Legality Tentative: MBR Official Ruleset for 2012

[FerrishTheFish]

I didn't really like Collette :/ Sheena and Raine were cooler!

I dunno, Sheena was really weak ... Raine was an absolute BEAST, though. Come to think of it, Colette was pretty beastly too.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

by secondaries you mean more sheik right?

 

[0Room]

So one thing I wanted to ask that almost no one really thinks about is

Why is FoD neutral?
It is a rather random stage for something that's considered neutral
If we're moving away from random stages that bias things

Shouldn't that be at least moved to CP?

Or maybe I just don't understand the criteria for neutral/cp
I was just putting the idea out there
I don't necessarily want it removed [well.......sorta] but I just wanted people to think about that in particular
And get back t me on that

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Well something would either have to be removed or added to maintain the odd numbers in the strike list. My tournament ruleset had YS, BF and DL for neutrals, which worked well.


edit- otherwise PS would have to go on the list instead of FoD

 

[Cactuar]

YS, BF, and DL for starting neutrals works.

BF, FD, and DL (which was suggested earlier in the thread) does not.

 

[Bones0]

I made a post a while ago as to why it doesn't make sense to have stages legal, but not in the stage striking process (the exception being PS, only because we have an even # of stages). As long as there are still people striking to FoD, it doesn't make sense to remove it from the stage strike. It seems like most people who don't like FoD, to be blunt, are just bad at not getting ****ed up by the platforms.

 

[ShroudedOne]

That picture of Collette breaks my heart, too.

It makes me want to apologize over and over again for stupid ****.

Smooth Criminal

She IS really pretty. I can't help but have her as my avatar for all time. I like that she touches hearts.

I didn't really like Collette :/ Sheena and Raine were cooler!

......Fine. Raine was really awesome, anyways. And Sheena was...okay.

I made a post a while ago as to why it doesn't make sense to have stages legal, but not in the stage striking process (the exception being PS, only because we have an even # of stages). As long as there are still people striking to FoD, it doesn't make sense to remove it from the stage strike. It seems like most people who don't like FoD, to be blunt, are just bad at not getting ****ed up by the platforms.

I don't want to act as if it has to do with character bias or anything...but 0Room IS a Falcon main.

 

[JPOBS]

ITT: falcon mains complaining about FoD

 

[Metal Reeper]

ITT: falcon mains complaining about FoD

Reminds me of Scar's thread. bleh.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Reminds me of any conversation with falcon players...

 

[Wake]

Oh don't worry SillyOne. It's different when she's your profile picture

 

[Llumys]

"I also hate Falco. Hey Kal, let's start a committee to get him banned so we can do better in tournament."

Sigged.

 

[Divinokage]

Hating something just means there's no more room to grow and learn the stage. Such fail lol, yes the disavantage doesn't change but at least you can work the stage the best you can. Freaking Falcons.

 

[ShroudedOne]

Can I defend Falcon mains by saying that I main Peach, and I HATE FoD?

Cause I do. It's really dumb.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

I truly fail to grasp why it's totally ok for non-Falcon mains to hate and want to ban certain stages, but cowardly and selfish for Falcon mains to hate and want to ban certain stages.

[COLLAPSE="Corrected for Truth"]ITT: double-standards[/COLLAPSE]

 

[Beat!]

Yeah, I've been agreeing with the anti-stage interaction side for the most part, but this sudden bashing of Falcon mains when it comes to FoD almost comes off as hypocritical.

(not saying that some Falcon mains don't complain too much, because they do, but in this case 0room brought up a legitimate point)

 

[ShroudedOne]

I'm not bashing them. I honestly hate that stage.

But yeah, I get what you mean. 0Room brought up a very good point, and I was just joking about the Falcon thing. It's just that, of all the stage complaints, the most vehement seems to be about Falcons from FoD.

 

[Cactuar]

Yeah, bashing Falcon players because they are by far the whiniest group of players is mean and I won't have that kind of behavior in this super serious thread discussing super serious topics. Its the internet. Lighten up.



