Lovage
Smash Hero
best of 5's with the current ruleset (much less the new ruleset) and DSR absolutely blows
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Legality Tentative: MBR Official Ruleset for 2012
- Thread starter Cactuar
- Start date
best of 5's with the current ruleset (much less the new ruleset) and DSR absolutely blows
Sinji
Smash Master
I c this new rule set will stay for a long period of time considering that PS is the only counter pick in singles.
Roneblaster
Smash Hero
I would argue with anyone that DL FD and BF are on a whole other level of "neutrality" thank fod or ys.
trahhSTEEZY
Smash Champion
let's hear it
i see no way in hell how FoD is bad to you, yoshis only cause the size/randall i guess, still not a huge issue imo.
i see no way in hell how FoD is bad to you, yoshis only cause the size/randall i guess, still not a huge issue imo.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2008
- Messages
- 7,187
ARmada vs Hungrybox could probably going on for 15 minutes per game. 15minutes x 5 = 75minutes. Defensive players are going to play defensive. Do you want them to play defensive even longer?
Bones0
Smash Legend
Can you be more specific?
(Idk if you read my post on the first page, but I recommended 1 ban with modified DSR and didn't see any problems, so I'm curious.)
D
Deleted member
Guest
I'll state my stance on this, which I think is somewhere between your two. FD creates situations that cannot be replicated on other stages to the point where it changes how the game is played. Fundamentally, this is exactly what a counter-pick stage is supposed to do. It is akin to Brinstar in that character capability (the sole function of the entire game) differs so drastically that it creates its own sub-strategies specific to that stage.
I haven't competitively played Melee in years, but I'd like to run with this idea for a moment.
Melee (and Smash in general) is a dynamic game, where any number of small changes can result in totally different outcomes. The basic engine of the game embraces this concept: the same attack does varying knockback and hit stun at different percentages. Then there's DI, CCing and everything else that we do as players to make the game as unpredictable as possible.
I think the stages play an important part in this as well. I'm sure there are many good arguments to be made for and against stages like Brinstar, Mute City, DK 64 and the rest, and I'm not well versed enough in Melee's current metagame to properly address them. However, unless those arguments are of the iron-clad type (like reasoning behind banning Hyrule Temple), I'm in favor of keeping the stage list as large as possible. Reducing the stage list to three platforms only (with the exception of FD) removes much of the dynamic play that separates Melee from other fighters. This list tries to make the stage a non-factor, and while I understand that sentiment, I feel that mindset removes something important from the game. The stage is oftentimes the third character on the screen, from lava and racetrack combos on fastfallers to miraculous saves by barrels and clouds. I played ICs when I was attending tournaments, and instead of having a pocket Fox in doubles, I had a pocket Termina counterpick. While those stages may not be competitive in the strictest sense, they are a part of what makes Smash unique.
Of course there is a limit to my line of reasoning; I'm certainly not arguing to turn on items for a more "unique" experience. But I was sad when Onett was banned, if for no other reason than watching matches there was not watching matches on FD for the umpteenth time. I also think that limiting tournaments to such a small number of similar stages may centralize the metagame, but once again I'm not competent enough to actually make that argument. It's just a gut feeling.
Jam: http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=308701
People like us go there. But most people in the community are happy with this set, so it's all what you like. Not like there's really any wrong way to play Smash.
People like us go there. But most people in the community are happy with this set, so it's all what you like. Not like there's really any wrong way to play Smash.
Veetaak
Smash Lord
Good to see the ****ty stages gone
Roneblaster
Smash Hero
The moving ****ing platforms.
:Tally Hoes
Banned via Administration
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2011
- Messages
- 62
I feel TOs have the finally say but maybe i've misheard it doesn't hurt to let people try.
I feel that more stages would kill non space animals overall this is a hard enough game learning all your match ups as say ics or falco or whoever how ever each stage can do small changes like dl to bf or big blue where it completely chanes every bit of spacing (set cpus on jump you'll notice they won't keep the same height) to corn. Where you have to deal with everyone camping you from a random stand point. If you don't reliaze how to counter the laser camping you lost the set if you know big blue you are 5 steps ahead of the metagame there and i can honesty say i doubt many people understand how top metagame works there in even fox dittos other than maybe run on the road and come up with a sh bair too fast to expect because he can rapidly nair or bair each time he runs to either the left or right being hype agro.
Also we i feel we should respect the lower tiers who'd get wall inf. ed by fox all dai or laser craped on or what have you
I feel that more stages would kill non space animals overall this is a hard enough game learning all your match ups as say ics or falco or whoever how ever each stage can do small changes like dl to bf or big blue where it completely chanes every bit of spacing (set cpus on jump you'll notice they won't keep the same height) to corn. Where you have to deal with everyone camping you from a random stand point. If you don't reliaze how to counter the laser camping you lost the set if you know big blue you are 5 steps ahead of the metagame there and i can honesty say i doubt many people understand how top metagame works there in even fox dittos other than maybe run on the road and come up with a sh bair too fast to expect because he can rapidly nair or bair each time he runs to either the left or right being hype agro.
