Legality Tentative: MBR Official Ruleset for 2012

[FerrishTheFish]

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.

The statement that you have provided no evidence for is the statement that "If were only considering tournament players Im sure most of them favor the more fair ruleset anyways." And I'm asking you to explicitly point out the contradiction because I still don't see one.

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.

Funny how my pointing out an ad hominem is somehow an ad hominem in and of itself, yet it's perfectly ok for YOU to point out a (nonexistent) ad hominem.

If your post isn't an ad hominem, I see no reason why mine is. Except, of course, that now you have an excuse to NOT back up your claims. I'm actually addressing the content my opponent's argument, something you haven't done in at least five posts. What more could you possibly want from me?

Back up your claim that most tournament players want fewer stages. If you want to counter your opponent's argument, do so explicitly rather than posting something cryptic/off-topic and telling me that I must not comprehend your subtlety if I don't see how it counters the argument. That's how debates work.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

The statement that you have provided no evidence for is the statement that "If were only considering tournament players Im sure most of them favor the more fair ruleset anyways." And I'm asking you to explicitly point out the contradiction because I still don't see one.

Im not really sure that quote really needs support. Do you think tournament players are looking to play the game on LULZZZZZZ stages?

as for the contradiction, it had nothing to do with you, but i believe it had something to do with tournaments appealing to popularity. Read in the context or ask someone.

Funny how my pointing out an ad hominem is somehow an ad hominem in and of itself, yet it's perfectly ok for YOU to point out a (nonexistent) ad hominem.

Ad hominem - Latin for "to the person". An ad hominem is not necessarily an insult but anything that has to do with the people discussing not the ideas being discussed.

 

[YOSHIDO]

I have a question about the counter pick stages. Why was kongo Jungle 64 taken off?

 

[FerrishTheFish]

Do you think tournament players are looking to play the game on LULZZZZZZ stages?

as for the contradiction, it had nothing to do with you, but i believe it had something to do with tournaments appealing to popularity. Read in the context or ask someone.

This is about as "in the context" as any quote can be. You say that we shouldn't add in all the stages because then the tournament won't be popular and people won't attend, but in the very next sentence say that tournaments should not appeal to popularity. On top of which, this is a complete strawman anyways. My argument was never that all stages should be included until further notice: that's Kal's/Sirlin's argument. I personally question the relevance to Melee of what Sirlin (who I'm not sure has ever even played Melee) says. I just want the old CP's back, specifically KJ64. The arguments that have been put forth so far:

okeball: CP's are janky to certain characters. Well, pick up a secondary. It's not that hard. Also, character matchups shouldn't be a deciding factor.

:great: CP's are random and introduce player vs. stage aspects. Neutral stages also have random elements and aspects that must be "learned." Most of the "randomness" on the CP's is totally predictable and can be "learned" as well.

:ultra: The stage list is based on previously successful, major tournaments. KJ64 has been legal in previously successful, major tournaments. Where's the precedence for banning it?

:dusk: Nobody is even trying to argue for changes to the rules. Um, signature? TBR and LSSR? Designed to deal with multiple CP stages so that people who don't like them won't necessarily have to play on them?

:masterball: The new stage list is fairer and/or more popular with tournament players. This is the argument I'm getting hung up on. I understand that popularity is important to tournament attendance and success, but "more popular" or not, it's not like people don't go to major tournaments just because KJ64 is legal. And your definition of "fairer" is completely arbitrary. I can just as easily define "fairer" as "rewarding players for greater skill" and then define mastery of a secondary as "skill" (as a matter of fact, I do).

 

[Varist]

I have a question about the counter pick stages. Why was kongo Jungle 64 taken off?

peripheral platforms too high. Fast characters like Falcon, Falco, Fox, arguably Peach and Puff, can camp people worse than them. People think you shouldn't be able to camp in Melee, so they got rid of all those stages.

edit: oh, and people think the barrel is jank. which it definitely is, but whatever.

edit again: FERRIS BUSTIN' OUT DEM POH KAY BAWLS.
BULLET POINT MASTAH.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

People think you shouldn't be able to camp in Melee, so they got rid of all those stages.