Also, I've been away from the thread due to work and Ryoko making me play Project M. Did I miss anything important/needing a response? It seems like Bones has been doing a great job so far.

 

[Beat!]

I don't care about whether it's mean or not, nor do I care about where the complaints are coming from. All I'm saying is if someone brings up that maybe FoD too should get banned/become a CP, since it forces a little stage interaction as well, then idk if "lol learn the stage u whiner" is the most proper and logically consistent response available.

Personally, I could definitely see an argument being made for both banning and keeping FoD.

 

[0Room]

Well 3 things that are applicable to this situation:
1) I was trying to keep a character out of it, because the character's influence on the stage is important but not the focus of the question. The question was about the rules governing legitimacy to which has not been answered yet.

2) On an unrelated note, one thing I worry about is the future of tournament play, as has already been started here.
Having no bans in a best of 5 makes it to where I either have to
A) Win on FoD twice
or B) Lose a match

This is important for players for the singular reason that everyone knows that CF [and to a lesser extent any other character who does well in aerial game] has issues with the stage. It leads to an extended bias in which everyone wants to take advantage of an exploitation that will help them win, in a way that might not necessarily reflect truly on their skill [the same argument that's been used in the past against CP stages] The theory then is that the game, as least in a Captain Falcon player's case, becomes less about personal skill overall and more about needing excess personal skill on that particular level [FoD] in a way that is extraordinarily frustrating and quite possibly in a negative way.
Therefore pushing to either drop the character and accept defeat, or focus entirely on the stage.

Basically I'm pointing towards the fact that if you knew that FoD was always legal vs a Falcon, that's going to be the CP for 99.9% of people
And it makes me a little worried.

3) Regarding Falcon players complaining, it's less double standards than lack of information
The CF boards have become much better in discussion, interaction, and problem solving
Whenever I have a problem I say "let's figure out how to fix this" rather than "omg it needs to be changed"

Which is the same thing I'm doing here
I want to consider options that we have in order to make sure that people playing one character in particular aren't screwed because of exploitation in the rules.


Is this making sense?
I apologize if this comes off incorrectly; I'm not complaining as much as I'm trying to bring up a point I don't think many people are thinking about.

 

[Bones0]

Yeah, bashing Falcon players because they are by far the whiniest group of players is mean and I won't have that kind of behavior in this super serious thread discussing super serious topics. Its the internet. Lighten up.



Also, I've been away from the thread due to work and Ryoko making me play Project M. Did I miss anything important/needing a response? It seems like Bones has been doing a great job so far.

What do you think about switching up character selection and stage selection order to make it less of a guessing game and less of a disadvantage for the winner? I was very supportive of choosing characters first in the previous rule set, but it seems especially important now that there are no bans.

The options:

1. Loser picks stage, winner picks char, loser picks char
2. Loser picks stage & char, winner picks char
3. Winner picks char, loser picks stage & char
4. Loser picks char, winner picks char, loser picks stage


Method 1 is the current system, but without bans, the winner will either be forced to play on their main's worse stage or switch to a secondary, but even then there is still the potential for them to get counterpicked by character.

Example:
Fox vs. Jiggs
Fox wins game 1. Jiggs picks FD. Fox stays b/c he likes Fox vs. Jiggs on FD. Jiggs goes Marth and chain grabs.
OR
Fox wins game 1. Jiggs picks FD. Fox goes Falcon because he is worried about getting chain grabbed. Jiggs goes Sheik and tech chases him all game.

Stuff similar to this promotes a lot of guessing games. There is no way the Fox could possibly have known what secondary his opponent uses, and he has no way of changing his character once he finds out.


Method 2 gets rid of the problem above by allowing the winner to select their character last, but cps will still be in the advantage of the loser because they get to pick their character's best stage.


Method 3 is obviously horrible...


Method 4 is better than 1 because it makes the loser commit to a character first, which limits their good stage choices, and this lets the winner make an much more informed decision about whether or not they should switch their own character. It still leaves the problem of players without secondaries having to play on the hardest cp stage.


