Legality Tentative: MBR Official Ruleset for 2012

[linkoninja]

Japes in doubles? This is gonna make things really interesting (and troll) probably.

 

[JPOBS]

I don't think anyone has asked this:

why has the mbr put out a new ruleset?

 

[Bones0]

I don't think anyone has asked this:

why has the mbr put out a new ruleset?

Seems like it's mostly because the community has shifted from the previous rule set so providing a standard allows players to do things more consistently. It's kind of dumb that most locals (from what I can tell) allow much more liberal stage lists when nationals are leaning much more towards less cps. I believe Genesis 2 only had PS and KJ, and I think Apex is also getting rid of Brinstar and RC.

 

[Kal]

It's kind of dumb that most locals (from what I can tell) allow much more liberal stage lists when nationals are leaning much more towards less cps. I believe Genesis 2 only had PS and KJ, and I think Apex is also getting rid of Brinstar and RC.

I find it pretty dumb that anyone would see this as problematic. Running more conservative rulesets and testing boundaries is not a bad thing. Mindlessly following a ruleset solely because MBR recommends it seems much worse to me. If the people running nationals think the ruleset should be more liberal, that's totally fine, but it's silly to act as though the rest of the community should follow in kind solely because these tournaments are bigger.

 

[Strong Badam]

people want to practice for big tournaments and use locals to do that. it's basically the big reason why having a somewhat unified ruleset is desired, otherwise a solid metagame couldn't really develop.

 

[Kal]

Given Melee's history (with lots of nationals having rulesets which differed significantly from the SBR/MBR ruleset), I would assume that is false, i.e., that a "solid" (uniform is a better word perhaps) metagame could not develop without some sort of unified ruleset. The unified ruleset always has and always will exist, as it's determined by the regular attendants of tournaments.

The only thing the MBR does is declare one particular ruleset to be "recommended," and this simply creates an air of faux-legitimacy which decreases turnout for tournaments which stray from the ruleset.

I also strongly doubt that there is any sort of desire to make uniform the metagame here. I would venture a guess that it's just a group of players reaffirming their scrubby attitude to each other, then putting it into a ruleset. There is a marked parallel between this notion and the way Unity pretends to make uniform the Brawl ruleset.

And, as a final remark, banning as little as possible is one way to create a uniform ruleset. It also is noticeably fairer than subjecting the ruleset of the entire community to the subjective preferences of a single group of players.

 

[Strong Badam]

do you even go to nationals..? like I don't want to ad hominem you or anything but these rulesets are made with people that attend tournament in mind. you'd probably have better luck debating the meta knight ban.

 

[Kal]

Whether I go to nationals doesn't have much bearing on whether I'm right. Instead of prefacing your statement with one of a desire not to make ad hominems, it may be better to just say "with all due respect."

You can say whatever you want if you say "with all due respect." It's in the Geneva Conventions, look it up.

 

[Strong Badam]

hype i'm so interested in history!

 

[Jim Morrison]

We should revamp or remove the whole counterpick system.

 

[Strong Badam]

if there were only 5 or 7 legal stages I'd agree w/ you.

 

[Kal]

By 2013 (if the world doesn't end), Pokémon Stadium will be banned and we'll have 5 stages.

 

[Beat!]

Looking forward to 2013.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

And, as a final remark, banning as little as possible is one way to create a uniform ruleset. It also is noticeably fairer than subjecting the ruleset of the entire community to the subjective preferences of a single group of players.

I agree with most of what you've said so far, but I don't think you're going to convince these people that, "Everybody gets CP's" is more fair than, "Nobody gets CP's." The unfairness doesn't lie in the, "Nobody gets CP's" part for the sole sake of banning as little as possible: it lies in the fact that some characters need CP's more than others.

