined as a level playing field for all matchups (not necessarily even, but not an easy win for either character either).

With your system, you are actually increasing the reward for winning the first match, and increasing the reward for maintaining the set lead. Being allowed to go back to a stage you have previously won on gives an inherent psychological advantage due to the mentality provided to that player, as well as the inverse to the other player, despite it being played on a stage that would be considered "even". This has already been covered in previous posts.

The biggest issue I have with your system is that it is reducing the number of stages a player MUST be proficient on in any given matchup from 3 to 2. With that method, a puff player would only need to practice on FD and FoD against Falco, and never care about any of the other stages, as long as they win the first match.

In a best of 3, this would be seen as "FD, Loss, FoD".

In a best of 5, this becomes "FD, Loss, FoD, Loss, FD".

In a best of 7, it becomes "FD, Loss, FoD, Loss, FD, Loss, FoD."

This is a very personal and biased statement, but I absolutely ****ing hate seeing tournament sets played out like that. And it only gets worse because the opponent can't ban FD or FoD or they will get taken to the worst possible stage for their character in the matchup, so they end up stuck in the loop.

This is all theorycrafting though.


Also, for your numbering method, it would benefit from using matchup win percentage based on stage rather than what you used. Ideal in a 5 game set would be 2.5 for completely equal matches on all 5 games. (Which isn't actually what we want.)

The switch to DSR only works because we have removed the "jank" CPs. The jankiest a CP can get is PS (currently, still haven't decided about its status). Even if the Falco player is at a slightly larger disadvantage game 5 according to matchup %, it is not beyond the threshold that would make it unfair, as that game 5 will not be on par with having to play a stage like Brinstar game 5.

 

[Cia]

I really want to believe any good TO will take one good look at this and just walk away.

I really want to.

 

[JPOBS]

More stages > Less stages IMO. Spacies only having 6 stages to play on just makes them better and better. At least have brinstar on so they have to ban that.

What? This is entirely the opposite of reality.

Spacies get better the more stages you let them have. How is a spacie with Just stadium a better character than a spacies with stadium, RC, floats, corneria, kongo jungle, green greens etc.

Sure, you get to have your brinstar and mute city, but those can be effectvely handled with bans anyway. but less stages absolutely makes spacies weaker. I don't see how this can posibly be argued otherwise.

like winston was saying, this list in terms of balance is identical to a list with Brinstar + 1 ban each.

If you (general term) were fine with a stage list consisting of Brinstar, Rainbow Cruise, and Stadium + 1 ban, you honestly have no argument for why this stage list is any more favored towards spacies.

 

[Winston]

I admit it's not identical in practice because space animal players are far less likely to pick RC and KJ and be adept at abusing them.

but it's the theory that counts!

 

[Strife]

What? This is entirely the opposite of reality.

Spacies get better the more stages you let them have. How is a spacie with Just stadium a better character than a spacies with stadium, RC, floats, corneria, kongo jungle, green greens etc.

Sure, you get to have your brinstar and mute city, but those can be effectvely handled with bans anyway. but less stages absolutely makes spacies weaker. I don't see how this can posibly be argued otherwise.

like winston was saying, this list in terms of balance is identical to a list with Brinstar + 1 ban each.

If you (general term) were fine with a stage list consisting of Brinstar, Rainbow Cruise, and Stadium + 1 ban, you honestly have no argument for why this stage list is any more favored towards spacies.

No he's right.

Less stages make spacies better because they can't be CP'd anymore. Spacies can still CP you, but you can't CP them. It's really simple actually.

 

[Cactuar]

I really want to believe any good TO will take one good look at this and just walk away.

I really want to.

Cool story bro. Wanna provide your thoughts instead of this useless post?

**

 

[Bones0]

@Bones:

I need to check something with someone (matchup ratio on each stage is actually very important to this discussion) before I fully flesh out my response through example, but in the meantime:

Reducing the difficulty of the stages played on is not one of the objectives of the DSR change.

The objectives thus far were to increase the number of stages played on during sets to test player ability on communally determined "fairest" stages, and to adjust the advantage gained by taking a first round win and keeping a match lead throughout a set.

With the current system, we will see players play on stages that their characters have the greatest disadvantage on in the second and third match. This has a twofold effect. The first is that the straight odds of the matchup will more frequently lead to a round 4/5 as the set lead is gained and lost. The second is that the players will be tested frequently on stages that their character is weak on in that specific matchup, and we will see a development of character strategy on stages/matchups they are generally regarded as being weak in.

