Legality Tentative: MBR Official Ruleset for 2012

[Fortress | Sveet]

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.

my paragraph before:

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.

mostly refers to the mentality you are showing, that the tournament wouldn't exist without the bad player who keep coming back. But a tournament isn't a learning ground, its a proving ground. Its cutthroat. It is supposed to be ruthless and one mistake can and shout cost you a set. Melee is a dying (some would say its already dead) game, sadly, and it shows sometimes in the mentality of the majority of melee players who are increasingly hobbyists and even the best players expect to be at a financial deficit.

If the lower level players care about that best of 3 set they should play better and win it. Don't beg for more games in order to "prove" you are better. More games really doesn't mean anything if you are below a certain skill.

The tournament doesn't care about the noob. The noob cares about the tournament either through its love of the game or stops coming. The TOs and high level players need the noobs, sure, and they should do their best to increase their desire to return, but they should not do so by altering the tournament format (in my opinion).

 

[Kal]

The TOs and high level players need the noobs, sure, and they should do their best to increase their desire to return, but they should not do so by altering the tournament format (in my opinion).

I agree with this, provided the changes are harmful. For example, in order to increase turnout, I don't think we should be banning wobbling, or chain grabs, or (brace yourself) Rainbow Cruise. However, there is nothing wrong with altering the tournament format (and it's rather silly to have any ideological loyalty to any tournament format) for good reasons. Altering the mechanism of the tournament to make the game fairer for everyone (keeping in mind that said alteration would provide greater consistency of results across the board) is not an example of simply stupidly catering to bad players.

If you personally think the time increased from changing to best of five is too great, that's fine, but that's certainly a subjective thought. There's nothing inherently wrong with thinking the additional time is a fair cost when payment is greater consistency (in more than just results) and fairness.

And really, you're not ruining the game in any way even if the change is unjustified. You're just making tournaments take longer. It's not like you're banning Brinstar. Only a total *** would ban Brinstar.

 

[Mahone]

Are you allowed to hold your L/R button down when plugging your controller in?

 

[Strife]

I really can't be interested in all bo5 sets with such a small stage list. May as well keep the earlier matches bo3.

 

[danieljosebatista]

I actually feel like melee is picking up in popularity. Sure its not where it once was, but honestly it isnt dead and i think it still has a long life ahead of it. Besides, new players will eventually take this game to places its never been before

 

[Strife]

This past rom4 had the least entrants of any of the Roms if IIRC, so at best I'd say we're stagnant.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

I agree with this, provided the changes are harmful. For example, in order to increase turnout, I don't think we should be banning wobbling, or chain grabs, or (brace yourself) Rainbow Cruise. However, there is nothing wrong with altering the tournament format (and it's rather silly to have any ideological loyalty to any tournament format) for good reasons. Altering the mechanism of the tournament to make the game fairer for everyone (keeping in mind that said alteration would provide greater consistency of results across the board) is not an example of simply stupidly catering to bad players.

Altering the tournament format to cater to popularity is dumb. Half the players in the world still think hyrule is the best stage to play on.

 

[Strife]

Altering the tournament format to cater to popularity is dumb. Half the players in the world still think hyrule is the best stage to play on.

Lol this is dumb. Half of the people who would go to tournaments do not think Hyrule is the best stage to play on. It's a ridiculous exaggeration.

 

[danieljosebatista]

This past rom4 had the least entrants of any of the Roms if IIRC, so at best I'd say we're stagnant.

Fair. Not to bring up unrelated **** but that might be the economy too lol. **** man, money and travel expenses are a huge thing these days. It would be great if we could get some decent online play going within the next couple years.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Lol this is dumb. Half of the people who would go to tournaments do not think Hyrule is the best stage to play on. It's a ridiculous exaggeration.

How are we supposed to grow if we don't take into account the players that don't go to tourneys? If were only considering tournament players Im sure most of them favor the more fair ruleset anyways.

 

[Cactuar]

Gonna be honest, haven't read the thread. Just came here to post this picture of a dog who knows how to dash dance better than 99% of the smash community.

Goin in hard! Lettin 'em kno!