I know one of the points that has been made is that spacies getting CP's makes it harder for low tiers, but that's bull****. I main a low-tier character and let me assure you that if I and a spacie opponent have similar skill, they will beat me on both their CP's AND neutrals because of character discrepancy. I will only have a chance on my CP's because a slightly favorable stage somewhat equalizes character potential, which makes the outcome of the match more dependent on player skill (which is supposedly important to you guys) rather than character superiority. If a stage overcompensates and gives me more than equal chances against a spacie opponent of similar skill, then it should be banned and I will be in full favor of banning it because I would rather not win by stage jankiness (which is also supposedly important to you guys). Besides, as I have mentioned before, there is nothing stopping a spacie main from picking up a second who does well on their main's less favorable stages. That what us low-tiers have to do in order to stay competitive, and we don't john about it, so why the **** should you?

And this "maintaining the existing balance of characters" is complete bull**** as well. You really think Link is going to kick some spacies out of S-tier if you give him a CP or two?


tl;dr CP's help equalize character potential and make matches more dependent on player skill. Any truly janky CP's that make matches more dependent on stage advantage than relative skill should be banned, but those that simply equalize character potential should stay.

 

[ShroudedOne]

The more and more that I think about this ruleset, the more I begin to see that there really isn't anything wrong with it. I dunno, it just doesn't seem like the lack of CPs will change much in terms of the scene and it's competitive goals (I dunno about preserving the integrity of the game or anything like that, but the MBR isn't concerned with that, so whatever).

Honestly? It's probably going to be something that, if enacted by next year, most people will just accept and move on from. Those who truly don't like it will use it/play with it sparingly.

I'm only good on FD anyways, so it doesn't matter much to me.

 

[Kal]

stuff about fairness

When I refer to fairness, I do not mean character balance. That is not something I feel you should be aimed at fixing when you create a ruleset, for the metagame is constantly changing. Banning in an attempt to balance would involve a different methodology for each period of character dominance. Moreover, there are far too many different possible rulesets to possibly know (in theory or in practice) which one creates a most balanced game (even if you have properly defined what it means to be "more balanced").

When I refer to fairness, I mean in the following sense:

It is unfair for a tournament organizer to force his attendants to play according to his subjective preferences.

In other words, it's unfair for someone to ban Peach, even if their reasoning is "valid," i.e., consistent with the reasoning provided for stage bans here, because she is not broken. To do so is basically forcing everyone (especially Peach players) to play by your rules because you dislike the way they play.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

When I refer to fairness, I mean in the following sense:

It is unfair for a tournament organizer to force his attendants to play according to his subjective preferences.

But don't we do that anyway? After a fashion, of course.

That wasn't rhetoric; I'm asking whether or not there's a real difference when, say, we go to a different region and play by any given TO's rules. The differences could be great (different stages) or small (wobbling being banned). Doesn't that fall under the purview of playing under somebody else's subjective preferences...?

Or are you just talking about the MBR minority "making" this ruleset supersede all others...?

Smooth Criminal

 

[L1F3]

As much as I like alterations and adjustments to rulesets as a metagame progresses, the overall lack in stage variety is displeasing. At this rate, we might as well play on Battlefield and FD exclusively.

Pokemon Stadium should be included in the Starters/Neutral Stage selection. It's not random enough (the stage changes are made quite obvious) and avoid the tree (fire arena) if you're up against the spacies, or ban it against them.

Stage striking takes too long and kinda conflicts with the "1 ban per player in Singles" rule. You pick a stage you don't want to play on and ban it, your opponent does the same, you take said stages out of random, and start playing. This applies to the first match of the set. I'm surprised it even exists.

Counter Picks that should be available in Singles:

• Rainbow Cruise
• Jungle Japes
• DK 64
• Corneria
• Brinstar
• Poke Floats?

Obvious bans are obvious vs certain characters.

As for removing Brinstar and Rainbow Cruise.. All I really have to say is learn the stages, and learn the matchup. The same goes to Poke Floats. It's not random at all (the falling through the stage glitch isnt random and only happens at certain parts of the stage on certain Pokemon anyways, so just avoid that)

I wholeheartedly want some form of character locking for the victorious player. Otherwise you're giving the guy who won the first round more advantages over the guy who lost. It would make more sense to have the losing player either counter-pick a stage or change their character. In a scenario in which the loser chooses to CP a stage, he should let the winner know and allow the winner to ban a single stage before the loser announces his CP. If the loser changes characters, the stage should be selected via random. The winner shouldn't be allowed to change characters in either case, it just defeats the purpose of counter-picking stages/characters.