Also we i feel we should respect the lower tiers who'd get wall inf. ed by fox all dai or laser craped on or what have you
BRLNK88
Smash Ace
Brinstar and Rainbow Cruise should remain counterpicks.
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 5,493
I was waiting for you to post about this, anyways. Seems to be a topic you like discussing a LOT. 
Johnknight1
Upward and Forward, Positive and Persistent
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2007
- Messages
- 18,979
- NNID
- Johnknight1
- 3DS FC
- 3540-0575-1486
That's not defensive play, that's a failure to
I still think stages like Brinstar and Rainbow Cruise (because I own that stage) should remain not as "should be" CPs, but maybe a separate category of CPs ("optional Counter Picks").
Maybe I just like the option of giving some TOs the green light to have certain less popular stages that certain space animals don't kill as CPs (or that aren't big blocks of camp or glitch fests like Hyrule Temple and Venom). Plus I've always liked looser rules that allow someone to win based on how well they know the stage more often (no, I'm not talking crazy crap like Yoshi's Island 64 or Infinite Glacier, but more "even" non-neutral stages). I just think if someone loses on Rainbow Cruise because they don't know the stage and I've memorized nearly every frame, I deserve to win there unless something goes in my favor. I have used that as a counter stage with any character I've used because I have an edge based on my memorization of timing, whereas surprisingly many high level players don't know much of the timing.
Maybe it's just because I like to counter people and use my memorization of the timing of things on Rainbow Cruise to annoy people...
Edit: Umbreon's point on Final D is dead on how I feel. That stage is so much different from every stage. It does have it's own strategy, and my mindset is always different when I play on that stage with any character.
But yeah, if this is the rule set the community wants, I'm cool and will roll with this. I'll still act fake I'm countering with Poké Floats and then go to Pokémon Stadium!
Wake
Smash Master
I'm just curious. I don't mind DK64, Brinstar, and RC being taken off, but I'm curious about why Fox, who is already one of the best, if not the best, character to get a very good CP stage, but other characters get theirs taken away...
TRah NOO! =Ptypicallll falcon main
you cant resort to playing the bias card like that.
just because there exists a strong influence that a stage discussion has on your main, it doesn't mean you cant have a legitimate opinion on it. One could easily say that someone, who doesnt main falcon, cant comment on how YS or FoD affects game play
because they DONT play him in the same respect, no?
Anywho. . . as far as the two stages rene was talking about. . . both of them have an element or two to them that might qualify them to be CPs. While not huge factors, there is a chance that they influence highend matches enough to warrant a degrade. Would like to know what other people think. Cactuar esp.
YS - At somewhat lower and mid %s characters will get knocked off the stage at times, but not not far enough to where they still cant sweetspot ledges with their double jumps. And, at mid-higher %s, you can get knocked off at a greater height, but with the right distances and good di, your character will still sometimes opt to fall underneath the ledge and sweetspot, again, using their DJ. Characters like falcon, marth and doc almost always rely on their DJ sweetspot to get back on the stage. Unfortunately, for a fourth of the match, you will have randall making his run around your side of the stage, acting as a platform to land on/jump off of. And, while being in the heat of the moment (and the way the camera moves around), there will be little to no way of seeing the cloud there and adjust your di/DJ timing around that, resulting in you DJing higher than the stage, or even simply landing on randall, which will usually get you hit again (and usually killed) by more competent opponents.
This may not seem like a big deal, but this could potentially alter a large sample of games seeing that, in the right spots, you could lose a whole stock due to a bad sweet spot and effectively make the match your 3 stocks to his four.
This affects the prev mentioned three chars a lot because of their poor horizontal recovery options. And, again, randall is posing a potential threat to these chars exactly 25% of the match. That's a pretty decent chunck of the match, imo.
Now, in the case of several of the other chars (spacies, peach, jiggs), they each have a pretty good horizontal recovery (and a lot of options that go along with them) to the point where they will sometimes have little troubles getting back on, even with randal looming around the stage. I wont get into detail (unless someone wants me to) as mostly all of us are familiar with the concept of each of these chars' recoveries.
Imo, it's clear to see how this element makes the match somewhat tougher for some chars to play/get around, and affects other chars so less often of the time. Obv marth benefits from a couple other aspects of the stage, but I think it's irrelevant in this case.
FoD - To put it short, altering platform heights will sometimes play to the advantage of chars who play a pretty good ground game and/or chars with low-frame aerials and will still be able to get what they need out of the move. The same platforms will also be an inhibitor to chars, or playstyles, that are very aerial based and who dont have many low-frame aerials (or any at all). And what this does is basically encourage the less-affected char to specifically play around this aspect and attempt to have every engagement occur around the two outer platforms of the stages.