Looking at all of these, this is how I would rank them in order from best to worst: 2 > 4 > 1 > 3

Overall, 2 stands out to me as the best because it gives the winner the most control over the matchup he will play, but it is not so much control that players will frequently be winning on their opponent's cp. Method 2 will result in the most competitive (i.e. less hard counters both in terms of stages as well as characters) matches, and it will still promote the great diversity the stage list is trying to support by removing bans. An additional benefit of this method is it is quite simple for newbies to pick up because there is no alternating of decisions and the order of the loser's two choices is irrelevant.

To accommodate for bans in bo3 sets, all you have to do is take Method 2 from above and simply tack on a stage ban at the beginning:

Winner bans stage. Loser picks stage & char. Winner picks char.

 

[Bones0]

Well 3 things that are applicable to this situation:
1) I was trying to keep a character out of it, because the character's influence on the stage is important but not the focus of the question. The question was about the rules governing legitimacy to which has not been answered yet.

2) On an unrelated note, one thing I worry about is the future of tournament play, as has already been started here.
Having no bans in a best of 5 makes it to where I either have to
A) Win on FoD twice
or B) Lose a match

This is important for players for the singular reason that everyone knows that CF [and to a lesser extent any other character who does well in aerial game] has issues with the stage. It leads to an extended bias in which everyone wants to take advantage of an exploitation that will help them win, in a way that might not necessarily reflect truly on their skill [the same argument that's been used in the past against CP stages] The theory then is that the game, as least in a Captain Falcon player's case, becomes less about personal skill overall and more about needing excess personal skill on that particular level [FoD] in a way that is extraordinarily frustrating and quite possibly in a negative way.
Therefore pushing to either drop the character and accept defeat, or focus entirely on the stage.

Basically I'm pointing towards the fact that if you knew that FoD was always legal vs a Falcon, that's going to be the CP for 99.9% of people
And it makes me a little worried.

3) Regarding Falcon players complaining, it's less double standards than lack of information
The CF boards have become much better in discussion, interaction, and problem solving
Whenever I have a problem I say "let's figure out how to fix this" rather than "omg it needs to be changed"

Which is the same thing I'm doing here
I want to consider options that we have in order to make sure that people playing one character in particular aren't screwed because of exploitation in the rules.


Is this making sense?
I apologize if this comes off incorrectly; I'm not complaining as much as I'm trying to bring up a point I don't think many people are thinking about.

I believe the flaw with your entire argument is you are viewing the fact that FoD is bad for aerial characters as a stage flaw, not a character one. Fast fallers get destroyed way harder on FD than aerial-based characters do on FoD. The lack of platforms isn't some inherent flaw of the stage. Fast fallers just benefit from having platforms the same way aerial characters benefit from having platforms spaced further apart.

I DO understand your viewpoint that having to play FoD is an abuse of the rules. I urge you to take a look at my previous post outlining different methods of stage/character selection and see if that would make you more comfortable with a no-ban stage list. Obviously opponents will still be able to choose FoD, but because my suggested method makes the loser choose both the stage and character first, you can comfortably decide if you are better off trying to win as Falcon on FoD or with a secondary that does good on FoD, good vs. their character, or even both.

 

[Strong Badam]

I think this thread requires more semen.

 

[Wake]

I think so too.

 

[Deleted member]

for tales of symphonia i love colette but she's pretty obviously the worst character for battles. slow, low defense, and has a hard time doing damage until she gets para ball or angelic spells. by the end of the game, the bosses resist light damage anyway. if you level and max them out she can be pretty good but it's still only via infinites and spamming holy judgment. that said, i played colette a lot. and spammed a lot of infinites and holy judgment.

raine is realistically the best character until you make invincible presea. raine is really unfair for a lot of reasons.

falcon players are by far the whiniest group of melee players, but i think anti-campers and marth players are really close. oddly, the scrubs of this community seem to complain less than the people that think highly of themselves.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

Obviously opponents will still be able to choose FoD, but because my suggested method makes the loser choose both the stage and character first, you can comfortably decide if you are better off trying to win as Falcon on FoD or with a secondary that does good on FoD, good vs. their character, or even both.