^Truth.

As per my previous post, I can also define camping and timing out as "skill" (which I don't necessarily do, but you get my okeball: :great: :ultra: :masterball: :luxury: remier: :dive: :dusk: point).

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

@ Ferrish

1) thats not what i said at all. Either you are strawmanning or you didn't understand my posts.
2) I dont believe any of those posts were referring to you. Please stop taking my posts out of context.

My argument was never that all stages should be included until further notice: that's Kal's/Sirlin's argument.

Well then maybe i was talking to kal and not you?
3)

I personally question the relevance to Melee of what Sirlin (who I'm not sure has ever even played Melee) says.

I seriously question your relevance to this conversation then. Have you actually read "Play to Win"?
4)

I just want the old CP's back, specifically KJ64.

Why? What does that stage have that makes you so sure its a good competitive stage?
5) Your "Taj's Better Rule" is really dumb. Whoever wins game 1 has to choose between banning every CP stage or 1 neutral stage. If he bans every CP stage, the winner of game 2 gets a whole bunch of free bans and gets neutral stage ban on top of it. The fact that you suggest allowing CP stages to be banned en masse while neutral stages must be banned one by one shows that even you think CP stages are worse than neutral stages. If not you would have given the option to ban all neutral stages. But that would be an even dumber rule.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

1) thats not what i said at all. Either you are strawmanning or you didn't understand my posts.

Pardon? What's not what you said at all?

3) I seriously question your relevance to this conversation then. Have you actually read "Play to Win"?

Yes, I have. In it, Sirlin makes several claims based off his personal opinions, biases, and experiences with games that are very different from Melee. Specifically, I question the relevance of what he has to say about banning, stages or characters or otherwise--which, as I recall, is the topic at hand. Other topics may or may not apply, just not to the current discussion of banning. Trust me, if I wanted to play to the crowd and be exciting, I wouldn't play a character whose main strategy is "run away and throw ****."

5) Your "Taj's Better Rule" is really dumb.

Believe it or not, it's actually not MY rule. It's Taj's rule, and it's enforced at most AZ tournaments. With great success, I might add. I'm pretty sure I've enumerated this somewhere, but TBR is meant for bo3's and LSSR is its equivalent for bo5's, where under the current ruleset stage bans are not allowed. I guess I'm honored that you don't think LSSR (which actually IS my rule) is really dumb.

 

[tarheeljks]

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.

obv longer sets increase the tournament length, making bo5 a hassle in early bracket, but i disagree. i run tournaments for the sake of the bad/new/mediocre players just as much as i run them to see who is going to win

edit: determining who the best player is merely one purpose tournaments serve imo. of course it is important, but there are other reasons

 

[Strong Badam]

sveet's talking about relevant tourneys like genesis/pound/apex/rom/etc., not locals where the main idea is to improve and prepare for said relevant tourneys

 

[tarheeljks]

people don't try to improve at major tournaments? seems like players of all skill levels use them to get better. tournament matches themselves facilitate improvement given the higher standards of play, and outside of those matches many players go out of their way to play (other) good players they don't get to play, and to play matchups they don't see often. seeing as the vast majority of players enter a major tournament knowing that they will not win, i think it's fair to say that tournaments also exist for the purpose of improvement (ignoring the social aspects), even if the hosts do not run them with the explicit purpose of leveling up the community at large.

edit: and they obv try to determine relative skill gaps, otherwise there would be no placings

 

[makoforce]

Corneria was banned unjustly its was really fair. Actually all the CP's shouldnt have been banned/ taken away they were all fair. People just wanna see melee played "Mango" style (read:overlyaggressive)

 

[Strong Badam]

Sounds convincing enough to me. Cactuar, I think we should reinstate Corneria and the other recently banned stages as put forth by makoforce.

 

[Varist]

vehemently seconded

 

[Life]

Reinstate one more stage and strike from all seven?

 

[Beat!]

Or ban PS and strike from five.

Decisions decisions.