To a lesser extent, there are also instances where you are running towards a char to make a guarenteed grab. If a platform comes out from under you before you get to the middle/end of the stage, you end up running of the platform and performing the first several frame of your chars fair, instead. Again, this occurs WAAAY less often and would have a much smaller influence on that simgle match. Just thought I would add it.
Let me know what you think.
If nothing else, I would like to know the MBR's definition of what qualifies a stage to be a CP. If the definition is somewhat similar to what I am roughly thinking, a stage that contains elements that plays to either a direct strength or weakness of a single or set or characters w/o containing one specific strategy/tactic that at least one char would be able to rely on to win (banned stages), I feel that what I explained might come close to qualifying those stages to be CPs.
I always though KJ64 followed that definition exactly, and should stay a CP, as it had size and an additional and elevated platform that helped chars with good vertical recoveries but hurt chars with horizontal ones.
BUt I understand that the top plats could abuse slower chars in the form of time outs, so I can accept that.
Another thought: Does a rule that would forbid obvious time stalls for the char in the lead sound? Like maybe stalling above the stage or on a ledge for 30 seconds or so would result in a loss w/o the slightest attempt at an engagement?
I just thought about it like 20 sec ago, so there might be a lot wrong with it. . .
TL;DR - Randal and rising platforms are sometimes "random". Maybe random enough to be cp?
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2008
- Messages
- 26,560
Two reasons.
1. Rainbow Cruise is one of Fox's better stages.
2. The stagelist & ruleset is not created in the hopes of making the game more balanced. Its goal is mainly to increase consistency of results, and give Tournament Organizers something to start with when making a ruleset for a tournament..
Luma
Smash Lord
could someone explain to me why KJ64 and JJ are legal for teams and not for singles?
KJ64 is kinda easy for me to understand why.
KJ64 is in singles not even close to be a stage that should be allowed. Why Im saying this is cause I know from personal experience how ****ing bad that stage is when it comes to camping.
Slow chars have not a chance if fast chars decide to timeing them out. The plattforms is really high which also give a lot och chars a big problem to coming around the stage fast. If this stage is on way to manu chars can not be played at all and you are forced to play other chars.
In teams this is not the same thing cause you also have a teammate and even if both are slow yu can corner them so the advantage is not close to be that big (if we compare with singles).
I have even seen/heard people have 4 STOCKS when they are winning on a time out and that is not cause they are " to good" it is because it is ****ing easy.
About JJ Im not sure but would like to hear how they was thinking =)
KJ64 is in singles not even close to be a stage that should be allowed. Why Im saying this is cause I know from personal experience how ****ing bad that stage is when it comes to camping.
Slow chars have not a chance if fast chars decide to timeing them out. The plattforms is really high which also give a lot och chars a big problem to coming around the stage fast. If this stage is on way to manu chars can not be played at all and you are forced to play other chars.
In teams this is not the same thing cause you also have a teammate and even if both are slow yu can corner them so the advantage is not close to be that big (if we compare with singles).
I have even seen/heard people have 4 STOCKS when they are winning on a time out and that is not cause they are " to good" it is because it is ****ing easy.
About JJ Im not sure but would like to hear how they was thinking =)
Luma
Smash Lord
yeah but the problem is, every teammatch could end up in a 1on1 situation, so i dont think any stage not legal for singles should be allowed in teams
Yeah that part is true for sure. That´s a reason why I don´t like to have the stage in teams. But I don´t think they eother consider that scenario or they think it´s not to much to actually care about.
I think it actually is to much so KJ should not be allowed but at least I can understand how they were thinking.
I think it actually is to much so KJ should not be allowed but at least I can understand how they were thinking.
stelzig
Smash Lord
I don't think an occasional 1on1 1 stock match that then happens to be in a matchup that can really be camped out (and with the right character in the lead) is anywhere near as problematic. It's not really the same situation as the one armada describes where you're forced to use a different character because you expect for the match to actually end up in a 1v1. In other words the stage works for every matchup in teams.
I've questioned why this stage wasn't allowed in teams in europe for quite a while now, heh.
EthereaL
Smash Journeyman
Sigh. Heh, it doesn't matter.
I hope in the future we have more stage variance.
I hope in the future we have more stage variance.
Luma
Smash Lord
just because its unlikely to happen and not as bad as it is in singles doenst mean its not a problem imo
stelzig
Smash Lord
Well you still can't deny that the argument that you directly can't play certain characters on the stage is no longer valid, and that is the argument armada pointed out.
Edit: So "the problem" would have to be something other than that. And what is the problem then? That the camping for the remainder of the match is boring/annoying?
