Legality Tentative: MBR Official Ruleset for 2012

[Deleted member]

Uhh those 3 were not banned specifically because of fox. Fox may be the best at abusing them, but the stages fundamental problems were the reason... i watched ORLY time out some guy in friendlies on hyrule recently just because falcon is stupidly fast.

Yoshis Island 64 Is just as abusable by falco, if not more.

Termina is abusable by falco just as much and there are other characters that can abuse the circle too.

No you're usually right but you're just wrong on this one. Fox was the reason half the stages were already banned by the time I was added to the MBR in June 2003. It was just before your time. If they're banned for different reasons now that's fine but they were definitely banned before because of fox.

 

[Kal]

>_>

Oh, Kal.

*wrist-flip.*

Smooth Criminal

>_>

What?

 

[KishPrime]

No you're usually right but you're just wrong on this one. Fox was the reason half the stages were already banned by the time I was added to the MBR in June 2003. It was just before your time. If they're banned for different reasons now that's fine but they were definitely banned before because of fox.

The MBR didn't ban stages in 2003.

Also, in 2004 for MELEE-FC1, Big Blue was still on. I'm pretty sure the only stages banned were Yoshi 64 and Hyrule, plus a couple like Fourside that were questionable because of Peach Bomber stalling (at the time).

Pipes wasn't widely banned by TOs until mid-2005, but it was because of Fox primarily. I remember in teams with Squared, we stole a round off of Ken/Isai in teams at MLG Nationals 2004 because we were aware of the problem already (yeah we were one of the first to ban it - hard for some of you to believe I'm sure), and we just went Fox/Falco and wrecked them there.

 

[Deleted member]

The MBR didn't ban stages in 2003.

Also, in 2004 for MELEE-FC1, Big Blue was still on. I'm pretty sure the only stages banned were Yoshi 64 and Hyrule, plus a couple like Fourside that were questionable because of Peach Bomber stalling (at the time).

Pipes wasn't widely banned by TOs until mid-2005, but it was because of Fox primarily. I remember in teams with Squared, we stole a round off of Ken/Isai in teams at MLG Nationals 2004 because we were aware of the problem already (yeah we were one of the first to ban it - hard for some of you to believe I'm sure), and we just went Fox/Falco and wrecked them there.

The MBR definitely had stages banned and there was some community agreement on them, but it was much more diverse and based on other national tournaments, as in the MBR followed the TOs instead of the TOs following the BRs like we do now. The MBR started banning stages as early as mid 2002, and the stages were banned from things like the early Tournament Go series and then other big tournaments followed them (or didn't). When I started playing the game, Fourside had just been banned and lots of things like Hyrule, Yoshi 64, Flatzone, Icicle Mountain and other obvious stuff had been banned. Some of them were banned just because they were stupid for tournament play, but a good chunk of them were banned solely because of fox laser camping. Were the bans formal? No, but they were followed commonly to the point where their formality had no significance.

Things like Big Blue being legal for FC-1 is why the Midwest got a LOT of hate for its stage lists for years. Your region was definitely not the norm for the time.

 

[KishPrime]

I don't know. Guess we'd have to dig through the archives, but I don't ever remember the MBR being anything more than an informal association of TOs and top players that occasionally put out a tier list until 2005ish. Barely anyone posted back there much for awhile, and nothing formal decision-wise ever came out from it, like you said. TOs set the agendas and most stage discussions happened publicly.

I think it's bold to claim there was "community agreement" on banned stages in 2002. There were like 10 tournaments in 2002, most with 15 or less people. I'm not even sure what community agreement is now, much less under that level of development. And heck, I remember when I first posted the ruleset that a lot of people posted that it was a good compromise between WC/EC/MW rules.

I don't think there was really a "norm" until MLG came along and used an FC-style format (which was a Midwest ruleset). Back then there were players from the EC advocating and running FD-only tournaments. WC was pretty liberal (pro-stage/item) for about as long as Midwest was until the first gen out there moved on, and that was basically mid-2003. And then from there we actually pushed bans faster in FC rulesets than MLG did a couple of times.