I'll elaborate on this in more detail later...

 

[Kal]

But don't we do that anyway? After a fashion, of course.

That wasn't rhetoric; I'm asking whether or not there's a real difference when, say, we go to a different region and play by any given TO's rules. The differences could be great (different stages) or small (wobbling being banned). Doesn't that fall under the purview of playing under somebody else's subjective preferences...?

There isn't any real difference between banning Wobbling (and I maintain that it should not be banned) and banning certain stages. Every TO forces subjective preference to some extent. However, there is a clear difference between a rule which does not limit your opponent's options (i.e., choosing to play Stock instead of Time, or 3/5 instead of 2/3), and one which explicitly bans something.

Anyway, after conceding that it is something that is already done, I want to emphasize that that's sort of the point: we should ban as little as possible. It's absurd to not be able to Wobble just because you're in a region where the TOs are scrubbier about Ice Climbers.

In other words, yes, we do it already, but that doesn't mean we should.

Or are you just talking about the MBR minority "making" this ruleset supersede all others...?

What I meant was an issue separate from the MBR's existence, though the MBR's existence is still relevant to this issue.

 

[Strife]

I really don't think those in favor of this ruleset are the minority. The mbr is not representative of the smash community. A whole lot of people who go to tournaments don't even post on smashboards.

If we want to understand the scope of who supports the rulesets and who doesn't, we'd likely have to poll both smashboards and people at these tournies. I'm still convinced that those in favor of this rule-set is lopsided in favor of the top players.

 

[Kal]

Strife, I didn't see anyone suggesting that the minority are the people who prefer this ruleset.

 

[Beat!]

At this rate, we might as well play on Battlefield and FD exclusively.

That would be a pretty decent stage list actually.

 

[Niko45]

When I refer to fairness, I do not mean character balance. That is not something I feel you should be aimed at fixing when you create a ruleset, for the metagame is constantly changing. Banning in an attempt to balance would involve a different methodology for each period of character dominance. Moreover, there are far too many different possible rulesets to possibly know (in theory or in practice) which one creates a most balanced game (even if you have properly defined what it means to be "more balanced").

When I refer to fairness, I mean in the following sense:

It is unfair for a tournament organizer to force his attendants to play according to his subjective preferences.

No you're completely subject to what the TO lays out as rules. People can just not attend if they don't approve and then that TO can either adjust or no longer be a TO.

The last ruleset was just as subjective as this one. There was no major democratic vote on the P4 ruleset which slashed a ton of stages and attendance boomed so your theory that cutting stages = reducing interest/attendance is a complete farce.

You are arguing subjectivity with subjectivity so I don't really know what you're actually getting at, if anything. Do you want all stages on?

 

[Kal]

You clearly don't bother to read my posts (or simply lack the 8th grade reading comprehension skills to do so), since I never made any claims about cutting stages reducing interest (it would be the opposite, since new players tend to be scrubbier). You spout some nonsense about being subject to the TO's rules, as though I have said otherwise, and conclude with a loaded question asking whether I want all stages on.

Just go through, print my posts out in a large font, and read through them slowly. Underline any words you don't understand and look them up. Maybe ask your folks for help.

 

[Beat!]

There's not (necessarily) anything "scrubby" about wanting less stages. That was uncalled for.

 

[Jim Morrison]

Counter Picks that should be available in Singles:

• Rainbow Cruise - A good stage for spacies, allows them to use their mobility to escape.
• Jungle Japes - Falco is ridicilous here, good luck catching him
• DK 64 Haven't really seen anyone do it, but Fox is really adept at circle camping here, another advantageous stage
• Corneria - Killing off top at 30% I dunno
• Brinstar - Good against spacies
• Poke Floats? - Dunno

Obvious bans are obvious vs certain characters.

