Legality Tentative: MBR Official Ruleset for 2012

[Fortress | Sveet]

Hi im drunk

You guys are all silly

stages should be banned

we should play on the fairest stages

CPs just make game 1 decide the set

if all the games are played on neutrals the best player wins

BF yoshis and DL are the coolest stages, but PS FoD and FD are pretty aiight in my book too

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Oh yeah and fox for lyfe *****es

 

[Kal]

Seriously, do you refuse to understand when I explain why I'm arguing the ideology here, or are you just not able to understand?

I'm not stating my opinions in spite of their irrelevance; I'm stating them because they form the only avenue for debate. What you've been asking me to do is argue that these stages are legit within Cactuar's standards.

Well, that's not possible, because his standards are already set up to ban said stages. What do you want me to do? My only option is to explain why it's wrong to ban things on majority opinion and subjective preference, because there is absolutely no way to convince the MBR otherwise.

You want me to explain why I like Brinstar? Here's why:

1) It's not broken
2) The randomness on this stage is something you can account for by positioning yourself better
3) Said randomness encourages strategies which utilize stage control
4) It's not broken

But the point (I'm annoyed I have to explain this to you, as though it's not evident from the fact that I've reiterated it so many times) is that the immediate response of Cactuar, and probably all of the MBR, will be "yeah, but those stages emphasize player vs. player vs. stage."

Do you see why I have no choice but to argue ideologies? There is nothing else to argue. It is absolutely impossible to explain why these stages should be legal when the criteria going into the decision-making process are hand-picked so as to ban these stages.

 

[JPOBS]

Cool, that was your best post yet, now we're getting somewhere (maybe)

 

[Kal]

I've explained this already.

You ask us to prove to you that stages are legitimate and not worth banning, but you want us to do it according to your standards, which are already defined in such a way as to ensure that these stages are banned. It's absurd.

I'm glad it took you an extra 220 posts to realize that I've said this.

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

CPs just make game 1 decide the set

bo3s and the counterpick system make game 1 decide the set, not the stages themselves.

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.

I go to tournaments. Fly Amanita goes to tournaments. Wobbles goes to tournaments. Vanz goes to tournaments. We all don't like this ruleset, and other than Vanz, all of us would greatly benefit from these changes (I lost game 3 on Brinstar TODAY, in a set I think I would have otherwise won). Stop making generalizations that aren't true. There are more than 3 or 4 people who don't like this ruleset, and yes, they do go to tournaments. Why are you just making **** up to make your point seem stronger when its obviously not the case dude.

And don't take what you hear as tournament too literally. Sometimes its hard to tell a person's true opinions. I john with the best of them when it comes to Brinstar, Cruise, etc. I'm the guy you hear in the back in the PP/M2K game 5 moaning about how counterpicking Cruise taints the set. The thing is, I was completely sincere in saying that, because I think that the way things are now, I'd rather have the CPs off too, just like you Niko. What I want fixed is the counterpick system; I think removing stages just avoids the bigger problem, and needlessly bans things that are only imbalanced because of the system we have in place.

So in summary, bo5s, make mechanisms to lower the power of counterpicks, and have a more liberal stagelist. I'd have no problems with the jank stages if they didn't have so much power in determining the outcome of the set.

 

[Bones0]

PP vs. M2K was a best of 5, Crimson.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but as bad as bo3 is at putting weight on the first game, jank cps are just as detrimental.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

bo3s and the counterpick system make game 1 decide the set, not the stages themselves.

ur stupid

instant win stages (or to extreme literalists "stages that give really good favor to a character") make bo3 equivelent to bo1 since whoever wins game 1 CPs game 3 for an ez win

if its all neutrals, the best player wins since theres very little bias between the stages. the difference between BF and YS is nowhere near the difference between any neutral (including PS) and any previous CP (cruise, brinstar, ect)

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

PP vs. M2K was a best of 5, Crimson.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but as bad as bo3 is at putting weight on the first game, jank cps are just as detrimental.

bo5s don't fix all problems. The inherent nature of the CP system makes it so that the most imbalanced stages have the most effect on the outcome.

So we should stop using the CP system rather than whittling down our stagelist even more.

 

[Bones0]

Nvm, I reread your post and actually was misunderstanding you (clearly evident by the fact you mentioned PP/M2K went to game 5; *facepalm*).