But no way to prove anything, since all threads are archived and gone, so this is all just memory and perception.

 

[\±/Gale\±/]

"For all Melee Tournaments, Metaknight is banned."
Ermm... Metaknight isn't in melee... Correct me if I'm wrong...

 

[Battlecow]

'S a joke.

 

[Bones0]

"For all Melee Tournaments, Metaknight is banned."
Ermm... Metaknight isn't in melee... Correct me if I'm wrong...

Please keep all Metaknight discussion in the appropriate thread.

Thank you.

 

[ShroudedOne]

"For all Melee Tournaments, Metaknight is banned."
Ermm... Metaknight isn't in melee... Correct me if I'm wrong...

You still have a lot to learn. But he's banned, so don't worry about it.

 

[Metal Reeper]

Lol Bones0
**** that tornado bs. that Dsmash....so broken.
Glad we got MK cleared up after 10 years guys. good call.

 

[Strife]

It's too bad Nintendo didn't care enough to make a patch to fix Metaknight like Capcom is doing for Yun and Fei-long.

 

[BigD!!!]

yeah the kishes pushed for wide variety of stages in some locals, but any national tourneys in the mw were just as conservative as the standard for the time, as far as i remember

there was one smym with cruise on random i think, but overall the midwest rules were pretty consistent with anything else that was going on nationally

people just hated the mw because of the way the ship of fools, camper bob, vidjo, and mathos played

 

[YOSHIDO]

I like the rule set with port select. I'd just like a little bit of clarification on neutral start.

 

[KishPrime]

people just hated the mw because of the way the ship of fools, camper bob, vidjo, and mathos played

And because we beat too many people that they didn't think we should beat.

Oh well.

 

[AlphaZealot]

The MBR definitely had stages banned and there was some community agreement on them, but it was much more diverse and based on other national tournaments

The first MBR ruleset was released in 2007. The "MBR" as an entity never endorsed or made any official (or even unofficial) comment on the legality of stages before that time. Further, the make up of the MBR and the lack of an official stance basically was an endorsement [probably wrong word] for multiple different philosophies as a whole, meaning there was no way for them to say a stage should be legal or not, since many tournaments rulesets conflicted (including on things as 'simple' as items).

I think it's bold to claim there was "community agreement" on banned stages in 2002. There were like 10 tournaments in 2002, most with 15 or less people. I'm not even sure what community agreement is now, much less under that level of development. And heck, I remember when I first posted the ruleset that a lot of people posted that it was a good compromise between WC/EC/MW rules.

Basically this.

The idea that the MBR did anything other then put out the tier list (and released the original compendium of knowledge) before 2007 is incorrect.

Essentially a TO would post a stagelist and it really didn't matter what their reasoning was, it was a tournament and people were happy to go. There was no 'collective' agreement for why certain things were certain ways, though I'm sure a few TO's and their reasoning lined up. The sophisticated discussions we see today in all Smash games is nothing like existed then. Stages were the least of the debate too, when you consider the TG series was still using items through 2003.

But no way to prove anything, since all threads are archived and gone, so this is all just memory and perception.

This is not entirely true. There are tons of random threads still available before the 2007 archiving. Chillin wrote a fairly detailed history that covered the EC, for example, and I can essentially comment on MD/VA mid-2004 and onward, having helped run the BOMB series. You can talk about the MW. etc. At no point in time, for example, were the decisions for the rules for BOMB ever actually influenced by the MBR. Regardless, the inaccuracy all lies with this:

as in the MBR followed the TOs instead of the TOs following the BRs like we do now.

The MBR didn't do squat with tournaments for years.

The first things that TOs followed was the MLG ruleset (all other rulesets being far behind in popular until much later). The MLG ruleset was largely modeled philosophically off the FC series, to boot. Kishprime's recollection here basically being correct, and once again the MBR having nothing to do with things since it had no official stance on rules (I do recall a thread asking for individual opinions but this is hardly 'the MBR following the TOs' or vice versa).

