Legality Tentative: MBR Official Ruleset for 2012

[Divinokage]

Maybe with DK.... I dont see how any other character can actually throw someone into the "croc"

How about a Fox/Falco down throw? =P Or perhaps throwing someone right on the edge on the wall misses the tech then gets spiked downwards inside the water? They are possibilities.

 

[Bones0]

I mean, if a Fox or Falco somehow grabbed you hanging over the ledge, you were going to be on the ledge when it came by anyway. lol

 

[JPOBS]

actually, i agree. but the point is, when it was time to do it, he didn't. and not playing a certain way caused him to lose, thus he is still worse.
.

What makes everyone so sure that Mango would have won if he had camped? People are acting as if Armada has never seen a campy fox/playstyle in tournament before and would just fold up.

And even if mango's camp would be superior to other players trying to camp armada, I would make the argument that mango's aggression is also far superior to other players trying to play aggressively.

So I really hate the argument "if mango had camped, he would have won" because there's no real reason to believe that.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

How about a Fox/Falco down throw? =P Or perhaps throwing someone right on the edge on the wall misses the tech then gets spiked downwards inside the water? They are possibilities.

I would hardly say that you are simply throwing them into the croc in those situations. There is so much more dialogue that occurs before that.

What makes everyone so sure that Mango would have won if he had camped? People are acting as if Armada has never seen a campy fox/playstyle in tournament before and would just fold up.

And even if mango's camp would be superior to other players trying to camp armada, I would make the argument that mango's aggression is also far superior to other players trying to play aggressively.

So I really hate the argument "if mango had camped, he would have won" because there's real reason to believe that.

Mango made a lot of bad or risky choices when he really had no need to.

 

[Bones0]

Making good decisions instead of bad ones is how you differentiate between good and bad players, so I don't see how people can just go "Mango only lost because he was playing stupid." Making good decisions consistently is what the entire game is about, but saying he only lost because he played recklessly is laughable. If it were any other player, people would be posting comments about how he needs to learn to be more patient/less risky, not about how he "could have won if he wanted to."

 

[ShroudedOne]

Making good decisions instead of bad ones is how you differentiate between good and bad players, so I don't see how people can just go "Mango only lost because he was playing stupid." Making good decisions consistently is what the entire game is about, but saying he only lost because he played recklessly is laughable. If it were any other player, people would be posting comments about how he needs to learn to be more patient/less risky, not about how he "could have won if he wanted to."

Quoted for truth, as well as highlighting the huge steps some people seem to take to give Mango a pass on everything.

 

[Wake]

Quoted for truth, as well as highlighting the huge steps some people seem to take to give Mango a pass on everything.

Sooo much truth man.

 

[Kal]

My favorite Mango-pass is that he wasn't showing terrible sportsmanship and overall scrubiness in that one blog he posted.

 

[Hylian]

I looked at this ruleset and seriously had a good laugh, then realized it wasn't a joke.

Can't believe melee's gone this direction :/. I was going to pick it back up for Apex since the mk ban and me getting bored of brawl, but ew :/. Casual play it is.

 

[Kal]

Dude, how do you get your name black like that?

 

[ShroudedOne]

He's on that Admin status, I believe. I dunno how one gets there, but I suspect that it's not an easy road to travel.

 

[Kal]

I do not enjoy the prospect of doing work for free. What are the odds they could just spray paint my name without giving me any authority? Authority would probably just make me drunk with rage power anyway.

 

[trahhSTEEZY]

I looked at this ruleset and seriously had a good laugh, then realized it wasn't a joke.

Can't believe melee's gone this direction :/. I was going to pick it back up for Apex since the mk ban and me getting bored of brawl, but ew :/. Casual play it is.

why ew? removing those 2 levels? I don't see why a cleaner, less level-based direction is bad..

how many games do you know that rely on a level for any sort of counter-dependency?

 

[Kal]

how many games do you know that rely on a level for any sort of counter-dependency?

How many games do you know where the goal is to win the match by ringout?

 

[trahhSTEEZY]

true, so that lies the discussion in what makes a ring out fighter the right kind of competitive nature? completely player based, or counter-stage dependent aswell?

 

[Strong Badam]

Maybe with DK.... I dont see how any other character can actually throw someone into the "croc"

DK's a vital part of the metagame and rulesets should be written around his unique abilities.