Most of the argument for more stages consists of the fact that spacies are too strong in this ruleset, not being able to be counterpicked. Notice how in these stages, spacies get a buttload of advantages.

 

[Niko45]

So both new players and top players tend to want less stages.

HMMMMMM

 

[Ripple]

I see that the melee higher ups want to follow the brawl way and ruin the game.

 

[Mike G]

I see that the melee higher ups want to follow the brawl way and ruin the game.

Not at all. MetaKnight was banned years ago from melee and we're still doing fine.

 

[KishPrime]

So both new players and top players tend to want less stages.

HMMMMMM

This is just another example of someone obsessed with turning this into a right/wrong decision (and being right himself) in a situation where there is no such thing as a right answer.

Nevertheless, that can be explained very easily. Why do new players enter a ten-year-old game? They're coming in because they see videos or meet top players who technically execute at a high level and, for them, that's all they know of the game - technical execution and speed. They didn't naturally evolve through the game's development - they're only seeing the endpoint. Meanwhile, most players who are extremely skilled at technical execution are going to naturally resist anything that expands the game beyond technical execution to things like tactics and stage control and interaction.

It doesn't change the fact that a natural part of Melee is stage interaction, control and tactics.

Still, play how you want. You all just sound foolish when you try to make this a right/wrong issue.

 

[Strong Badam]

yeah because stage control isn't important on every single stage anyway.

 

[Wake]

Jungle Japes? hahahaha guess I better start practicing on that stage

 

[Niko45]

No it isnt about right and wrong it's about what the community wants overall.

I'm not saying it's a proven fact that this is what the community wants but when you go over excuses for why this and that type of player want the ruleset it really starts to look like a lot of people want the ruleset.

Of course some people don't want it but some people were very against the P4 ruleset but it has stood the test of time.

My genuine feeling from playing lots of different people at various tournaments and fests is that this is the direction an overwhelming amount of people in the community want to move in. If I get the impression that that isn't the case (and 3 or 4 people, most of which are not even known to be active tournament attenders, writing infinite text walls isn't going to do it) then I would be very against the change.

 

[JPOBS]

Whether I go to nationals doesn't have much bearing on whether I'm right. Instead of prefacing your statement with one of a desire not to make ad hominems, it may be better to just say "with all due respect."

You can say whatever you want if you say "with all due respect." It's in the Geneva Conventions, look it up.

I think you missed his point.

People who actually attend tournaments, don't want to go to a tournament and lose an important sets because the lava hit them through the main land platform on brainstar and then they got 0 to death'd.

You on the other hand, who presumably don't attend tournaments (im guessing?) seem to care more about "fairness" and how the ruleset was created, rather than what the ruleset actually contains (cuz honestly, you've only argued that we should be doing X instead of Y to make rulesets. I don't think you've argued the ruleset itself at all)
Honestly I don't even mean to make this sound insulting, its just the fact that tourny going players care way more about the actual content of the ruleset because it affects them on a practical level. I would venture a guess that they don't particularly care about be "fair" or "objective" if it means including notoriously bad stages just for the sake of it.

So...ya. He said people who make these rulesets go to tournaments and they actually CARE. Others just like to argue and be mini-sirlins. And don't get me wrong, I love sirlin.

When I refer to fairness, I mean in the following sense:

It is unfair for a tournament organizer to force his attendants to play according to his subjective preferences.

Lol what? a TO can do whatever the f*** he wants. Whether people like it or not will be indicated by tournament attendence.

 

[Kal]

There's not (necessarily) anything "scrubby" about wanting less stages. That was uncalled for.

When your justification is **** like "it's what the majority wants" and "that's not how I want to play the game," then yes, there is necessarily something scrubby about wanting fewer stages.

People who actually attend tournaments, don't want to go to a tournament and lose an important sets because the lava hit them through the main land platform on brainstar and then they got 0 to death'd.