To state again: These are not things we are trying to avoid, given that those stages have been determined as a level playing field for all matchups (not necessarily even, but not an easy win for either character either).

With your system, you are actually increasing the reward for winning the first match, and increasing the reward for maintaining the set lead. Being allowed to go back to a stage you have previously won on gives an inherent psychological advantage due to the mentality provided to that player, as well as the inverse to the other player, despite it being played on a stage that would be considered "even". This has already been covered in previous posts.

The biggest issue I have with your system is that it is reducing the number of stages a player MUST be proficient on in any given matchup from 3 to 2. With that method, a puff player would only need to practice on FD and FoD against Falco, and never care about any of the other stages, as long as they win the first match.

In a best of 3, this would be seen as "FD, Loss, FoD".

In a best of 5, this becomes "FD, Loss, FoD, Loss, FD".

In a best of 7, it becomes "FD, Loss, FoD, Loss, FD, Loss, FoD."

This is a very personal and biased statement, but I absolutely ****ing hate seeing tournament sets played out like that. And it only gets worse because the opponent can't ban FD or FoD or they will get taken to the worst possible stage for their character in the matchup, so they end up stuck in the loop.

This is all theorycrafting though.


Also, for your numbering method, it would benefit from using matchup win percentage based on stage rather than what you used. Ideal in a 5 game set would be 2.5 for completely equal matches on all 5 games. (Which isn't actually what we want.)

The switch to DSR only works because we have removed the "jank" CPs. The jankiest a CP can get is PS (currently, still haven't decided about its status). Even if the Falco player is at a slightly larger disadvantage game 5 according to matchup %, it is not beyond the threshold that would make it unfair, as that game 5 will not be on par with having to play a stage like Brinstar game 5.

Okay, I can understand not using my system if the MBR is really trying to push the whole "play on every stage" thing. I can't say I agree, and I have a feeling a lot of people will be upset having to play certain combinations (Falcons loathe FoD; spacies are gonna get chain grabbed on FD at least once a set; floaties... well they don't get affected much, but they keep complaining about the ruleset so idk ). I do want to address a few things you mentioned though.

Puff needing to practice on only FD and FoD is not true at all. That was simply my personal preference for stages. It is pretty rare for two players to have the same stage preferences, whether you are talking about two players that main the same character or two players who are opponents. If a Puff only practices on FD and FoD, they will lose against any Falco players that strike to BF or ban FoD. Puff might have to play on BF or FD for game 1, and their cp of FoD might be banned instead of DL. The only stage Puff can be sure she won't have to play is YS, but even then you would be stupid to never practice on it because you may want to ban PS if your opponent is thrashing you on it.

You also have the case that Falco and Puff might BOTH believe FD to be in their favor, so if they want to strike to it and salty rematch, I don't see the issue with them playing it again as long as they are choosing to do so and not being forced into it.

As far as my system emphasizing the first game more, I also disagree. With both players forced to play on their opponent's hard cp, most sets will essentially become bo3s anyway, as winning on your opponents cp in games 2/3 will be rare. With only 3 close games, a player who loses game 1 HAS to win the next 2. With 5 close games, even if you lose game 1, you have more games with which to make a come back. It's the same thought process you would have if sets lasted for 100 games. There would be many more comebacks because the player will have more time to turn the set around in their favor or more time for the winning player to start choking. I'm not sure if there is a statistical term to reference this phenomena, but I feel like there must be.

 

[Cactuar]

Yeah, my statements were based on the very specific situation presented using your "ad wins, dis loses".

That isn't reality, and that's why I said you really need to look at the %'s involved in the matchups per stage. Using that flatline scale of ad/disad stages doesn't reflect how they truly affect any matchups. It artificially inflates how much influence the stage has. I could replace PS with Rainbow cruise and it would have the same weight.

The point made in my initial response was that there are no hard CPs using neutral only stage lists, as much as Falcon players like to whine about FoD. Changing your approach to what is reality changes the proposal you are making.

I agree with you on floaties complaining for what seems like no reason. I tend to ignore/laugh at them.

 

[Winston]

No he's right.

Less stages make spacies better because they can't be CP'd anymore. Spacies can still CP you, but you can't CP them. It's really simple actually.

...? no response to this?