 

[Varist]

**** that, i love my PS. it's all I have left when I need FD but don't get it.

 

[YOSHIDO]

i guess i just feel having P.S as very biased towards space animals. FOX grrr. Lol An i could see where they are going with the camping on DK64. I'd be lying if i said I don't camp there with falco. I guess i feel Fox is rlly the only one to get a strong benefit from that stage. I feel like someone said earlier if we are banning everything, we should ban PS too. Some of the stage changes force a period of stalling. Not to mention walls for fox to do crap on.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

people don't try to improve at major tournaments? seems like players of all skill levels use them to get better. tournament matches themselves facilitate improvement given the higher standards of play, and outside of those matches many players go out of their way to play (other) good players they don't get to play, and to play matchups they don't see often. seeing as the vast majority of players enter a major tournament knowing that they will not win, i think it's fair to say that tournaments also exist for the purpose of improvement (ignoring the social aspects), even if the hosts do not run them with the explicit purpose of leveling up the community at large.

edit: and they obv try to determine relative skill gaps, otherwise there would be no placings

One of the best ways to improve is to constantly attend tournaments. That is not the same thing as one of the main purposes for a tournament is improvement of the players.

 

[Strong Badam]

i guess i just feel having P.S as very biased towards space animals. FOX grrr. Lol An i could see where they are going with the camping on DK64. I'd be lying if i said I don't camp there with falco. I guess i feel Fox is rlly the only one to get a strong benefit from that stage. I feel like someone said earlier if we are banning everything, we should ban PS too. Some of the stage changes force a period of stalling. Not to mention walls for fox to do crap on.

stage list isn't meant to be an artificial attempt at balancing the game; meant to decrease inconsistency in results and prevent overcentralizing tactics from ruining melee.

should I just have a .txt of this response? it's needed like 8 times a week.

 

[YOSHIDO]

@ strong bad. I'm not saying CP should balance the game, What I am saying is that stages chosen for counter picks should be advantages for more than just the majority of the tournament players. This PS only would decrease inconsistency in results. But not because your making people think more and taking away "cheep" tactics. It's because you making the situation for space animals that much better. Fox as a character has a lot of tactics himself that pretty much bs in most matchups. There is no need to give him this upper hand. If you truly want the game unbalanced and more focused on player skill, Go with the neutral stage select. This way everything(all tactics) is fair game.

 

[Strong Badam]

so pretty much I said that we don't make stage lists to balance the game
then

@ strong bad. I'm not saying CP should balance the game [...] you making the situation for space animals that much better. Fox as a character has a lot of tactics himself that pretty much bs in most matchups. There is no need to give him this upper hand.

???
I don't get it?

 

[YOSHIDO]

lol i guess that could be confusing. I'm saying that Fox is a very popular character. I'm also saying that having only one counter pick stage that is biased towards fox will sway results slightly in his favor. I'm not saying it will automatically make all non players loose. I'm just saying this gives a bit of an edge to Fox specific tactics. I was also saying that there are a lot fox tactics that hard to get around in the game in general without having to fight stage advantage as well. U said u wanted more consistency in results. I say for this just play on neutrals only. This way there is no biased on the user's character.

 

[Kal]

Results will always be skewed according to character. You're not really understanding Strong Bad's point: he doesn't care if Pokémon Stadium is good for Fox. That's not relevant, because he does not ban things for balance except in the extreme case where something is broken (i.e., overcentralizing). He does not believe Pokémon Stadium is broken, nor does he believe it is random enough to warrant a ban for causing "inconsistency." Though this leads me to wonder why Rainbow Cruise and Pokéfloats are banned.

 

[Strong Badam]

Yeah.. I use Donkey Kong and my favorite stage in spacie match-ups is Brinstar (cuz lava combos them for me), but I still think the stage should be banned.
But I don't think Fox/Falco are "too good" on Pokemon Stadium to warrant the stage's banning in the same vein.

 

[Life]

lol i guess that could be confusing. I'm saying that Fox is a very popular character. I'm also saying that having only one counter pick stage that is biased towards fox will sway results slightly in his favor. I'm not saying it will automatically make all non players loose. I'm just saying this gives a bit of an edge to Fox specific tactics. I was also saying that there are a lot fox tactics that hard to get around in the game in general without having to fight stage advantage as well. U said u wanted more consistency in results. I say for this just play on neutrals only. This way there is no biased on the user's character.