As far as reducing stage list, I don't see what it really has to do with the cp system. If you know of a better way of choosing stages you should just throw it out there, but no matter how good a system we have, jank stages are going to negatively affect competition any time they are used, and at the very least they will negatively affect the stage selection process by doing dumb things such as forcing bans/strikes.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

bo5s don't fix all problems. The inherent nature of the CP system makes it so that the most imbalanced stages have the most effect on the outcome.

So we should stop using the CP system rather than whittling down our stagelist even more.

hence why we banned all the ****ty stages and in Bo5s we use every stage

 

[Prince_Abu]

yo flat zone *****

 

[ShroudedOne]

I understand a lot of what you're saying, Kal, but you don't need to resort to ad hominem (I like that word). Maybe Jpobs hasn't been reading the entire thread. It does get annoying explaining things repeatedly, but not everyone is going to read every post.

 

[JPOBS]

I've explained this already.



I'm glad it took you an extra 220 posts to realize that I've said this.

I meant in reference to atleast giving reasons on why brinstar shouldn't be banned.

I still dont care about you're qualms with the ideology of the ruleset.

I understand a lot of what you're saying, Kal, but you don't need to resort to ad hominem (I like that word). Maybe Jpobs hasn't been reading the entire thread. It does get annoying explaining things repeatedly, but not everyone is going to read every post.

I've read the entire thread.
I don't care if he finds it annoying he has to repeat why he refuses to give an argument for the ruleset itself. I find it equally annoying that he spams the thread with ideological bull**** about wanting to change how the system works.

I'd rather hear about why mutecty and brinstar shouldnt be banned because they are worthwhile stages, instead of hearing about "unfairness" and paraphrased sirlin ideologies.

 

[Roneblaster]

Kal is VBM on a different topic.

 

[Kal]

You still don't address the fact that ideology is the only thing I can discuss here. I've explained, over and over again, why I have no choice but to discuss the methodology of creating the ruleset, and you incessantly repeat that I should instead just explain why these stages are worthwhile.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Kal, this ruleset is made by players for players. JPOBS is right, give reasons why those stages shouldn't be banned.

 

[Kal]

Sveet, this ruleset is made by a group of players telling the minority that we have to play how they want. I'm right, give reasons who those stages should be banned.

Regardless, I'm done. This is going nowhere. Once I provide reasons for why these stages shouldn't be banned, JPOBS, or Cactuar, or anyone else from the large majority who doesn't want to play on these stages, will just respond "but these stages emphasize player vs. stage." And there's nothing which can be done, because apparently discussing the methodology which goes into creating a ruleset is not ok here.

 

[Jim Morrison]

give reasons why those stages shouldn't be banned.

I'm right, give reasons who those stages should be banned.

Are you two serious?

 

[Niko45]

Regardless, I'm done. This is going nowhere. Once I provide reasons for why these stages shouldn't be banned, JPOBS, or Cactuar, or anyone else from the large majority who doesn't want to play on these stages, will just respond "but these stages emphasize player vs. stage." And there's nothing which can be done, because apparently discussing the methodology which goes into creating a ruleset is not ok here.

ok kool.

so anyway great ruleset

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Sveet, this ruleset is made by a group of players telling the minority that we have to play how they want. I'm right, give reasons who those stages should be banned.

Regardless, I'm done. This is going nowhere. Once I provide reasons for why these stages shouldn't be banned, JPOBS, or Cactuar, or anyone else from the large majority who doesn't want to play on these stages, will just respond "but these stages emphasize player vs. stage." And there's nothing which can be done, because apparently discussing the methodology which goes into creating a ruleset is not ok here.

Kal do you play this game? I ask this as a serious question not an ad hominem. If you don't play, how can you actually judge the stages? When some of the most experienced players in the world say unanimously, "hey these stages aren't fair," do you think they say that just to stick it to everyone else? I mean that seems to be what you are implying, that we made this ruleset with some evil intentions in mind. That somehow we didn't think about every player from local to national.

Also, this is not a mandatory ruleset. This isn't the unity ruleset where if you don't use it we will push you out of the community. This will be only the second official MBR recommended ruleset in the history of the game. Before pound 4, everyone just used whatever ruleset, usually the ruleset of the largest tournament of the time. When MLG was around, it was the MLG ruleset. When MLG was gone, we used the rules for RoM and Genesis. Then Pound 4 happened with stage striking and less of the gay stages and the turnout was INSANE.