Another interesting point here is actually that many of the slow characters that would have troubles on this stage 1on1 can actually survive pretty well on this stage because it is quite huge, and therefore might even be interested in CPing it themselves, and then live with the eventual camping disadvantage.
Edit: So "the problem" would have to be something other than that. And what is the problem then? That the camping for the remainder of the match is boring/annoying?
Another interesting point here is actually that many of the slow characters that would have troubles on this stage 1on1 can actually survive pretty well on this stage because it is quite huge, and therefore might even be interested in CPing it themselves, and then live with the eventual camping disadvantage.
@TheCrimsonBlur:
Yes. People posted stuff, and based on discussion around the information provided, a list was made. This isn't Unity. This is a recommended ruleset based on where the game is currently, providing what is, in my mind and based on the contributions of the MBR, a fair methodology for playing tournament sets. I am all for having a specific method of removing stages, but the reality is we are alone as a community for the most part in having to deal with stage legality. There is nothing for us to base this from, so we pretty much have to form those methods as we go, and try to make those methods as fair as possible.
You have stated your belief in me as an individual to be fluid in my mindset when presented with dissenting opinion. I believe (I hope anyway) most of the competitive community that has interacted with me would share your belief. Even if I fail at having that mindset, we have built in checks to my authority as an individual, as I am not the law. I am just one player. Anyone is welcome to disagree with me, and I am always willing to have full discussions on any topic with those who wish to.
That said, I don't think there is a need for me to defend my position, so I'm going to move along with the thread.
Regarding your side point, the effort isn't towards balancing the game. It is towards enabling player skill and intelligence (player vs player) to be the primary determinant of a tournament set. As such, using the top 8-10 characters in BO3 and BO5 settings as a balancing point seems most relevant.
I respect low tier players because they go into tournaments recognizing their weaknesses in matchups and stages, and have to overcome far greater barriers to really stand out. The removal of counterpick stages generally benefits low tier players, as, outside of pocket counterpicks, the majority of the CP stages put them at a further disadvantage against high/top tiers, and allows them a static field of play to develop their counter strategies against characters that have an innate advantage in matchup percentage.
@Kevo:
Choosing to use DSR over DSRM was basically an opinion against seeing the same stage used in any set twice, and to encourage seeing high level play in every matchup on every legal stage. Seeing the same stage chosen for play a second time by the individual who won on that stage earlier in the set gives a huge psychological advantage to that player, and doesn't really further prove the skill of either player. There is an argument to be made about the effect of learning the opponent. I encourage BO7's for very lategame tournaments to really showcase this, as a fully played out BO7 gives opportunity for both players to showcase their full talent, coming full circle to replay an earlier stage after playing all available stages and getting a feel for one another. This could be replicated and bumped down to BO5 sets using DSRM, but we would be restricting that sense of fully engaging the skill and stage knowledge of both players in doing so, and would see them play on only 3 or 4 stages in a BO5.
@ShroudedOne:
You do realize you are trying to defend Brinstar and Mute City, and then criticize Rainbow Cruise for having ban-worthy player to stage interaction, right?
...
**
@Bones0:
TCB is making the point of spacies being stronger on PS than the rest of the cast while already having enough strong stages in the neutral list, which is legitimate. Marth does happen to do well vs spacies on PS in my opinion, but the Marth community as a whole might be split on that opinion, so I wouldn't use that in an argument for that case.
For the record, if PS does get removed, the BO7 ban methodology will be adjusted so that prior to playing match 6, the winner of match 5 will also receive a ban.
@MM Distortion:
I think most people agree that it would be great to have more options for players when trying to counterpick an opponent, but the issue is with how great an influence those stages have on the player vs player aspect of the game. We don't go to tournaments to see Brinstar beat Player B in finals. We go to see the outcome of Player A's skill vs Player B's skill. Tournaments exist to test the skill of the individual, not the mechanics of the game. (Opinion)
@JPOBS:
You didn't really read the OP thoroughly enough. DSR basically removes the ability to play on the same stage twice in any set (unless it is a BO7 in the 7th match). DSRM only bars the ability to counterpick to the stage you last won on.
This ruleset uses DSR.
@<3: I would be okay with a discussion around whether to use a different time limit. The objective with 8 minutes to is to dissuade timeouts purely due to defensive play, but to enable a player to use timeout as a strategy if they so choose.
@JPeGImage:
I'm just going to simplify this into one example of why it doesn't work, but having only FD, DL, and BF would ruin first round picks for Sheik. Sheik vs Fox or Falco would automatically end up on FD or Dreamland. That sound okay to you?
If you want me to elaborate further on the advantages of 5 neutral to 3 neutral, I will on request.
@Luma: That scenario on KJ64 is something that should be considered by the team in their strategy during the late game. Protect the player that has a superior 1v1 game on the stage, or take enough of a lead that the end is a 2v1, etc. There are more ways to provide the team an advantage in that situation, whereas in singles it is uncounterable without changing characters. Teams in general allows for strategy to fill in the gaps of a stage having inherent flaws. As such, to fall victim to an inherent stage flaw, provided it is not "broken", is a failure of the team strategy.