^ So Jigglypuffs and Peaches never had to worry about getting picked to Rainbow Cruise?

heaven forbid the Fox player actually had the willingness to hardcore camp on Kongo Jungle 64

I'm not saying that things are perfect now, but if you were okay with the stage balance before I don't see how this is a huge change.

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

What? This is entirely the opposite of reality.

Spacies get better the more stages you let them have. How is a spacie with Just stadium a better character than a spacies with stadium, RC, floats, corneria, kongo jungle, green greens etc.

Sure, you get to have your brinstar and mute city, but those can be effectvely handled with bans anyway. but less stages absolutely makes spacies weaker. I don't see how this can posibly be argued otherwise.

like winston was saying, this list in terms of balance is identical to a list with Brinstar + 1 ban each.

If you (general term) were fine with a stage list consisting of Brinstar, Rainbow Cruise, and Stadium + 1 ban, you honestly have no argument for why this stage list is any more favored towards spacies.

A ruleset that has FD, Mushroom Kingdom II, Mute City, and Brinstar gives virtually every character a very strong 2 stage combo against spacies, only one of which they can ban. As long as stadium is around, spacies will have a great combo regardless (ex: Yoshis/Stadium v. Peach/Puff, Dreamland/Stadium v. Marth, FoD/Yoshis v. Falcon, etc), so all having more stages does is give other characters an opportunity to counterattack with CPs of their own.

Not saying that should be the reason why we keep stages legal of course, but I don't think spacies get stronger with more stages in general.

 

[JPOBS]

No he's right.

Less stages make spacies better because they can't be CP'd anymore. Spacies can still CP you, but you can't CP them. It's really simple actually.

What part of having more stages/bans is difficult to understand?
Explain to me exactly how the last stage stage list magically allowed you to CP spacies even tho they just banned brinstar all the time anyway? You're acting like spacies all of a sudden "can't be counterpicked anymore" when in reality, spacies have been immune to ocunterpicks (bans included) since pound 4.

Unless you're going to tell me that you also hated the last ruleset because spacies would just ban brinstar (or whatever) and still have stages to counterpick then sure i guess.

My point is, spacies being good on those stages is a fault of the characters, not the fault of the stage list. Any stage list we create will be inherently slanted towards spacies because they are good on almost every stage. And if we add stages that are universally jank just to try to give characters CP options, the spacies players will just ban them anyway so it makes no difference in practice.

A ruleset that has FD, Mushroom Kingdom II, Mute City, and Brinstar gives virtually every character a very strong 2 stage combo against spacies, only one of which they can ban. As long as stadium is around, spacies will have a great combo regardless (ex: Yoshis/Stadium v. Peach/Puff, Dreamland/Stadium v. Marth, FoD/Yoshis v. Falcon, etc), so all having more stages does is give other characters an opportunity to counterattack with CPs of their own.

Not saying that should be the reason why we keep stages legal of course, but I don't think spacies get stronger with more stages in general.

But its not like those characters don't already have a 2 pronged stage combo vs spacies, only one of which can be banned.

Peach/Puff already have dreamland/FoD
Marth already has FD/FoD

I mean, those stages aren't super counterpicks, but lets be honest, picking stadium vs marth or picking yoshi's vs peach isn't really a super counterpick for the spacies player either (imo). Its also player dependent, some Falcon's really like yoshi's vs spacies for example. All these stages are way too close in terms of useability to be determined as "strengthening" spacies by moving lessening the stage list to these stages.

In general, I don't think its fair to put stadium in the same "class" of counterpicks as Brinstar and Mutecity because those stages are far more slanted than stadium is. A spacies eqivalent of BS/MC would probably be corneria.

For the record, I'm fine with either removing Stadium entirely from singles, or adding brinstar and a ban if it will make people stfu. Right now the argument seems to be "if spacies are good on more stages, we need to add stages specifically counter balance space animals" when really, the argument should be "lets create a stagelist with as little player vs stage inteference as possible, regardless of character"
But the latter is NOT what people seem to care about. They just want stages to win vs spacies.

As an aside, I don't see how adding a bunch of pro-floaty stages and overpowering floaties, is more preferred than having overpowered spacies (as people seem to think is the current trend)

 

[EPsilon933]

Choosing which stages are legal to balance characters is dumb. You're making the rules into a mess. Characters are good/bad because of characters' designs (much more than stages + designs)

 

[Cactuar]

I don't know why people keep saying that. We are making changes to minimize stage involvement, not balance the characters. But if you want to keep repeating statements that have no relevance to the thread, go for it.