 

[trahhSTEEZY]

baitin the fvck out of that niggvh

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

If this were reddit i would give you all my karma points right now

 

[Kal]

Sveet, totally great point with Hyrule and the popularity thing. I had no justification for wanting best of five over best of three. My entire refusal to ban stages like Rainbow Cruise and Brinstar despite popular opinion was just a facade so people would think I have some integrity when I switch to best of five. Alas, I'm so standoffish that you must have seen through it.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

I've heard that sarcasm is the way to win on the internets

 

[Kal]

I believe it's better to quote mine, avoid the actual content of your opponent's arguments, and throw in the occasional "not to ad hominem, but" right before a whoppingly condescending insult.

 

[Varist]

lol, "whoppingly"

ufunnykal

imo bo5 sucks for lower brackets though.

 

[Cactuar]

Realistically, the ruleset has no control over usage of best of x sets. That is entirely a TO decision to make, as usage of time is theirs to control and should be one of their primary concerns. Given the history of extremely inefficient use of time by TOs, I can't even recommend having that as a suggestion here.

 

[Kal]

lol, "whoppingly"

ufunnykal

In my defense, the insults do actually whop me. Though the previous sentence will likely be construed as racist.

imo bo5 sucks for lower brackets though.

It's pretty ****ing annoying, but I don't think that makes it unwarranted. I do hate playing random Luigi/Falco/Sheik/Samus/Jigglypuff mains, so it's made worse when the set changed from best of three to bet of five. But that doesn't really warrant keeping it at best of three any more than it warrants me banning Luigi/Falco/Sheik/Samus/Jigglypuff. Tournaments aren't about having fun.

Realistically, the ruleset has no control over usage of best of x sets. That is entirely a TO decision to make, as usage of time is theirs to control and should be one of their primary concerns. Given the history of extremely inefficient use of time by TOs, I can't even recommend having that as a suggestion here.

It's sort of pointless to bother with such a thing as well, since the issue to so uncontroversial that any TO can willingly do whatever he wants with almost no negative response from players. It may, however, not be a bad idea to mention what is regarded as "standard."

 

[Strife]

It's sort of pointless to bother with such a thing as well, since the issue to so uncontroversial that any TO can willingly do whatever he wants with almost no negative response from players. It may, however, not be a bad idea to mention what is regarded as "standard."

I'm not so sure it's uncontroversial. I may go to a tournament thats a best of 3 and not one that is a best of 5, simply because I don't want to deal with the headaches of some very long and tedious sets/matchups.

 

[Kal]

I would guess that the vast majority of players don't care either way. For most, it's just a preference, not a requirement, that a tournament be best of three or best of five. If you're sincere about skipping tournaments solely because they run best of five across the board, then I think you're in the minority.

Here in Austin, I've never received anything but gratitude for making every set best of five, so I'm also biased towards thinking most players prefer it anyway. Of course, their preference is one of the less important reasons I have for making sets best of five.

 

[Strife]

Well like you said you are only guessing. There is no way for you to know and you shouldn't be claiming that it is uncontroversial. I know of quite a few people who find the mental strain of all best of 5 to be too much to handle.

Also watching so many best of 5 sets in earlier brackets can get boring especially because most of it doesn't consist of good players.

 

[Kal]

Yeah, I should've been more careful to say that I'm only guessing it's uncontroversial. While I agree that watching the sets can be boring, I don't think that's an issue worth worrying about when you create a ruleset.

 

[Mahone]

Are you allowed to hold your L/R button down when plugging your controller in?

Can u answer this cactuar... I dont wanna be cheating

 

[trahhSTEEZY]

he's probably gonna say no since your being so vague about it (unless the reasoning is obvious and i'm not seeing it), but why?

 

[FerrishTheFish]

The tournament doesn't care about the noob. The noob cares about the tournament either through its love of the game or stops coming.

How are we supposed to grow if we don't take into account the players that don't go to tourneys?

See that, folks? That right there is called a flip-flop.

If the lower level players care about that best of 3 set they should play better and win it. Don't beg for more games in order to "prove" you are better. More games really doesn't mean anything if you are below a certain skill.

This is what these discussions ALWAYS come down to. This is why nobody should be wasting their time posting on this thread. Sveet or some other purple tag calls anyone who disagrees with them a "noob," acts as though that is a completely indisputable argument, and continues to insult/talk in circles until the other guy gives up in frustration. I might as well type with one hand and slap myself in the face with the other, to save you the trouble.