About Jungle Japes...
This was basically my post in the MBR:
The biggest issues with Jungle Japes are the claptrap, the ridiculously high ceiling, and the way it promotes camping. In teams, camping strategies are not nearly as effective as in singles. If a team goes to Jungle Japes playing Marth+Marth (or any duo of characters that has no answer for projectile induced camping weakness), they deserve to lose. Most team compositions will have ways to counter camping.
The claptrap is highly situational, but, in my opinion and experience, promotes play that is aggressive towards getting the opponent into the water for as much time as possible. It also reduces ledgestalling options by threatening with a stock loss.
The extremely high ceiling also encourages play towards killing the opponent off the bottom or sides.
Control of the right side of the stage is valued over control of the left due to water flow.
On stage, there are no random variables to account for.
Overall, I don't really see anything wrong the the stage for teams. Anyone care to counter/discuss?
(As a side note: Seeing Taj or Forward play on Jungle Japes is a thing of beauty.)
Yes. People posted stuff, and based on discussion around the information provided, a list was made. This isn't Unity. This is a recommended ruleset based on where the game is currently, providing what is, in my mind and based on the contributions of the MBR, a fair methodology for playing tournament sets. I am all for having a specific method of removing stages, but the reality is we are alone as a community for the most part in having to deal with stage legality. There is nothing for us to base this from, so we pretty much have to form those methods as we go, and try to make those methods as fair as possible.
You have stated your belief in me as an individual to be fluid in my mindset when presented with dissenting opinion. I believe (I hope anyway) most of the competitive community that has interacted with me would share your belief. Even if I fail at having that mindset, we have built in checks to my authority as an individual, as I am not the law. I am just one player. Anyone is welcome to disagree with me, and I am always willing to have full discussions on any topic with those who wish to.
That said, I don't think there is a need for me to defend my position, so I'm going to move along with the thread.
Regarding your side point, the effort isn't towards balancing the game. It is towards enabling player skill and intelligence (player vs player) to be the primary determinant of a tournament set. As such, using the top 8-10 characters in BO3 and BO5 settings as a balancing point seems most relevant.
I respect low tier players because they go into tournaments recognizing their weaknesses in matchups and stages, and have to overcome far greater barriers to really stand out. The removal of counterpick stages generally benefits low tier players, as, outside of pocket counterpicks, the majority of the CP stages put them at a further disadvantage against high/top tiers, and allows them a static field of play to develop their counter strategies against characters that have an innate advantage in matchup percentage.
@Kevo:
Choosing to use DSR over DSRM was basically an opinion against seeing the same stage used in any set twice, and to encourage seeing high level play in every matchup on every legal stage. Seeing the same stage chosen for play a second time by the individual who won on that stage earlier in the set gives a huge psychological advantage to that player, and doesn't really further prove the skill of either player. There is an argument to be made about the effect of learning the opponent. I encourage BO7's for very lategame tournaments to really showcase this, as a fully played out BO7 gives opportunity for both players to showcase their full talent, coming full circle to replay an earlier stage after playing all available stages and getting a feel for one another. This could be replicated and bumped down to BO5 sets using DSRM, but we would be restricting that sense of fully engaging the skill and stage knowledge of both players in doing so, and would see them play on only 3 or 4 stages in a BO5.
@ShroudedOne:
You do realize you are trying to defend Brinstar and Mute City, and then criticize Rainbow Cruise for having ban-worthy player to stage interaction, right?
...
*
*@Bones0:
TCB is making the point of spacies being stronger on PS than the rest of the cast while already having enough strong stages in the neutral list, which is legitimate. Marth does happen to do well vs spacies on PS in my opinion, but the Marth community as a whole might be split on that opinion, so I wouldn't use that in an argument for that case.
For the record, if PS does get removed, the BO7 ban methodology will be adjusted so that prior to playing match 6, the winner of match 5 will also receive a ban.
@MM Distortion:
I think most people agree that it would be great to have more options for players when trying to counterpick an opponent, but the issue is with how great an influence those stages have on the player vs player aspect of the game. We don't go to tournaments to see Brinstar beat Player B in finals. We go to see the outcome of Player A's skill vs Player B's skill. Tournaments exist to test the skill of the individual, not the mechanics of the game. (Opinion)
@JPOBS:
You didn't really read the OP thoroughly enough. DSR basically removes the ability to play on the same stage twice in any set (unless it is a BO7 in the 7th match). DSRM only bars the ability to counterpick to the stage you last won on.
This ruleset uses DSR.
@<3: I would be okay with a discussion around whether to use a different time limit. The objective with 8 minutes to is to dissuade timeouts purely due to defensive play, but to enable a player to use timeout as a strategy if they so choose.