As a very experimental TO myself, I used to think that stages didn't matter. I hosted a tournament last fall with Mute City, Corneria and Pokefloats legal. I gave every player 2 bans since I thought that would balance it out. And then I saw Tom R vs Cosmo. Cosmo, an amazing zelda player, was just off a 2nd place showing to M2K at SCSYN3 beating Kels along with others. But stages do have an effect. I watch cosmo play brilliantly, but Mute City gave every possible advantage to Tom's Falcon. There was no edge to guard or UpB to. The moving stage has no platforms to move on or space with. The stage is simply horrible. Tom beat Cosmo there and I knew then how wrong I was about the stages.

This post has gone on quite long enough, I have things to get back to. Kal, if you want to continue this discussion by all means please do. But when you do, please try to discuss rationally.

 

[ShroudedOne]

I must say, it IS a little frustrating to read to people argue different things, and then wonder why the other doesn't see his point. No offense to either of you, but you are arguing different things.

=====

Separate from that, I think that I can accept the stage bans, insofar as I can see a good argument for each (RC, Brinstar, KJ64).

This point has been repeated millions of times, but no matter how much skill you have as Peach, competing with a Fox on RC is going to be almost impossibly more difficult than competing with him on Battlefield, and in the urge to keep results consistent, it seems like the best thing to do would be to get rid of variables that would skew results.

If player A is some margin more skilled than player B (if skill in terms of the game can be defined as having the ability/tech skill to execute your intentions consistently, react accordingly to your opponent, etc.), and yet, a stage like Brinstar or RC can skew the results so that player B always beats player A, assuming equal knowledge of the stage (even if player A knows RC just like player B, if player B uses Fox and player A uses ICs or Peach, player B can almost be guaranteed the match), then the stage should be banned. You want the person with more skill to win. That is what competition means.

I guess those can come down to character johns, if you wanted to pose that argument. But as Cactuar/Strong Bad have stated, the MBR isn't concerned with character balancing.

tl;dr: Basically everything that's already been said...

 

[Kal]

No Sveet, I don't play this game. My friend pointed me to this forum and I thought I'd provide my input.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Ah makes sense why I've never heard of you. Do you play brawl?

 

[Kal]

No, I don't play video games.

 

[Max?]

I like this ruleset. Someone should do a poll to get an idea of what the general community standpoint is on it.

 

[Kal]

Max, my guess is that most of the community (I would guess 85% or more) is strongly in favor of the this ruleset.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Max, my guess is that most of the community (I would guess 85% or more) is strongly in favor of the this ruleset.

I c wut u did thar! Community parallels!

Smooth Criminal

 

[JPOBS]

My favorite thing about this ruleset is how TOs who don't like will not be allowed to have their tournies stickied. Besides, we wouldn't want anyone hosting tournes that didn't comply with the MBR recommended rulesets.

suck to your ***-mar.

 

[Kal]

I c wut u did thar! Community parallels!

Smooth Criminal

Haha, I wasn't thinking about that. I just figure the number of players who appreciate that you shouldn't ban things on personal preference alone is fairly small and, since most people don't like the "janky" stages, most players would be in favor of the ruleset.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Kal, do you honestly think we banned stages based on personal preference?

Do you honestly think the MBR is a group of X (character) players who wants to impose a ruleset that favors us?

Do you honestly think the MBR hasn't discussed how stages effect match-ups?

Do you honestly think you know the game better than the players in the MBR?


Please answer these, they are simple yes/no

 

[Jim Morrison]

suck to your ***-mar.

I see what you did there

 

[Kal]

Kal, do you honestly think we banned stages based on personal preference?

Yes.

Do you honestly think the MBR is a group of X (character) players who wants to impose a ruleset that favors us?

Do you honestly think the MBR hasn't discussed how stages effect match-ups?

I didn't make any claims along these lines. You ask me to discuss things rationally, then you make strawman arguments. Luckily, there's really no need for discussion: read through the entire thread and you'll see why I believe the MBR is banning things without sufficient reason, and you'll see that I do a fine job of justifying said belief.

I don't mind when people have differing opinions on what stages should be banned (and in fact I would have no problem banning some of these stages if good arguments were put forward). For example, KirbyKaze has made a post about why Pokéfloats should be banned and, while I don't necessarily agree, I'm pleased to see that it's not simply an appeal to poorly defined notions of "player vs. player vs. stage." See here. The argument is actually pretty convincing, and it has, at the very least, caused me to reconsider the stage.

On the other hand, what we're being given on the whole from the MBR is basically "we don't want randomness or jank." Well, those preferences are subjective: randomness which is small or which can be sufficiently accounted for has minimal effect on the short term, and all randomness, regardless of form, has no effect on the long term.