 

[Cactuar]

A surprising amount of amusement has been harvested from this thread. Thanks guys!

@Yoshido: What do you mean? What needs to be clarified?

 

[YOSHIDO]

@ Cactuar I was just confused in the how to play a set rules, you stated "The players play the first match of the set.
Prior to starting this match, either player may elect to Contest Port Priority or Neutral Start."

I understand the Contest Port Priority. I just didn't under stand what you mean by Neutral Start.

 

[Strong Badam]

It's under Terms Definitions.

 

[YOSHIDO]

wow i definitely missed that. Thanks

 

[danieljosebatista]

As far as stages go, I think this ruleset is great. One thing I would ask though (and I think other people in the thread have mentioned) is that maybe we should focus on having more sets in tournament be best of 5 instead of the standard best of 3. It seems more fair to me and won't really make tournaments take that much longer for the most part

 

[Kal]

It's fairer for worse players. We better players have to spend even more time playing noobs!

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Best of 5 matches arent really important until late in the bracket when good players are playing other good players. If the series is going to be 2-0 (Good player vs Bad player) theres no point making it a best of 5.

 

[danieljosebatista]

It's fairer for worse players. We better players have to spend even more time playing noobs!

Actually, I agree with you. I'm a new player myself. But I still think it would be better overall. If a good player plays a noob, he will win anyway. If it's between players who are of similar skill, it will be more fair and allow for both players to adapt better to one another. Also, this will allow us newer players to get more experience and hopefully get better faster. I don' t think that's a bad thing, it would be good for the community

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

The purpose of a tournament isn't the help new players improve. Its to find the best player as quickly and efficiently as possible. Making every bo3 into a bo5 adds a significant amount of time to the tournament. In a 16 man bracket there are 60-some matches. Changing them from a 2 game minimum 3 game maximum to 3 game minimum 5 game maximum is almost doubling the number of games played, statistically speaking.

 

[danieljosebatista]

Maybe, but I still don't think it will make tournaments last that much longer. Additionally I think lots of TO's and players are stuck in that mindset because it's always been that way, instead of just trying it out and seeing how it goes. I honestly think it would be better overall. It makes the sets more legitimate, there's something gimmicky about losing 2-1 as opposed to having a chance to play to best of 5. Also, there are way worse ways to run a tournament, what about round robbins and other styles that actually take forever.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

Maybe, but I still don't think it will make tournaments last that much longer. Additionally I think lots of TO's and players are stuck in that mindset because it's always been that way, instead of just trying it out and seeing how it goes. I honestly think it would be better overall. It makes the sets more legitimate, there's something gimmicky about losing 2-1 as opposed to having a chance to play to best of 5. Also, there are way worse ways to run a tournament, what about round robbins and other styles that actually take forever.

Give up. Just give up. Don't waste your time responding on this thread. No matter how legitimate an argument you come up with, even if you try to call Sveet's bluff that he has statistics to back up his claims, they only listen to fellow purple tags. Hell, one of them even admitted that they wouldn't accept a ruleset made by a non-purple tag no matter how good it was, just because it was made by a non-purple tag.

 

[danieljosebatista]

Give up. Just give up. Don't waste your time responding on this thread. No matter how legitimate an argument you come up with, even if you try to call Sveet's bluff that he has statistics to back up his claims, they only listen to fellow purple tags. Hell, one of them even admitted that they wouldn't accept a ruleset made by a non-purple tag no matter how good it was, just because it was made by a non-purple tag.

Aw man, that's not a good attitude to have. I'm sure they appreciate our respect as much as we appreciate theirs. No one starts as a back room member, I don't think they would disregard us in that way just because we're less experienced

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Lol ferrish



@daniel, You should try it out. Ruleset discussion is great but whats the point if you don't test your theories? I've tested pretty much every ruleset variation that made sense to me at one time. From 12+ stage lists with extra bans to 6 stage lists no bans and a 3 stage strike. From my experience as a TO, tournaments always run too long so best of 5 for all games does not make sense. To me there is a sweet spot balance between importance of the match and extra time from a best of 5, and i've found with my chicago tournaments that best of 5 starting in winners semis is that sweet spot.