@JPeGImage:
I'm just going to simplify this into one example of why it doesn't work, but having only FD, DL, and BF would ruin first round picks for Sheik. Sheik vs Fox or Falco would automatically end up on FD or Dreamland. That sound okay to you?
If you want me to elaborate further on the advantages of 5 neutral to 3 neutral, I will on request.
@Luma: That scenario on KJ64 is something that should be considered by the team in their strategy during the late game. Protect the player that has a superior 1v1 game on the stage, or take enough of a lead that the end is a 2v1, etc. There are more ways to provide the team an advantage in that situation, whereas in singles it is uncounterable without changing characters. Teams in general allows for strategy to fill in the gaps of a stage having inherent flaws. As such, to fall victim to an inherent stage flaw, provided it is not "broken", is a failure of the team strategy.
About Jungle Japes...
This was basically my post in the MBR:
The biggest issues with Jungle Japes are the claptrap, the ridiculously high ceiling, and the way it promotes camping. In teams, camping strategies are not nearly as effective as in singles. If a team goes to Jungle Japes playing Marth+Marth (or any duo of characters that has no answer for projectile induced camping weakness), they deserve to lose. Most team compositions will have ways to counter camping.
The claptrap is highly situational, but, in my opinion and experience, promotes play that is aggressive towards getting the opponent into the water for as much time as possible. It also reduces ledgestalling options by threatening with a stock loss.
The extremely high ceiling also encourages play towards killing the opponent off the bottom or sides.
Control of the right side of the stage is valued over control of the left due to water flow.
On stage, there are no random variables to account for.
Overall, I don't really see anything wrong the the stage for teams. Anyone care to counter/discuss?
(As a side note: Seeing Taj or Forward play on Jungle Japes is a thing of beauty.)
Archangel
Smash Hero
Ok so to sum up the past month.
*Metaknight banned in brawl!*
Melee players: hahahahahaha
*New ruleset for 2012
Brawl players: HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
on a serious note though this list isn't so bad. It has almost completely taken out the gayness of counterpicking but with a few drawbacks.
Wobbling still being legal and no Brinstar to avoid it I find extremely ghey. So now I'm forced to deal with it every match...*shrugs* **** it I'll still win
Obviously there is the Pokemon stadium issue....I really don't know how to take it honestly. You could always Ban PS but honestly the stage is really only good for 3 or 4 characters as a counter-pick and other times the stage transformations are just in the way. Since everything else is gone you may as well just get rid of CPs all together. Considering PS(a.k.a. the fox counterpick) is legal I just think leaving 1 not so good stage for him would have been more fair but....I can win vs fox on any neutral and on PS so **** him...BRING IT!
The funniest thing about this list to me personally is it is basically the exact same one as I use among friend lol.
*Metaknight banned in brawl!*
Melee players: hahahahahaha
*New ruleset for 2012
Brawl players: HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
on a serious note though this list isn't so bad. It has almost completely taken out the gayness of counterpicking but with a few drawbacks.
Wobbling still being legal and no Brinstar to avoid it I find extremely ghey. So now I'm forced to deal with it every match...*shrugs* **** it I'll still win
Obviously there is the Pokemon stadium issue....I really don't know how to take it honestly. You could always Ban PS but honestly the stage is really only good for 3 or 4 characters as a counter-pick and other times the stage transformations are just in the way. Since everything else is gone you may as well just get rid of CPs all together. Considering PS(a.k.a. the fox counterpick) is legal I just think leaving 1 not so good stage for him would have been more fair but....I can win vs fox on any neutral and on PS so **** him...BRING IT!
The funniest thing about this list to me personally is it is basically the exact same one as I use among friend lol.
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 5,493
Okay, fair point about RC. I guess you could have enough reason to ban RC and Brinstar (and Mute City ) on the premise of too much player - stage interaction. And I don't completely agree with what Armada said about KJ64 (only because you can ban the stage), but I recognize that slow characters have little/no chance there against a Fox/Falcon/Peach.I don't actually think that Japes in teams is a bad idea.
stelzig
Smash Lord
*metaknight banned in brawl*
Europe: hahahahahaha
*New MBR ruleset*
Europe: About time
Archangel
Smash Hero
*metaknight banned in brawl*
Europe: hahahahahaha
*New MBR ruleset*
Europe: About time
are you trying to say the ruleset was too advanced? I'm pretty sure Armada won Genesis 2
Aside from Armada and Amsah I blame the lack of Europe's overall success on.... Europe. These 2 made the adjustments so why not you?