My issue with this system is that it seems to give the winner of a DITTO a big advantage.

Example:
Falcon A beats Falcon B in a close match on, say, FD. Falcon B stays Falcon because the game was close--he's not going to change if he knows Falcon A will **** all his secondaries. Falcon B also chooses YS because he thinks he is Scar he thinks he will be better able to show his skill in the Falcon MU on a smaller stage and FoD is gay to Falcon. Falcon A switches to Marth and ***** Falcon B.

See, while I admit that your system seems just as fair or even more fair than the current system in other examples, in this situation it puts the guessing game on the LOSER. In fact, the loser of a #insert main# ditto better start praying: he can't switch to a secondary himself (or the winner will **** him with #insert main#) and he can't stop the winner from switching to a secondary that is good on whatever stage he picks/good in the #insert main# MU. If the CP system is really set up to allow both players to fully exhibit their skills, then the loser needs the slight edge that the current system gives him. Otherwise, the winner is essentially CPing the loser (which is kinda messed up).

 

[ShroudedOne]

Strong Bad!! Wake!! Behave yourselves!

My issue with this system is that it seems to give the winner of a DITTO a big advantage.

Example:
Falcon A beats Falcon B in a close match on, say, FD. Falcon B stays Falcon because the game was close--he's not going to change if he knows Falcon A will **** all his secondaries. Falcon B also chooses YS because he thinks he is Scar he thinks he will be better able to show his skill in the Falcon MU on a smaller stage and FoD is gay to Falcon. Falcon B switches to Marth and ***** Falcon B.

See, while I admit that your system seems just as fair or even more fair than the current system in other examples, in this situation it puts the guessing game on the LOSER. In fact, the loser of a #insert main# ditto better start praying: he can't switch to a secondary himself (or the winner will **** him with #insert main#) and he can't stop the winner from switching to a secondary that is good on whatever stage he picks/good in the #insert main# MU. If the CP system is really set up to allow both players to fully exhibit their skills, then the loser needs the slight edge that the current system gives him. Otherwise, the winner is essentially CPing the loser (which is kinda messed up).

Isn't this an example of the Marth legitimately beating the Falcon, though? I mean sure, Falcon couldn't have predicted that the opponent would go to Yoshi's as Marth, but why shouldn't he be able to play that matchup on that stage? Is it simply for the reason that he couldn't mentally prepare for it?

And how about just random stages? I'm not asking because I think it's good necessarily, but it's another idea.

 

[Strong Badam]

Don't tell me what to do.

 

[Acryte]

So far I really like Bones' char/stage cp swap. One of the best things to be brought up in the thread so far.
Also, a problem people have too is that they feel decisions about banning stages are too subjective. If we do ban them we need to have a concrete method used in determining what stays and goes. This isn't a hardened model by any means but an example based off Cactuar's general reasonings:


Cactuar's 2012 MBR RULESET MODEL (STAGE MUST PASS ALL THE DEFINED CRITERIA):

BANNABLE STAGE CRITERIA:

1) TOP 8-10 SKEW THRESHOLD: A WEIGHTED CHARACTER MATCH-UP BALANCING CRITERION CONCERNING GAMEPLAY IN THE CURRENT METAGAME ON TARGET STAGE (WITHOUT, IN ITSELF, ATTEMPTING TO BALANCE MATCH-UPS VIA AVAILABLE STAGES AND COUNTERPICKS)*, WHERE IF "X" GREATLY SKEWS THE CHARACTER MATCHUPS FOR THE TOP 8-10 CHARACTERS IT HAS FAILED THE SKEW THRESHOLD.

* THIS MAY INSTEAD BE ADDRESSED BY CHANGES TO THE ACTUAL COUNTERPICKING AND STAGE SELECTION PROCESS.