 

[Metal Reeper]

If you think someone can be thrown into Klap Trap as in, from a throw, then you are ****ing ********. Unless it's like...Marth and he Fthrow>Dtilts.

 

[Kal]

true, so that lies the discussion in what makes a ring out fighter the right kind of competitive nature? completely player based, or counter-stage dependent aswell?

First, let me ask you how stages like Rainbow Cruise are not "completely player based." In other words, what's the difference between the lack of platforms on FD allowing for a chaingrab and the movement of the boat on RC dropping a combo? Both can be accounted for, neither is random, and yet somehow the former is preferable to the latter.

I argue that it's because we are predisposed to thinking that these stages are not "neutral." And so we come up with nonsense to justify their ban, despite there being little evidence in favor of them.

Second, allow me to point out that the "right kind of competitive nature" is absolutely subjective. I think Melee would be better off without Falco. But there is a clear difference between subjective preference (even that held by the majority) and how the game "should" be played in any absolute or objective sense.

Finally, unless there is exactly one stage, the game will always involve a player vs. stage element, and thus will always be "counter-stage dependent." You cannot say that the game is player vs. player, with stage not impacting results, when stage choice factors directly into the result of a set.

Again, I feel that players see that these stages are "janky," with whatever arbitrary, subjective, contrived definition of said term they wish to use, and come up with equally arbitrary, subjective, and contrived reasons for banning them. They don't want to learn to play on the stages because these stages don't fall into their arbitrary, preconceived notions of how the game "should" be played, so they opt to ban them instead. And, as I've said before, that's nothing more than scrubiness.

 

[Hylian]

why ew? removing those 2 levels? I don't see why a cleaner, less level-based direction is bad..

how many games do you know that rely on a level for any sort of counter-dependency?

Two? I stopped playing melee in 08, there were a lot more stages than this. Seems they've been slowly knocking them off. I might go through and read all of this but it's probably just a bunch of people trying to justify removing stages because they don't like them.

 

[Strong Badam]

and yet FoD is legal

 

[Hylian]

and yet FoD is legal

I've got to be missing the point.

 

[Strong Badam]

If we were really just trying to ban stages we didn't like, FoD wouldn't still be legal after all of these years of people complaining about the platforms, despite the fact that the stage is one of the least competitively intrusive stages.

 

[Kal]

He didn't say you were trying to ban all the stages you disliked. He said that the stages which are banned are banned because you dislike them. Because, as far as we can tell, there is no well-defined notion of "competitive intrusion," and that is all that has been used to ban stages like Brinstar and Rainbow Cruise. Converse error and all that.

 

[Hylian]

Soo...how is FoD any different than Rainbow Cruise, which has no elements of randomness?

People also complain about the lip on FD and the edges of Battlefield, why are any complaints about other stages(especially ones that aren't random in the slightest) any more valid than those aside from preference?

Also, what Kal said.

 

[Kal]

Wait, who the **** is Hylian? Why is this Brawl player agreeing with me?

Clearly God just doesn't want anyone with any merit on my side.

 

[Strong Badam]

i don't feel like regurgitating this thread over and over, go back a few pages.

 

[ShroudedOne]

Hey, hey, hey Kal. Brawl players are legit. It's just that their game isn't.

Also, I think people have explained fairly well why RC is banned (these explanations not involving randomness, mind you), like Bones, but I'll take a stab at it sometime, maybe, cause I feel like you might be looking at it from a different way.

That being said, I don't really care about the banned stages either way. I just want Mute City back. :D

 

[Kal]

I recall him mentioning that it's unfair that someone starting their combo at 7:43 is unsuccessful while someone starting their combo at 7:45 is, but I can't find the actual post (out of laziness). However, without randomness, there is no real way for it to impact consistency by definition. If starting your combo two seconds later will result in a net loss, you should avoid starting your combo two seconds later. Just because someone thinks that's a silly mechanic does not mean he should ban the stage.

 

[Metal Reeper]

If we were really just trying to ban stages we didn't like, FoD wouldn't still be legal after all of these years of people complaining about the platforms, despite the fact that the stage is one of the least competitively intrusive stages.

We don't wanna make FoD illegal cause that might give Falcons hope. Gotta keep them down.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

If starting your combo two seconds later will result in a net loss, you should avoid starting your combo two seconds later.