Niko45
Smash Master
Looks great, I'm very happy with it
stelzig
Smash Lord
I'm trying to say that the reaction to the banning of metaknight wasn't similar to the release of the new mbr ruleset, at least not all over the planet 
(I have no idea if the brawl boards here are currently laughing at this new ruleset)
I don't quite get what you are trying to say with your second line. That we should get used/return to your ruleset instead of thinking that you are right about adjusting to our ruleset or something? Is this like when americans previously talked about people having to prove themselves to you before being able to call themselves the best in the world, but it's fine that you do it without proving it to us?
Edit: I doubt that any europeans placement is particularely low because of wacky counterpicks btw. I guess those players are honored to be overrated by you though.
(I have no idea if the brawl boards here are currently laughing at this new ruleset)I don't quite get what you are trying to say with your second line. That we should get used/return to your ruleset instead of thinking that you are right about adjusting to our ruleset or something? Is this like when americans previously talked about people having to prove themselves to you before being able to call themselves the best in the world, but it's fine that you do it without proving it to us?
Edit: I doubt that any europeans placement is particularely low because of wacky counterpicks btw. I guess those players are honored to be overrated by you though.
Niko45
Smash Master
the euro ruleset is way way better
Kal
Smash Champion
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2004
- Messages
- 2,973
Ok, wall of text time:
1) On Neutrality
There is no such thing as a "neutral" stage. For the most part, I will refer to these stages as starter stages, because, before the recently introduced strike-system, the distinction was necessary.
You can argue for a stage being neutral because of how it "effects" matchups, but in order to effect a matchup, you must have some standard defined for the matchup in the first place. In other words, in order to claim that Brinstar gives Peach an unfair advantage against Fox, you must first assume that her probability of beating Fox is lower than it should be on Brinstar. However, in order to do so, you assume Brinstar is not the stage being played in the first place. This logic is circular: you're already making the assumption that the stages are "neutral" by using them to judge how the matchups "should" be in the first place.
You can further argue that there should be no element of "player vs. player vs. stage." I shall address this element separately.
2) "Player vs. Player vs. Stage"
Some like to argue that a stage like Brinstar introduces a mechanic of "player vs. stage," which they claim does not exist in the starter stages. This is nonsensical, however: given two different stages, there will necessarily be different strategies invoked on each stage. Why is it ok for players to need to manage space better on Yoshi's Story, or to have to keep in mind that there are larger gaps between the platforms there, and to keep the low ceiling in mind; why is it ok for players to need to compensate for moving platforms on Fountain of Dreams, and account for the very high ceiling; why do people have to learn to maintain pressure better on Dreamland due to the very large space, and account for the very high ceiling?
Because it's part of the game. But, for a reason no one has sufficiently explained, lava on Brinstar and the cars on Mute City are somehow different enough to warrant a ban.
TOs should keep in mind that the only way to completely remove the player vs. stage element is to have a Hax-style ruleset of exactly one legal stage. Battlefield is a good choice, but I'm more prone to picking Green Greens.
3) Fairness - Why ban as little as possible?
Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote. - Marvin Simkin, Los Angeles Times
In other words, simply voting for something is not necessarily fair. Voting for certain things, like Stock vs. Time, Items-On vs. Items-Off, etc., are perfectly acceptable. On the other hand, things like what stages and characters are legal are not part of this category.
When your rule of thumb is to assume nothing should be banned without hard evidence, you are maintaining fairness for those few who enjoy playing the game in a different way. To ban a stage because it encourages camping would be no different than to ban a stage because it encourages aggression; the only difference is the proportion of players whose preference leans which way.
4) On Randomness
If we can agree that Peach's turnip is random, and that her turnip should not be banned, we have then agreed that a ban on randomness alone is unacceptable. There is more than one approach to how to address randomness, and I will go into depth on these.
Players often profess their displeasure with something on the basis that it is random. To a degree, randomness is bad. While, “in the long-run,” randomness does not effect the game at all, it is very frustrating when a tournament is lost because the capsule that fell happened to be an exploding one or when the turnip your opponent pulled happened to be a Bob-Bomb. I present three schools of thought on addressing randomness.
a) The first school of thought is to leave randomness alone. Randomness has no long-term impact on a game, and many feel that removing it because it is simply upsetting is a bad idea. Randomness in many cases tests an additional set of skills, such as improvisation, ability to measure risk vs. reward, and an ability to react to new circumstances.
b) The second school of thought is to set a “threshold” of random impact on the game and to ban anything which surpasses the threshold. For example, KishPrime uses the “Turnip Threshold,” which is to ban any randomness whose “significance” is greater than that of Peach’s down-B move.
With that in mind, it is important to understand what exactly a random event’s “significance” is. In fact, it is more than simply the severity of its possible outcomes. In order to measure a random event’s significance, you need to know the probabilities of these outcomes, and measure them against their respective impacts. In other words, “significance” here refers to “expected impact.” This is subjective unless concrete numbers can be drawn, but to make this clearer, I shall explain the mathematical concept of “expected value.”