Do you honestly think you know the game better than the players in the MBR?

I haven't made any claims in this regard, either. It's not really relevant that most (if not all) of the players in the MBR are more knowledgeable about smash than I am. I do enjoy these appeals to authority. My favorite line from you so far has been:

"I don't mean to ad hominem, but [ad hominem] and [appeal to authority]."

 

[JPOBS]

On the other hand, what we're being given on the whole from the MBR is basically "we don't want randomness or jank." Well, those preferences are subjective

what makes preferring less randomness more subjective (and thus preumably a bad thing) than being ok with more randomess?

which can be sufficiently accounted for has minimal effect on the short term, and all randomness, regardless of form, has no effect on the long term.

except, you know, consistency of results.

edit: actually, i already see where this is going to go. You're going to argue something along of the lines of leaving as much intact with the game as possible (which isn't truely broken) because thats the most "objective" way to play. Then I'm going to suggest something along the lines of how, by that logic, we should just play with Items On and 2 minutes timer. Then you might suggest that doing so would be ridiculous, but there is some arbitrary margin along which we have to straddle and you currently feel we are below that line, and the argument will boil down to a difference in where exactly to draw the line, even though your opinions are probably going to be just as subjective as mine. Repeat ad infinum.

 

[Kal]

what makes preferring less randomness more subjective (and thus preumably a bad thing) than being ok with more randomess?

It's not about less randomness vs. more randomness. It's about not limiting my options as a player. If I want to use Brinstar, you shouldn't tell me "no, that stage has random elements."

There is a second problem, this time in terms of consistency: when you decide that Peach's down-B should not be banned, despite it being random, you acknowledge, at the very least, that not all randomness should be banned strictly because it is random. KishPrime invented a consistent methodology around this, what he calls the "Peach's Turnip Threshold." The MBR seems to just avoid this issue altogether.

except, you know, consistency of results.

If you don't understand the math, don't bother responding. It's a waste of my time.

edit: actually, i already see where this is going to go. You're going to argue something along of the lines of leaving as much intact with the game as possible (which isn't truely broken) because thats the most "objective" way to play. Then I'm going to suggest something along the lines of how, by that logic, we should just play with Items On and 2 minutes timer. Then you might suggest that doing so would be ridiculous, but there is some arbitrary margin along which we have to straddle and you currently feel we are below that line, and the argument will boil down to a difference in where exactly to draw the line, even though your opinions are probably going to be just as subjective as mine. Repeat ad infinum.

It might be best if you just make an account called "Kal 2.0" and just present these arguments with it. That way you can avoid trying to accurately predict which arguments I'll make and just make them for me.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

appeal to authority is only a fallacy when you appeal to an authority that isnt qualified. Like asking lebron what the best cure for a cold is, hes not qualified. If you ask your doctor though, he is qualified and his opinion should be taken with weight. Is there a false thinking in asking the best players and TOs around about details of the game that they have learned over years dedicated to the game? I dont think so...

As for the middle two questions, they are very relevant. There is no strawman there; a strawman is when i put words in your mouth, I am simply asking you questions. You keep implying that the people who agree with this list (and therefor the people who created and voted on this list) are biased and haven't put enough thought into it. I am simply asking for clarification on your stance.

Haha, I wasn't thinking about that. I just figure the number of players who appreciate that you shouldn't ban things on personal preference alone is fairly small and, since most people don't like the "janky" stages, most players would be in favor of the ruleset.

Regardless, I'm done. This is going nowhere. Once I provide reasons for why these stages shouldn't be banned, JPOBS, or Cactuar, or anyone else from the large majority who doesn't want to play on these stages, will just respond "but these stages emphasize player vs. stage." And there's nothing which can be done, because apparently discussing the methodology which goes into creating a ruleset is not ok here.

Do you see why I have no choice but to argue ideologies? There is nothing else to argue. It is absolutely impossible to explain why these stages should be legal when the criteria going into the decision-making process are hand-picked so as to ban these stages.

 

[JPOBS]

kal you didn't answer my question. all along you've been saying how subjectivity is bad in determining what stages to play on. I asked what makes choosing less randomness as a criteria for legality, more subjective than being ok with, or prefering, more randomness.