 

[Roneblaster]

Id rather watch spacies win than floaties.

**** floaties.

 

[Bones0]

Yeah, I said that earlier (@Cactuar). People aren't even resorting to straw man arguments as to why the stages should be banned; they are literally just making **** up about characters and people being bad on the stage.

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

I don't know why people keep saying that. We are making changes to minimize stage involvement, not balance the characters. But if you want to keep repeating statements that have no relevance to the thread, go for it.

I mean...I think you've been pretty consistent in saying that you have been taking character balance into consideration:

We don't want to enable stages that will essentially randomize the outcome of the match, and we don't want stages that will essentially guarantee victory for certain characters. Brinstar unfortunately can be placed under both catagories, as the lava element has enough of an effect to sway the match in such a manner, but at the same time provides such a benefit to certain floaty characters that it has been deemed near insta-win.

@TheCrimsonBlur: I basically did an elaborate version of what PI just did, for every stage in consideration and while weighing the effect each has on the top 8-10 characters in tournaments sets of BO3 and BO5.

It doesn't make sense to me to reduce it to FD, PS, and BF, as the effect it has on the top8-10 matrix of matchups skews them heavily

 

[sanchaz]

At least this isn't japan, where the only legal stage is fd.....

 

[Acryte]

Seems to be heading in that direction except with BF/FD. Eventually people will argue whine about the wind in DL and shiguy DI

 

[Niko45]

Basically:

This ruleset was made in an effort to remove stages that had volatile effects on outcomes without drastically changing the ALREADY EXISTING "balance" between the top 10 characters.

Spacies have been able to get away with CPing to stadium for years already because of how many good CPs they have had and if anything, this ruleset will force them to win on less lopsided stages MORE often.

In most matchups the spacies stage situation is unchanged or if anything, a little less advantageous for them.

But even aside from all of this, the ruleset is not focused on matchup balance. The people against the ruleset are focused completely on matchup balance.

 

[Strong Badam]

Choosing which stages are legal to balance characters is dumb. You're making the rules into a mess. Characters are good/bad because of characters' designs (much more than stages + designs)

I think Cactuar and I have reiterated several times (as well as on Melee: State of the Game last night) that we aren't trying to artificially balance the character roster via the stage list, and rather are attempting to increase the consistency of results as well as remove stages that advocate strategies that are degenerative or stages that inherently change drastically what skills competitive play tests for for no reason other than that the counterpicking player selected it (for example, the Brinstar issue).

 

[Mike G]

Basically:

This ruleset was made in an effort to remove stages that had volatile effects on outcomes without drastically changing the ALREADY EXISTING "balance" between the top 10 characters.

Spacies have been able to get away with CPing to stadium for years already because of how many good CPs they have had and if anything, this ruleset will force them to win on less lopsided stages MORE often.

In most matchups the spacies stage situation is unchanged or if anything, a little less advantageous for them.

But even aside from all of this, the ruleset is not focused on matchup balance. The people against the ruleset are focused completely on matchup balance.

The problem is that some people believe it isn't the right direction competitive smash should be going. That spaces are so good that some stages are needed to counter them. I for one like the direction. I feel a lot better beating a character without much stage involvement. Not everyone agrees with this because counter stages have been a tradition in smash for years so I can understand where they are coming from

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

Basically:

This ruleset was made in an effort to remove stages that had volatile effects on outcomes without drastically changing the ALREADY EXISTING "balance" between the top 10 characters.

...so character balance was taken into account. I'll wait for Cactuar to clarify, but all I'm saying is that its not fair to **** on people and claim they're forming strawmans when its been made pretty clear that character balance was a factor. If it wasn't a factor and somehow this is a crazy misunderstanding, then fine, but its not surprising that people would get confused when the criteria isn't clearly laid out.

From what I got, piecemeal from Cactus' posts, the main criteria were:
-whether there are jank/random elements that could affect a match
-character balance
-whether the stage is popular or widely accepted
and finally...
-whether they "like" the stage or not (this is the most ambiguous one; what makes someone like a stage or not? How can you tell?)

The people against the ruleset are focused completely on matchup balance.

I wouldn't call myself against this ruleset; I think that everything was already heading toward banning Brinstar and Cruise anyway, so that part doesn't do much...the net effect is Jungle Japes is now legal in teams, which could be cool I dunno...I'd love to see it in action though.