Or just account for whatever supposedly breaks your combo and either A) adjust your combo so it IS successful or B) change your combo from a "finishing" combo into a "damaging" combo.

We don't wanna make FoD illegal cause that might give Falcons hope. Gotta keep them down.

This would be funny if it weren't so true.

 

[Cactuar]

Thread is pretty much all circular nonsense now.

Singles stage list has been explained. Doubles has been explained several times, and has come down to play testing, but will be removing Japes and KJ64 until then.

Biggest thing up for discussion is whether other stages should be legal in doubles, and what those stages are.

 

[Strife]

^ W/E. I reject the current ruleset in it's entirety. I want KJ64 back.

Brinstar would be nice too!

 

[trahhSTEEZY]

Thread is pretty much all circular nonsense now.

Singles stage list has been explained. Doubles has been explained several times, and has come down to play testing, but will be removing Japes and KJ64 until then.

Biggest thing up for discussion is whether other stages should be legal in doubles, and what those stages are.

the reasoning should be in the original post, not everyone has seen every page

 

[Deleted member]

Thread is pretty much all circular nonsense now.

Singles stage list has been explained. Doubles has been explained several times, and has come down to play testing, but will be removing Japes and KJ64 until then.

Biggest thing up for discussion is whether other stages should be legal in doubles, and what those stages are.

You're asking the community at large, mostly join dates of 2008 to 2011, to try to defeat your reasoning? Anyone good enough to debate with you on this forum already has their purple name tag.

I reiterate that you're getting too much resistance on your stage list. Rather than justifying your view, you should get as many opinions as possible on what we should be doing instead, ask them to justify their views, and then to work something out. People come to us for competitive smash, not to try to beat a handful of people at game theory debate.

If the MBR is going to be doing projects for the sake of the community, you should be serving that community, not the other way around.

 

[trahhSTEEZY]

You're asking the community at large, mostly join dates of 2008 to 2011, to try to defeat your reasoning? Anyone good enough to debate with you on this forum already has their purple name tag.

LOL

elitists ftw


hey btw, we should money match if you go to apex, i doubt i'll be able to keep up with your high level purple skills, but we'll see? $5 bo5 or somethin'.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

If the MBR is going to be doing projects for the sake of the community, you should be serving that community, not the other way around.

^This. This is why the MBR exists. To respond to the community and encourage consistency so as to keep tournaments relevant to one another and ultimately motivate players to play the game that we all love with other players. Not to be a small, elite group of players forcing all other players to play by their rules. The point has already been made that the MBR ruleset should be based off of previously successful rulesets at major tournaments, because that's what keeps tournaments relevant. It's about what the community wants, not what you want from the community.

 

[Beat!]

forcing all other players to play by their rules

They're not forcing you to do anything >_>

 

[Dark Hart]

I still don't see what's wrong with everyone

JAPES PEOPLE

LEGAL AGAIN

CAN WE DANCE OR SOMETHING?

 

[Bones0]

You're asking the community at large, mostly join dates of 2008 to 2011, to try to defeat your reasoning? Anyone good enough to debate with you on this forum already has their purple name tag.

I reiterate that you're getting too much resistance on your stage list. Rather than justifying your view, you should get as many opinions as possible on what we should be doing instead, ask them to justify their views, and then to work something out. People come to us for competitive smash, not to try to beat a handful of people at game theory debate.

If the MBR is going to be doing projects for the sake of the community, you should be serving that community, not the other way around.

The popular opinion by far is to remove the counterpicks. I'm pretty sure that's obvious to everyone. This ruleset is COMPLETELY based off of tournaments that are already being held. Genesis got rid of the cps and everyone that actually entered seemed to love it. Apex also got rid of the cps, and no one is posting in the thread upset about it. People have already been asked what we should be doing instead, and what the very few people arguing want is drastically different from what we have (basically to have 10+ stages added back in; just check the "No Johns Ruleset" thread). It's not like there is some large sector of the community that plays on cps all the time. Most everyone bans them, and when they don't, they only get cped in helpful matchups. No one plays dittos on the cps; it's always one player trying to screw over the other player's character.


@KJ64
There's no reason for it to be removed from Doubles if that's what is being discussed. Jungle Japes is sort of on the fence, but I really don't see the harm in keeping it in until people can decide for themselves.

 

[Strife]

They're not forcing you to do anything >_>

Actually they kinda are, when you consider the influence their ruleset has over tournament organizers.