You on the other hand, who presumably don't attend tournaments (im guessing?) seem to care more about "fairness" and how the ruleset was created, rather than what the ruleset actually contains (cuz honestly, you've only argued that we should be doing X instead of Y to make rulesets. I don't think you've argued the ruleset itself at all)
Honestly I don't even mean to make this sound insulting, its just the fact that tourny going players care way more about the actual content of the ruleset because it affects them on a practical level. I would venture a guess that they don't particularly care about be "fair" or "objective" if it means including notoriously bad stages just for the sake of it.

First, don't be a presumptuous ***. Whether I go to tournaments isn't relevant, but I'm the biggest TO in Austin, if not my entire state, and I regularly host tournaments (bi-weekly at least).

Second, if you'd read through the entire thread (but you'd have to actually read to do that), you'd see why I constantly argue the methodology we are using to decide on the ruleset, instead of the ruleset itself: arguing against the ruleset is pointless, because fundamentally everything will boil down to an ideological disagreement. When I explain why I think Brinstar is a legitimate stage, Cactuar will, with absolute certainty, respond with something along the lines of "but that stage isn't player vs. player." In this case, arguing the actual ruleset would be a fruitless endeavor; nothing I say can convince anyone of anything, because our ideologies on what should go into making the ruleset are too different.

Finally, the point I've made, time and time again, is that it doesn't matter what the majority wants. If the majority didn't want to lose to Peach because she's "janky," would you be in favor of a Peach ban?

If so, then there isn't much we can discuss. You're ok with unfair bull **** as long as the majority wants it.

If not, then you can concede that majority agreement alone is not sufficient reason to ban anything.

So...ya. He said people who make these rulesets go to tournaments and they actually CARE. Others just like to argue and be mini-sirlins. And don't get me wrong, I love sirlin.

Basically, your entire point so far has been "you don't go to tournaments (I think), so **** your opinion."

If you're going to address the actual content of my posts, then great. There's no point in pointless meta-questions about what motivates my point of view.

Lol what? a TO can do whatever the f*** he wants. Whether people like it or not will be indicated by tournament attendence.

Have I said otherwise? That a TO is capable of doing it is not something I've spoken against, instead only addressing the fairness of his actions.

But reading comprehension seems to be but a faint glow in your head, sparking only to give you a general direction of where to go.

 

[Roneblaster]

Lol jpobs i blocked kal, stop quoting him.

That part about TOs forcing his attendants to do stuff was ****ing hilarious though.

 

[BigD!!!]

jpobs, the mbr made a new ruleset because theres no other reason for them to exist, what else would they talk about in there? the whole neutral start thing demonstrates to me that theyve simply run out of **** to discuss

strongbad was wrong about the nationals thing, almost every national ive ever been to (more than you strongbad) had some sort of surprising departure from the rules in common use at most tournaments. some examples, as far back as i can remember:

fcd took battlefield off random
i believe pound 3 banned mute and brought back onett out of nowhere, not 100% sure on onett though that might have been pound 2
genesis had dk64 as part of the stage strike

so yeah, nobody was practicing for that stuff at locals before those tournaments

also, i dont understand this idea of people deciding whether or not to attend tournaments based on the rules. maybe thats true for people traveling far, but my experience over the past 4 years or so has been going to every tournament hosted within several hours driving distance. i dont think people are jumping on the boards, looking at the 2 locals hosted near them on the same day, and choosing the one with the rules they like more. the problem with this is that when people only really have one choice of tournaments to go to, the TO cant do whatever he wants because people will ***** and whine about the rules. trust me, ive done it, and im not proud of it, kishprime probably remembers

 

[kevo]