But...taking me out of the picture, I don't know where the **** you got that impression. People don't like it for a variety of reasons, and generalizing like that is dumb and unproductive.

 

[Niko45]

I got that impression from everyone that is posting that spacies are too good and this makes them stronger and therefore this is bad. You werent the only one.

 

[KishPrime]

As always, it is amusing to watch people attempt to rationally debate something that is clearly just a hybrid of personal preference and democratic input with no internal logical consistency. It's also amusing to see people who suggest that arguments built on personal preference are right while their opponents are wrong, stupid, or scrubby. Come on boys, grow some self-confidence in your own opinions, no need for name-calling.

Just play the game, yo. It's a 10 year-old game that is awesome no matter how you play it. There's nothing wrong with this ruleset for a tournament, if people go and play at it. There's nothing wrong with an Items-On tournament, if people go and play at it. I don't think this game is really at a place where the community needs to display hostile behavior towards people who disagree with this black-and-white notion that there's a "correct" way to play this game. Of course as I always say, I've always opposed the creation of a Back Room Ruleset to begin with for the exact reason that it creates "winners and losers" when it's simply unnecessary.

I think we should form a Melee Back Room Rules Committee that is completely separate from the Melee Back Room, and from the Melee Back Room Back Room for Back Room Leaders, and also make a Back Room 2 that upholds or vetoes any other decisions that either Back Room makes. This way, the massive amount of bureaucracy that this community requires will be in place.

 

[Roneblaster]

Marths should love this ****, imo. Ban stadium or DL -> win sets.

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

As always, it is amusing to watch people attempt to rationally debate something that is clearly just a hybrid of personal preference and democratic input with no internal logical consistency. It's also amusing to see people who suggest that arguments built on personal preference are right while their opponents are wrong, stupid, or scrubby. Come on boys, grow some self-confidence in your own opinions, no need for name-calling.

Yeah, this is what I've been trying to point out. The ruleset wasn't made with a clear "logical consistency" as you put it, and is more a result of the combination of a bunch of personal preferences. I haven't been arguing for or against specific stages for that exact reason; there is no convincing that can be done to make someone like a stage. In the end, no matter what is said, the response will always (honestly) be "your argument has some merit but nah **** that, we don't like playing on those jank stages anyway."

I think we should form a Melee Back Room Rules Committee that is completely separate from the Melee Back Room, and from the Melee Back Room Back Room for Back Room Leaders, and also make a Back Room 2 that upholds or vetoes any other decisions that either Back Room makes. This way, the massive amount of bureaucracy that this community requires will be in place.

This is pretty funny lol.

It brings up a good point though, even in jest. Do we even need a backroom anymore? The MBR never really had much power as it was, but its pretty clear that its at an all-time low; whereas before you might have gone a hundred pages before someone pointed out the futility, I think everyone realized the pointlessness of it all the minute it was posted.

What does an MBR ruleset even mean if it carries as much weight as if Cactuar (or any other respected player) simply posted it in Melee discussion, without the pomp and certitude of the MBR tag? It seems to me that a lot more can be done with the assemblage of the great minds in the community than make a ruleset that everyone already uses.

I've thought about this a lot, and I've mentioned it to a few people, but i think we're at a point of maturity where we need to focus on getting organized for real community improvement, things outside of just "hosting a really, really big tournament," and move past petty stuff like tier lists and standardized rulesets.

I got that impression from everyone that is posting that spacies are too good and this makes them stronger and therefore this is bad. You werent the only one.

That wasn't what I was saying at all but whatever. Kish's points are too good and they should be the focus of the thread for now.

 

[Bones0]

It's gonna sound mean and elitist, but I think the people who consider the rule set as a whole to be ridiculous should just not post so people who like the rule set (i.e. the large majority of the community) can make reasonable criticisms in an effort to improve upon it. I feel like I'm the only person who has actually provided any constructive criticism outside of "MORE COUNTERPICKS!" or "LESS NEUTRALS!"

 

[Kal]

Fairest in what sense? I'm not trying to be the nihilistic ******* that you described, but I really want to know. Who is the restrictive stagelist unfair to? We're not equating fairness with character balance, are we?

Character balance should not be a concern when it comes to creating a ruleset. There are far too many possible rulesets, and it's not possible to know how they will effect the current metagame, let alone the game in general.

When I say fair, I mean that it does not force subjective opinion on other players.