** EVEN IF A STAGE SKEWS THE TOP 8-10, IF IT DOES NOT SIGNIFICANTLY INVALIDATE (more than 2?) CHARACTERS IN MATCHUPS NORMALLY VALID ON OTHER STAGES WITHIN THE TOP 8-10 IT IS NOT BANNABLE USING THIS CRITERION (IT INSTEAD BECOMES A COUNTERPICK STAGE AS IT IS NOT BROKEN ENOUGH TO BE CONSIDERED A LOSS OR INVALIDATE CHARACTERS, BUT STRONG ENOUGH TO SKEW THE TOP 8-10's MATCH-UPS; UNLESS THE STAGE BECOMES INVALIDATED BY ANOTHER CRITERIA, MAKING IT A BANNABLE STAGE.)

2) KEY VALUE - PLAYER SKILL AND INTELLIGENCE SHOULD HOLD THE MOST SWAY IN WHO WINS (VS STAGE HAZARDS AND COUNTERPICKS)

3) KEY VALUE - CHARACTERS MOST VIABLE/EXPECTED TO WIN/ATTEND TOURNAMENTS (AND THEIR MATCH-UPS) SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WITH HIGHER PRIORITY IN REGULATIONS AND RULESETS REGARDING TOURNAMENTS.

4) KEY VALUE - COMPLETE LACK OF OUTSIDE VARIABLES = FAIREST FORM OF COMPETITION

5) UNFAIR STAGE HAZARD CRITERION: ACTIVE & UNCONTROLLABLE STAGE INVOLVEMENT AND/OR PRESENCE OF RANDOM AND/OR ABUSABLE VARIABLES, WHETHER FAIR OR UNFAIR BY THEMSELVES, COMBINED WITH STAGE GEOGRAPHY, HAVE A LARGE EFFECT ON INDIVIDUAL STOCKS AND MAKE UNFAVORABLE POSITIONS DIFFICULT TO AVOID, WITH LITTLE WORK DONE BY THE OPPONENT TO PLACE YOU INTO THESE HIGHER RISK SITUATIONS. TOP 8-10 SKEW THRESHOLD IS ALSO APPLIED**. FAILING EITHER OF THESE CONDITIONS CONSTITUTES A BANNABLE STAGE***.

6) UNFAIR STAGE GEOGRAPHY CRITERION: ACTIVE & UNCONTROLLABLE STAGE INVOLVEMENT, EXCESSIVE LAG, MAJOR GLITCHES, AND TACTICS ENABLED BY ITS PHYSICAL LAYOUT, COMBINED, HAVE A LARGE EFFECT ON INDIVIDUAL STOCKS AND MAKE UNFAVORABLE POSITIONS DIFFICULT TO AVOID, WITH LITTLE WORK DONE BY THE OPPONENT TO PLACE YOU INTO THESE HIGHER RISK SITUATIONS. TOP 8-10 SKEW THRESHOLD IS ALSO APPLIED**. FAILING EITHER OF THESE CONDITIONS CONSTITUTES A BANNABLE STAGE***. (ie brinstar acid combos)

*** THIS CRITERIA DOES NOT DETERMINE WHETHER A STAGE IS ULTIMATELY FAIR, BUT INSTEAD DETERMINES ACCEPTABILITY AND LEGITIMACY OF STAGE HAZARD PRIOR TO FACTORING IN MATCHUP SKEW DUE TO NATURE OF STAGE LAYOUT AND GEOGRAPHY, OR THE ACCEPTABILITY OF STAGE GEOGRAPHY AND ASSOCIATED TACTICS IN THE CURRENT METAGAME ON SAID STAGE. A STAGE MUST PASS BOTH THE UNFAIR STAGE HAZARD, AND THE UNFAIR STAGE GEOGRAPHY CRITERION TO BE RULED TOURNAMENT LEGAL.