It works both ways though. A stagelist without PS "gives" an edge to everyone that isn't Fox.

You can't use character balance to justify banning a stage, unless it's VERY degenerate (why Brinstar is controversial in Brawl). I don't know enough about Melee to say that spacies on PS do or don't qualify, but by the sound of your post, that's not enough...

 

[Kal]

InferiorityComplex, the stage absolutely comes nowhere close to being broken by even the most liberal standards. However, I think that banning Pokémon Stadium, given this trend towards removing randomness and "jank," would make sense. It does seem inconsistent to me to allow Pokémon Stadium but to ban Brinstar and Mute City.

Like I said, I think people ban what they're uncomfortable with (intellectually or subconsciously) more than what increases result variation. People see that Pokémon Stadium has sort of a flat, normal look (i.e., it doesn't look "janky"), and don't worry about the random effects it has. And, while there is merit in arguing that it increases variation less than a stage like Brinstar or Mute City (though I think it would actually increase variation more), since there is no real standard (i.e., a threshold) for what crosses the line, I have a hard time believing that's why Pokémon Stadium is on but Brinstar and Mute City are not.

So I agree with Yoshido, though for different reasons.

 

[Strong Badam]

idk some people are actually thinking of banning PS, I'm not on that side of the fence though.

 

[Kal]

Haha Strong Bad, that sort of cements my opinion that this trend towards banning stages will only lead to even more stages being banned. It will eventually be Battlefield only, until

Eventually someone [*****es] enough about Battlefield's ledges that we won't have any stages at all and be playing on pen and paper, Dungeons-&-Dragons-style..

Which I think would be a terribly exciting game.

 

[Hylian]

Ugh I need to stop being distracted and finish working on my ruleset guideline lol.

 

[YOSHIDO]

Thanks for the clarification. Hopefully after all this there either neutrals or some kind of variety in counter picks.

 

[Bones0]

If you read a few pages back, I give a perfect explanation of why the counterpicks were banned.

Also, lol @ my post about bo5 sets being completely ignored in favor of: "OMG ur ad hominening!" "OMG NO U ARE!!!"

 

[FerrishTheFish]

Hey, I 100% agree that bo5's should be the new standard. As far as I'm concerned, your post on that topic shut down every argument Sveet or anyone else had against them. And I totally empathize you about your posts actually addressing the topic at hand but being ignored and people instead throwing around random, vague accusations because they disagree but can't back up their opinions in the slightest.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

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.

I agree on every point. If you can manage to get the tournament ran on time with best of 5s, by all means do it.

(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.

This is my argument for why I dont do it.

 

[Life]

What about Bo5 with fewer stock? Just throwing it out there

 

[Sauce Boss]

I'm still glad they haven't changed the counterpick bans.

 

[Bones0]

I'm still glad they haven't changed the counterpick bans.

They are gone in bo5s...

 

[crush]

Hmm ............

I'm still developing my opinion on this.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

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

I've already explained what's wrong with this logic. Your "average" assumes each possible outcome is equally likely. This is not a valid assumption. Assuming equally likely outcomes is never valid if the subset under consideration can be divided into dissimilar groups. I can spell out those groups for you: sets between players of roughly equal skill, and sets between players of differing skill. As I said, 3-2's would only occur between two players of roughly equal skill, whereas 3-0's would occur between two players of different skill. The length of individual games is also heavily dependent on whether the two players have roughly equal or differing skill levels, something you have completely ignored. The majority of tournament matches are not played between two players of roughly equal skill because the majority of a given tournament's attendees do not have roughly equal skill. The three types of averages (mean, median, and mode) all take into consideration the frequency/likelihood of each possible outcome. Since you ignore the frequency/likelihood of each possible outcome, your "average" is not actually an average. Don't throw around big fancy words like "statistics" when you don't even know what an average is.

tl;dr Despite not having any basic knowledge of statistics, you are trying to argue statistics with someone who has spent years studying statistics. There is no other way to say it: you are just plain wrong.

 

[Strong Badam]

o man

he spent years studying statistics