This doesn't follow from the above. What logic are you using to go from the premise (that all we can agree on is that truly broken things should be banned) to your conclusion (that minimal banning is the fairest and/or best)?

I'm saying that fairness, in the sense of avoiding forcing other players (particularly the minority) to abide by your subjective preferences, is best maintained with a minimalist ban policy.

First of all, this is still ignoring the "non-random stage hazards still induce effectively random results because the timing of events caused by the player vs player is effectively random" point. That's a really, really key point I think.

I have two major issues with this:

1) No real argument against randomness can be made. In the long-run, randomness gets evened out, i.e., the better players will win more often. Thus, any decision to ban randomness is strictly based on personal preference. Again, I have an issue with forcing how you think the game "should" be played down other people's throats.

2) We already allow randomness, in Peach's turnip and Game & Watch's hammer. Then, at the very least, one must admit that some randomness is acceptable. Once this is acknowledged, it becomes possible to answer what sort of randomness is acceptable, and to then decide how randomness will effect what should be banned. However, what we see is a ubiquitous, overwhelming hatred for randomness, despite the fact that we already allow it in certain aspects.

Second, that attitude is still a value judgement about what skillset we want to reward. The libertarian stagelist just chooses rewards stage familiarity and stage-specific tactics. I don't see how that's inherently better.

So first, I ask that you stop calling my stagelist "libertarian." It's sort of absurd.

Now, the minimalist-ban stagelist rewards stage familiarity, perhaps, but the point is that it is fairer by not forcing people to play by rules made in accordance with your subjective preference. It's not that we necessarily want to reward that sort of skillset; we're simply avoiding the pompous attitude of telling players what skillsets we want to emphasize.

No, the reason why I don't like those stages is because they are the opposite of what I value in competitive play. For me, winning on a stage like RC or Brinstar isn't nearly as satisfying as winning on, say, Battlefield. Not because of some perception of imbalance or randomness or whatever, but because those stages support player vs STAGE vs player, instead of player vs player. IMO, ideally, any sort of eventual mid-match adjustment to how you play should be forced by the opponent, and not by the stage..

First, I've already addressed previously that the notion of "player vs. player vs. stage" is a poorly defined one. Please read.

Second:

The reason why I don't like Falco is because he is the opposite of what I value in competitive play. For me, playing against a character like Falco isn't nearly as satisfying as playing against a character like, say, Sheik. Not because of some perception of imbalance or randomness or whatever, but because Falco eliminates aspects of the approach game I most enjoy. IMO, ideally, the approach should not involve a projectile with 4-frames of lag and which has hitsun.

In other words, I don't really care what you personally think should go into the game's rules.

 

[KishPrime]

You can't offer constructive criticism on a set of opinions.

 

[Cia]

Cool story bro. Wanna provide your thoughts instead of this useless post?

**

No. I really don't. This is what I knew was eventually going to happen when the MBR revised the ruleset a year ago. A few Foxes and Falcon's complained, then we lost a crap ton of stages. A year later, they still aren't satisfied and here we are again.

Id rather watch spacies win than floaties.

**** floaties.



Yeah, we know. But at least you say so without trying to masquerade it with the full force of your vocabulary.

 

[Bones0]

You can't offer constructive criticism on a set of opinions.

Sure you can. If you saw someone painting and you thought it looked bad because they did something weird, you could offer them advice and if their opinion agrees with yours they would take your criticism and improve their painting. Obviously whether or not the painting "looks good" is an opinion, but that's all a rule set is, a collection of peoples' opinions on how the game should be played. A lot of people like the rule set, but a lot of people also have things they wish were a bit different. I would like to hear from those people instead of the people whose rule set would look completely different from this one.

 

[Bones0]

No. I really don't. This is what I knew was eventually going to happen when the MBR revised the ruleset a year ago. A few Foxes and Falcon's complained, then we lost a crap ton of stages. A year later, they still aren't satisfied and here we are again.

What about all the non-fast fallers that think the rule set is great? Have their minds just been warped by the "few Foxes and Falcons"?

 

[Mr.Jackpot]

What about all the non-fast fallers that think the rule set is great? Have their minds just been warped by the "few Foxes and Falcons"?

Yeah, because so few people play Fox and Falcon right

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

It's gonna sound mean and elitist, but I think the people who consider the rule set as a whole to be ridiculous should just not post so people who like the rule set (i.e. the large majority of the community) can make reasonable criticisms in an effort to improve upon it. I feel like I'm the only person who has actually provided any constructive criticism outside of "MORE COUNTERPICKS!" or "LESS NEUTRALS!"