7) PLATFORM NEUTRALITY: THE NATURE OF STAGE'S PLATFORM LAYOUT DOES NOT SOLELY INVALIDATE A STAGE WITHOUT BROKENNESS OR FAILING TO PASS THE ABOVE CRITERIA**. (ie FD chaingrabs).
---------------------

STAGE STRIKE/BAN AND COUNTERPICKING SYSTEM:

(DISCUSS ESPECIALLY WITH BONES0'S IDEA)

---------------------

 

[Strife]

Strong Bad!! Wake!! Behave yourselves!



Isn't this an example of the Marth legitimately beating the Falcon, though? I mean sure, Falcon couldn't have predicted that the opponent would go to Yoshi's as Marth, but why shouldn't he be able to play that matchup on that stage? Is it simply for the reason that he couldn't mentally prepare for it?

And how about just random stages? I'm not asking because I think it's good necessarily, but it's another idea.

It's a bad example because Falcon wins that match up. A better example would have been a fox ditto, where Fox A and Fox B decides to go to FD, Fox B remains as Fox and Fox A switches to Marth. Fox gets *****.

I'm far more concerned with the stage list tan the CP process, but I have to agree that Bones' method is more harsh.

 

[Strong Badam]

why does fox get ***** in an even match-up

 

[Kal]

Because Fox is anthropomorphic, and Marth wears a tiara.

 

[Strife]

why does fox get ***** in an even match-up

I can't tell if you're trolling or if you're just dumb.

Marth beats Fox on FD hard because of chain grabbing.

 

[Strong Badam]

It's like 55-45 on FD, 50-50 on most stages, and 45-55 on some stages. Don't get grabbed.

 

[Kal]

I would say the matchup becomes something of an uphill battle for Fox, but I would certainly not say Marth ***** Fox on FD.

 

[Strong Badam]

yeah like you're still fox even if it's FD

 

[Kal]

The important point, in my opinion, is that the chaingrabs make Marth's combos more efficient, but not significantly enough so that there would be a noticeable discrepancy between the matchup on FD and any other starter stage. In other words, Marth's combos are still brutal as hell against Fox on the remaining starters. The main difference is that Fox basically can't do anything when grabbed on FD, but on the remaining starters he has very limited options.

Traditionally, Marth vs. Fox is regarded as one of the most even non-ditto matchups.

 

[ShroudedOne]

I kind of feel sometimes that Marth beats Fox. But that's cause I have M2K ingrained in my mind.

As for "Cactuar's 2012 MBR RULESET MODEL," I can't say that I find a point to disagree on. Those all seem like fair points.

 

[Battlecow]

Bones, you realize that methods 2 and 4 will often give the winner of match 1 an advantage going into match 2, defeating the entire purpose of the counterpick? Theoretical sheik-playing Hbox vs. Armada- they double blind, Hbox picks jiggs and armada peach, Hbox wipes ***, lets armada pick whoever he wants, and then wins easily with his character CP.

Many melee players have one main and no secondaries they'd use in tourney, but this is not the optimal way to play in most circumstances.

method 1 is the best, easily.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

Isn't this an example of the Marth legitimately beating the Falcon, though? I mean sure, Falcon couldn't have predicted that the opponent would go to Yoshi's as Marth, but why shouldn't he be able to play that matchup on that stage? Is it simply for the reason that he couldn't mentally prepare for it?

I actually mistyped something in there, but I think you caught it anyway ^.^'[COLLAPSE="Correction"]Loser stays Falcon (is forced to stay Falcon or let his secondaries get *****).
Loser picks Stage A (irrelevant, actually).
Winner picks some character who beats Falcon on Stage A.[/COLLAPSE]The point is that the CP system should be set up to give the Loser another chance to exhibit his true skill. What Bones's system does is essentially allow the Winner to CP the Loser.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no combination of character and stage that has no weakness. This means that, no matter how much thought the Loser puts into trying to engineer a MU + stage that he is more comfortable with so that he may fully demonstrate his skill, as long as he is forced to pick his character and stage simultaneously the Winner always has the potential to pick a character that does well against the Loser's chosen character on the Loser's chosen stage. If you don't think Marth beats Falcon on YS, then substitute in some character who does.