 

[Kal]

From what I've seen of the tournaments I've run, making all sets best of five adds an insignificant amount of time (in proportion) when compared to best of three. My comment earlier was a joke; what a tournament is for is up to the TO.

Sveet, if it were actually a matter of discovering who is the best player as efficiently as possible, and this were a ubiquitous opinion, all tournaments would be single elimination. There is clearly more to it than that. Running double elimination immediately contradicts the notion that a tournament is to efficiently find the single best player: double elimination "guarantees" that the top two players are the best two players present, but it's definitely less efficient than single elimination at determining who is the best player. Much of this is up to subjective definitions of who is the best, but I'm mostly talking "in theory," where there is no triangle of "A beats B beats C beats A."

If worse players feel they have no reason to enter a tournament, then what sort of tournament will we have? Likely one with minimal turnout. I run all tournaments best of five for this reason, as well as to improve the consistency of individual results across the board. I am also against catering to better players solely because they are better. Their entrance-fee is no better than anyone else's.

danieljosebatista, I wouldn't put too much weight on the fact that certain people have purple nametags. A person is not entitled to expertise just by proclaiming himself an expert.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Double elimination is necessary (in my opinion) because the payouts are for more than first place. Plenty of starcraft tournaments ran as single elimination and gave out hundreds of thousands of dollars in prize money. Mostly I think that is isolated to korea now, thank god.

The fact that tournaments are being viewed more as social gatherings than cutthroat competitions really says a lot to the death of the game. Its sad to say since I love melee, but no sponsorship = no money = less competition.

 

[Kal]

Double elimination is necessary (in my opinion) because the payouts are for more than first place. Plenty of starcraft tournaments ran as single elimination and gave out hundreds of thousands of dollars in prize money. Mostly I think that is isolated to korea now, thank god.

The fact that you're considering anything other than who is the single best player here just reinforces my point, Sveet.

The fact that tournaments are being viewed more as social gatherings than cutthroat competitions really says a lot to the death of the game. Its sad to say since I love melee, but no sponsorship = no money = less competition.

I haven't said anything of the sort. Tournaments are absolutely cutthroat competitions. However, you're not making it less competitive by making all sets best of five. If anything, you're making it fairer for everyone. You're not catering to anyone when you make every set best of five.

I don't follow where sponsorship comes in to this discussion, but my point about worse players not feeling they have a reason to enter is entirely relevant to your opinion that money is required to maintain the game's life.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

From what I've seen of the tournaments I've run, making all sets best of five adds an insignificant amount of time (in proportion) when compared to best of three.

The biggest time-waster in a tournament is people playing friendlies or playing MM's or just plain ****ing around when they should be playing tournament matches--and EVERYONE knows it! Make every bracket match a bo5 and start pulling the plug on friendlies/MM's and you will finish sooner, I guarantee it.

 

[Kal]

You need to be sort of ruthless with your enforcement of the rules. None of that "I know these guys personally, I shouldn't just kick them out" bull ****. You need to walk up to people playing friendlies, shut their **** off, and tell them "next time I'm kicking you out. This is your warning."

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

I already make my tournaments run fast by micro managing my tournaments. I have been known to turn off money matches during bracket and pool play. Most of my 20-30 player tournaments end in 4-5 hours including pools and 16 man bracket. Changing all the best of 3s to best of 5s would add at least an hour and a half to the length of my tournament.