And I'm gonna sound mean and elitist when I say this: Bones, you are the only one providing what you call "criticisms" because a) you're the only one who cares b) you are the only one who doesn't seem to realize the futility of it all.

Even if you mount a brilliant argument, you will still have to fight their preferences. And even if you manage to convince every member of MBR that their preferences are wrong and your preferences are right (lol) then you will have to do the same to TOs to make sure they implement it. All the while you will have to wade through their completely justified rebuttals of "**** you this is my ruleset" or "**** you this is my tournament." I don't mean to say that you can't discuss ideas, but realize that in doing so you aren't doing it for some greater cause (i.e. to "improve" the ruleset) and you won't make any headway trying to provide "constructive criticism" to someone's opinions.

Maybe I'm alone in this but when I see that we have such manpower collected into one body (the MBR), filled with passionate and smart individuals, plus I see guys like you or me, Bones, who would do next to anything for this community, I feel that we could do much more than decide such minor points as what form of DSR should be used in best of 5 sets.

Its 2011. The scene has evolved, maybe its time for the MBR to do so too. In the early days, it met critical community needs; we needed to figure out what stages worked and which didn't, and we wanted to compile opinions for a tier list. But those are no longer critical community needs. In fact they are not even needs; we had functioned for years after the MBR initially disbanded without any problems at all. The MBR is a noble cause, but it needs a new mission. Couldn't the MBR function for 2011 and not for 2003?

 

[Bones0]

I was just quoting him? derp

 

[Smooth Criminal]

I always thought that certain CPs were advantageous to Space Animals anyway (PS, Brinstar, etc).

This is a very intriguing ruleset, to say the least. Let's see how it pans out.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Roneblaster]

Vanz u put part of ur post as my quote.

I dont think the new ruleset is terrible, im just not sure it was needed. At best its a slight improvment and at worst its a step in the wrong direction.

 

[Krynxe]

At this point, PS might as well just be removed. If we want every round to be completely genuine with absolutely no stage interference or character imbalance, we might as well go all the way and remove every counterpick stage rather than all but a single one (which obviously benefits those who hold advantages there.) Obviously, even the 5 neutrals aren't balanced. The reason counterpicking and banning exists is to strategically choose what stages to play, since naturally every nonidentical stage holds advantages and disadvantages for specific characters. If we somehow manage to reach a point where the stage list is truly balanced, counterpicking and banning serve no purpose whatsoever.

To clarify, I think the selection of stages is what's causing most of the problems here. I'd be willing to accept the current stage list (also considering the possible removal of PS or re-addition of BS/KJ64, my feelings are neutral either way because I see no serious brokenness with these stages but also won't terribly miss them) however with such a reduced stage list, banning and counterpicking seem to be the biggest issue. A slightly new system might be effective, as some people like (iirc) Bones was mentioning earlier. (Not necessarily to replace the current system, but to serve as an alternative.) Idealistically, players could just Gentleman's Clause every stage before they start so there can't be any johns, but this isn't happening.

I just thought of a system, in which each player chooses half the stages, rounded down. The final/deciding match will always be played on BF. This system might possibly work well with the 5 neutrals as the only available stages. (Considering without any stage banning, stage advantages may play too large of a role in victory) I currently see this system to be well balanced, allowing both players opportunities on their preferred stages and always able to settle things on the unanimously balanced BF. A player winning on their opponents' stage choice, along with their own, would demonstrate clear victory and therefore would not have to go to BF to settle the match. Of course, DSRM would not apply to the settling BF stage and SDSR would not apply whatsoever. Also, I'm unsure if players should be allowed to choose repeated stages for Bo5s or Bo7s. (I'm thinking not for Bo5, and one identical of your own picks only for Bo7. However, that would mean BF could potentially be played 5 times in a Bo7, but that'd be entirely up to the players so it really isn't stupid or unbalanced and is completely by their decision.) Possibly Gentleman's Clause for the deciding stage, BF if there's no agreement?
Any feedback on this? I just thought of it so it may very likely be broken in some manner, let me know.

tl;dr - Complete balancing is impossible and defeats the purpose of banning/CPing. Either return the old system with all CPs or develop new stage selecting system with only neutral stages. (Which would probably be more balanced.) Read last paragraph for my suggestion/idea.