I would like to hear your stance on this.

it isn't inherently about less vs more randomness. but it is about subjectivity. (apparently)

 

[Kal]

appeal to authority is only a fallacy when you appeal to an authority that isnt qualified. Like asking lebron what the best cure for a cold is, hes not qualified. If you ask your doctor though, he is qualified and his opinion should be taken with weight. Is there a false thinking in asking the best players and TOs around about details of the game that they have learned over years dedicated to the game? I dont think so...

No, an appeal to authority is when you make a statement out to be true only because an authority has said it. There's nothing wrong with taking an authority's opinion, even assuming it to be true. But when a debate is being had on whether a stage should be banned, responding with "the best players all agree that it should be banned" is nothing more than an appeal to authority.

As for the middle two questions, they are very relevant. There is no strawman there; a strawman is when i put words in your mouth, I am simply asking you questions.

When your questions are prefaced with "do you honestly think," then yes, you are putting words in my mouth.

You keep implying that the people who agree with this list (and therefor the people who created and voted on this list) are biased and haven't put enough thought into it. I am simply asking for clarification on your stance.

If you would just read through entire thread, you'd see where I stand on this issue. I'll summarize again, just because you're so sveet.

When something is to be banned, it should be done so for some objective reasons. A set of criteria should be made to discuss what should and should not be banned. When you ban things because they are "random," without having provided any well-defined criteria, you are essentially allowing anything to banned for virtually any reason.

To clarify, I think there is nothing inherently wrong with randomness. Regardless of what I think, it's been made clear (by not banning Peach's down-B) that not all randomness is inherently worth banning. So then randomness needs to be addressed directly in some way.

More importantly, we see a tendency to ban things which create a "player vs. stage" atmosphere. I'll pretend that this notion is well-defined (and, if you like, I can explain again why I think it's not). This is a subjective preference; the stage adds things to the game's depth. When you ban them just because you personally think there should be no "player vs. stage" element, then I have a problem, because you're basically telling the minority who disagrees with you that they have to play according to your subjective preferences. This would be no different than banning things which discourage camping, or which discourage edge guarding, or which discourage aggression.

In essence, I'm not against banning things which are "too random." I like KishPrime's "Turnip Threshold" concept because it is consistent with an attempt to limit randomness without creating a contrived methodology for not banning Peach or her down-B. The point is that there needs to be a methodology for it.

However, the impression I've received so far is that these stages are not banned for randomness (you could, for example, argue that Icicle Mountain is "too random"). Instead, they are being banned for encouraging some sort of "player vs. stage" aspect. And I think that's bull ****.

kal you didn't answer my question. all along you've been saying how subjectivity is bad in determining what stages to play on. I asked what makes choosing less randomness as a criteria for legality, more subjective than being ok with, or prefering, more randomness.

It's not a preference for one or the other. My argument is that not banning things is the default stance. It's not as though I'm saying "I want more randomness." Far from that, I actually prefer as little randomness as possible in fighting games. But that's just a personal preference.

So we just leave things as they are until given sufficient reason for a rule change (i.e., a ban). Again, it's not a preference for more randomness over less randomness. It's simply a refusal to ban things on subjective preference alone.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

Taj's Better Rule.[COLLAPSE="Taj's Better Rule"]A player may ban ONE neutral or ALL counterpick stages.[/COLLAPSE]Give people more options. Bring back the CP's and institute Taj's Better Rule. The people who want CP stages can have them IF their opponents, by not banning ALL of them, semi-agree to them. If the neutrals are truly pretty neutral, this shouldn't make a difference overall. If some of the neutrals arbitrarily skew results, then by the criteria put forth in this thread, move them to CP or ban them. Maybe we can extend DSRM to include something like,[COLLAPSE="Modified Modified Dave's Stupid Rule"]A player may not return to the last neutral stage they won on, OR return to ANY counterpick stage if they previously won on a counterpick stage.[/COLLAPSE]tl;dr If two players are ok with CP's, even if they can't 100% "Gentleman's Clause" agree on a specific one, they should be allowed to play on them. If even one of them is not ok with CP's, let that player ban ALL of them. Also, bo5's rock. Also,[COLLAPSE="Taj's Better Rule"]A player may ban ONE neutral or ALL counterpick stages.[/COLLAPSE][COLLAPSE="Modified Modified Dave's Stupid Rule"]A player may not return to the last neutral stage they won on, OR return to ANY counterpick stage if they previously won on a counterpick stage.[/COLLAPSE]

 

[Kal]

Ferrish, those rules are interesting. They seem a bit contrived, but they may still be worthwhile rules. I'm not terribly fond of the first one, though.