I just took the time to read the latter half of this thread and it is so goddamn sad. I hate arguments like this because they ultimately disintegrate into vitriol. Who cares how the stagelist came to be? From my understanding, the community these last 10 years have just tried everything and the existing stages now were arbitrarily determined to work. Sure there's reasoning and explanations, but that's just a statement after the fact. Like it or not, the modern list of 8-10 legal or quasi-legal stages is an artifact of trial-and-error. Sure it's not the most elegant way of crafting a stagelist, but 10 years of trial-and-error trumps ten thousand walls of text any day. Melee's founding fathers did not gather in Constitution Hall to draft a ruleset that defines the metagame today. It is purely a codification of what everyone already knows. Are the edges sharp? Absolutely. There are always people who absolutely insist that something should or should not be allowed. Changes in the metagame will absolutely necessitate changes in the rules (see: Corneria). The rules are a rough-cut average of what most everyone can marginally agree on. It's not sexy, it's not perfect, but it's the best we will ever get.

 

[Alex Strife]

Well Apex will have Brin / RC banned and from my perspective Genesis ruleset was fine.

I do not think Japes being on is a good idea. I guess, as a whole, the MBR thought it was good for doubles.


I would not mind KJ64 as a counter-pick in singles though so once Apex Staff talk about it we will announce it.


For those who like these stages...play on them nothing wrong with it.

Just enjoy what you enjoy but Apex needs to be conservative cause I believe it will help us out overall.

 

[JPOBS]

Second, if you'd read through the entire thread (but you'd have to actually read to do that), you'd see why I constantly argue the methodology we are using to decide on the ruleset, instead of the ruleset itself: arguing against the ruleset is pointless, because fundamentally everything will boil down to an ideological disagreement. When I explain why I think Brinstar is a legitimate stage, Cactuar will, with absolute certainty, respond with something along the lines of "but that stage isn't player vs. player." In this case, arguing the actual ruleset would be a fruitless endeavor; nothing I say can convince anyone of anything, because our ideologies on what should go into making the ruleset are too different.

Well then I suppose we have nothing to discuss. If you believe it to be a fruitless endeavor to try to argue the actual content of the ruleset, then don't post in the thread. this thread is specifically for suggesting possible readjustments to the ruleset as presented. Furthermore, it really IS only a "recommended" ruleset. You can host your "fair" tournaments all you want, no one will hate you for it. As others have already pointed out, at pound 4, Plank pretty much said "f*** it" to the recommended ruleset, and hosted a tournament that he wanted to host. It was an overwhelming success.

However, the point of this thread is to discuss amendments to the ruleset. If you have ideological problems with how it was constructed, then thats entirely different. Make another if you want to talk about that. (which clearly you do)

Finally, the point I've made, time and time again, is that it doesn't matter what the majority wants. If the majority didn't want to lose to Peach because she's "janky," would you be in favor of a Peach ban?

If so, then there isn't much we can discuss. You're ok with unfair bull **** as long as the majority wants it.

No I wouldn't support a Peach ban. Its not some all or nothing thing where I have to always agree with the majority. On this instance, I just happen to reside in the camp that believes that less stage influence on the match is better. Sue me.

If not, then you can concede that majority agreement alone is not sufficient reason to ban anything.

I agree.

But as I said above, its not like the supporters of the ruleset are banning things for s***s and giggles. We genuinely believe (which you apparently disagree with but REFUSE to post an argument towards) that the effect those stages have on tournament play are significant enough that we no longer want to unnecessarily have to put up with them. You seem think otherwise, but just refuse to try to argue why they should be brought back because you see futility in it. *shrug*

Basically, your entire point so far has been "you don't go to tournaments (I think), so **** your opinion."

If you're going to address the actual content of my posts, then great. There's no point in pointless meta-questions about what motivates my point of view.

I apologize for assuming you dont attend tournies, that was wrong of me, but my larger point is actually "either post an argument about why banned stages should be brought back because they favor competitive play, or stfu. No one in this particular thread cares about your ideologies on fairness because thats not even the point of the thread at all, so **** your opinion."

Have I said otherwise? That a TO is capable of doing it is not something I've spoken against, instead only addressing the fairness of his actions.

But reading comprehension seems to be but a faint glow in your head, sparking only to give you a general direction of where to go.

Cool.