 

[Kal]

My tournaments have always run well and efficiently (generally running 4-5 hours with 20-30 entrants) with all sets being best of five. Anecdotes are great (not really), but it sounds like you haven't even tried a best of five tournament. Lots of people have made great points about how the increase in tournament length is not significant when you switch from best of three to best of five. If you haven't seen such posts (I believe one even exists in this thread), I can find one for you.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

I already make my tournaments run fast by micro managing my tournaments. I have been known to turn off money matches during bracket and pool play. Most of my 20-30 player tournaments end in 4-5 hours including pools and 16 man bracket.

Apologies for assuming otherwise.

Changing all the best of 3s to best of 5s would add at least an hour and a half to the length of my tournament.

Are you SURE about that? Since you like to use the word "statistics," am I to assume that you either have the solid numbers that prove that bo5's add >= 90 minutes to your tourney length, or else have the solid numbers to provide an accurate expectation value of the length of a given game AND an accurate expectation value of the number of games in a given set? Until you can prove otherwise, you would also have to weight these values so as to not assume that the game lengths in a set that ends 3-0 are the same game lengths in a set that ends 3-2.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

(2+3)/2 = 2.5 average games in a bo3 set
(3+4+5)/3 = 4 average games in a bo5 set

if 1 game = 3 minutes then 1 bo3 is on average 7.5 minutes while a best of 5 is 12 minutes on average. If TVs are already being used to maximum efficiency (when one set ends, new players sit down right away) then no time can be made up by doing additional sets in parallel therefore the increase of time is seen directly in the total time it takes to run the tournament.

7.5 average set time leads to 5 hour tournament. Solve for x hours when 12 is the average set time.
7.5/5 = 12/x
7.5x = 60
x = 8 hours

I did an under estimate before.

edit- this doesn't take into account sets that are already bo5. WF, LF, GF and WS(x2) and LS if you run your tournament that way. Thats 5 rounds (WS played in parallel) so 5 * (12 - 7.5) = 22.5 min to remove from that 8 hour estimate.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

(2+3)/2 = 2.5 average games in a bo3 set
(3+4+5)/3 = 4 average games in a bo5 set

This assumes that, for bo3's, the probability of a 2-0 is equal to the probability of a 2-1. It also assumes that, for bo5's, the probability of a 3-0 is equal to the probability of a 3-1 is equal to the probability of a 3-2. I think you will find that this is not the case. Not only do you lack the numerical data to back up these assumptions, they go against logic. 2-1's and 3-2's would only be expected of players with roughly equal skill. In most tournaments, the skill levels of the players entering is varied. Assuming that each possible pairing is equally likely (which admittedly is probably not entirely justified either), the ratio of "roughly equal" pairings vs. "unequal" pairings would be vastly skewed in the direction of "unequal" pairings. On top of which, your argument fails to account for the fact that "unequal" pairings will most likely have shorter-than-average games, minimizing the extra time accumulated by the third game.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Wait so you want to increase the number of games played for fairness between players but then say that the players are more often than not going to be of such a different skill level that the winner will dominate the other not even needing the extra games. It just seems like you want everyone to play more tournament games so the bad players can play more games.

The bracket is designed so the best players should win until later in the bracket. I don't care who wins between the 2nd and 3rd seed in the quad and I definitely don't care who wins between the 3rd seed and the 4th seed in the losers bracket. I slightly care about the winner between the 2nd and 1st seed in the quad, but not enough to justify making it a best of 5. IMO when first seeds play each other then it should be a bo5 (which happens to be WS and LS)

 

[Kal]

I think he more importantly wants to emphasize that players close in skill of all skill levels benefit from playing a best of five over a best of three. This means that you're likely to suffer less from a single bad decision or short-term worse play.

I also think it's a little unfair to dismiss worse players as though they're unimportant. Without them, we won't have much of a tournament in the first place. I know you don't care who wins between two terrible players, but those players certainly do care, and it's not a good idea to dismiss their complaints. Keep in mind that these players you don't care about essentially make up a tournament. Without all the bad players, what would a national tournament be? It would just be a local tournament with lots of advertisement.

Keep in mind, moreover, that it's possible to be shafted by a best of three system even at high levels of play. A best of five system accounts for this.