 

[Mahone]

It makes it easier to powersheild

 

[trahhSTEEZY]

i would definitely say no and hope every TO would do the same..

 

[Varist]

CONCEDED FOR POSSIBLE AMBIGUITY. DAT PURPLE JEALOUSY.

not to say I don't dislike early-bracket bo5s for my own reasons

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

I have not insulted anyone, nothing in my last post was directed at any individual. If somehow you managed to be insulted then i apologize.

Also I never flip flopped my beliefs at all. I was simply showing the contradiction in the opposing argument.

 

[Varist]

flesh the "make tournaments attract noobs, but not through changing the format" argument out a little bit more and the hypocrisy argument can be conceded, but those statements work against each other pretty directly unless you set arbitrary thresholds. which are themselves stupid.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

I think you are confused because the sentences are taken out of context. Be aware that the "How are we supposed to grow if we don't take into account the players that don't go to tourneys?" statement was right after saying more than half the world thinks hyrule is the best stage to play on and is in fact pointing out a contradiction in the opposing argument.

 

[Varist]

i'm not exactly getting it yet, develop thoughts.

in other news, i think i discovered a negligible Mewtwo AT but Strong Bad would need to test it because i can't count frames. but Strong Bad hates me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZ0epRjfGLw#t=28

 

[FerrishTheFish]

I have not insulted anyone, nothing in my last post was directed at any individual.

Um ...

Talking in circles with a claim you STILL have provided no evidence for:

How are we supposed to grow if we don't take into account the players that don't go to tourneys? If were only considering tournament players Im sure most of them favor the more fair ruleset anyways.

Insult directed specifically at Kal:

I've heard that sarcasm is the way to win on the internets

Also I never flip flopped my beliefs at all. I was simply showing the contradiction in the opposing argument.

I must be missing this "contradiction in the opposing argument" because the only contradiction I see is that you say the tournament should not care about the noob, then turn right around and say the tournament should care about the noob. So which one do you truly believe?

 

[danieljosebatista]

Realistically, the ruleset has no control over usage of best of x sets. That is entirely a TO decision to make, as usage of time is theirs to control and should be one of their primary concerns. Given the history of extremely inefficient use of time by TOs, I can't even recommend having that as a suggestion here.

Cactuar, isn't this like saying "the ruleset has no control over what stages are played?" Isn't that also a TO decision? After all this is just a recommended ruleset, TOs can technically do whatever they want

 

[Cactuar]

There is a difference between suggesting stages and suggesting usage of time at a tournament. Besides, every TO knows players would like longer sets in most cases. It isn't really something that even needs to be brought up.

@Mahone: Holding down a trigger while you plug it in is perfectly legal. I have no argument for banning it.

 

[danieljosebatista]

Why is holding down trigger ok? Isnt that an unfair advantage

 

[Bones0]

Holding in L/R is for scrubs who can't press buttons in less than 3 frames. How is it unfair if both players can do it? derp

On the topic of best of 5s, Europe pretty much trumps any argument you could possibly have concerning time constraints. The whole idea of tournaments trying to find the best player as fast as possible is hilarious. If that's the case, why not just have only 1 person advance out of pools? It's not like anyone below them is going to win. The purpose of tournaments is to rank competitors as accurately as possible. The only reason we don't play best of 77s or 99 stock games is because of logistics. You only have a certain amount of time to work with, so TOs sacrifice competitiveness in order to allow the tournament to finish on time. If a tournament can effectively run with bo5 sets, there's no reason not to. It is more competitive + it encourages newer players to enter/more chances to improve. You can tell yourself that tournaments shouldn't care about lesser-skilled players, but it doesn't change the fact that the majority of players don't expect to win, so shafting them at every opportunity to finish earlier is stupid.

 

[Kal]

Insult directed specifically at Kal:

In his defense, I was being a sassy *****.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Ferrish... I dont think you understand. That statement you want me to provide evidence for is not part of my argument at all. The purpose of it was to subtly point out a contradiction.

And if you think that line is an insult then IDK what to say hahahaha

edit- im gonna stop responding to ad hominems at this point.