The "expected value" of something is the product of its payout and its probability. Let's suppose, for example, that we bet on a coin flip. Suppose I pay you $50 every time you flip heads, and you pay me $25 every time you flip tails. Then my expected return is:
And my expected losses are:
And my total expected payout is $12.5 - $25 = -$12.5, i.e., I lose $12.5. You can perform the other computation and see that you'll gain $12.5. This means that, on average, I will lose $12.5 per coin flip, and you will gain $12.5 per coin flip.
By this school of thought, we would avoid banning Yoshi’s Story on the premise that the cloud behaves randomly. For, while it can have an impact on matches, it happens rather seldom, and the impact is generally quite small (e.g., a combo which should end in death instead ends with landing on the cloud). Moreover, the vast majority of the time, the cloud has no impact on a match at all.
c) The third school of thought is to ban what is referred to as “bad-random.” That is, any randomness which cannot be accounted for in a meaningful way, whose impact on gameplay is severe, and which suddenly and without warning influences the match in favor of one character should be banned. Such randomness is referred to as “bad-random.”
By this school of thought, it becomes clear that items should be disabled due to exploding capsules and crates being bad-random. Conversely, we see that other elements of randomness, such as the cars on Mute City and the lava on Brinstar, are not bad-random. Thus, Mute City and Brinstar would not be banned due to randomness.
I lean towards a combination of b) and c), but mostly c). Some randomness is ****-terrible, like Items-On and Icicle Mountain, but others are more-or-less acceptable, like Peach's turnip, Mute City's cars, and Brinstar's lava.
5) Selling Out
An aside I have to make is on this notion of adjusting our ruleset to increase turnout. To a degree, it's necessary; if you really think Hyrule should be on, that's great, but frankly the rest of the community (literally, everyone but you) disagrees, and probably won't show up to your tournament. So, on the one hand, we absolutely need to sell out in order to have a turnout.
On the other hand, **** that ****.
6) What the hell, Hero?
Finally, the only thing I really want, out of all of this, is an actual set of standards the MBR is going by. Without standards, the "recommended" ruleset (I hate that it's called that) is just subjective, baseless opinion. If you create a set of standards, those standards, and their implications, can be discussed.
What we have right now is mostly *****ing from the minority who does not agree with this ruleset. And rightfully so they should be *****ing: the majority doesn't have the right to tell us not to pick Mute City any more than they have the right to tell us not to pick Peach.
tl;dr - I'm alive again, more alive than I have been in my whole entire life. I can see these people's ears perk up as I begin to spaz with the pen.
1) On Neutrality
There is no such thing as a "neutral" stage. For the most part, I will refer to these stages as starter stages, because, before the recently introduced strike-system, the distinction was necessary.
You can argue for a stage being neutral because of how it "effects" matchups, but in order to effect a matchup, you must have some standard defined for the matchup in the first place. In other words, in order to claim that Brinstar gives Peach an unfair advantage against Fox, you must first assume that her probability of beating Fox is lower than it should be on Brinstar. However, in order to do so, you assume Brinstar is not the stage being played in the first place. This logic is circular: you're already making the assumption that the stages are "neutral" by using them to judge how the matchups "should" be in the first place.
You can further argue that there should be no element of "player vs. player vs. stage." I shall address this element separately.
2) "Player vs. Player vs. Stage"
Some like to argue that a stage like Brinstar introduces a mechanic of "player vs. stage," which they claim does not exist in the starter stages. This is nonsensical, however: given two different stages, there will necessarily be different strategies invoked on each stage. Why is it ok for players to need to manage space better on Yoshi's Story, or to have to keep in mind that there are larger gaps between the platforms there, and to keep the low ceiling in mind; why is it ok for players to need to compensate for moving platforms on Fountain of Dreams, and account for the very high ceiling; why do people have to learn to maintain pressure better on Dreamland due to the very large space, and account for the very high ceiling?
Because it's part of the game. But, for a reason no one has sufficiently explained, lava on Brinstar and the cars on Mute City are somehow different enough to warrant a ban.
TOs should keep in mind that the only way to completely remove the player vs. stage element is to have a Hax-style ruleset of exactly one legal stage. Battlefield is a good choice, but I'm more prone to picking Green Greens.
3) Fairness - Why ban as little as possible?
Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote. - Marvin Simkin, Los Angeles Times
In other words, simply voting for something is not necessarily fair. Voting for certain things, like Stock vs. Time, Items-On vs. Items-Off, etc., are perfectly acceptable. On the other hand, things like what stages and characters are legal are not part of this category.
When your rule of thumb is to assume nothing should be banned without hard evidence, you are maintaining fairness for those few who enjoy playing the game in a different way. To ban a stage because it encourages camping would be no different than to ban a stage because it encourages aggression; the only difference is the proportion of players whose preference leans which way.
4) On Randomness
If we can agree that Peach's turnip is random, and that her turnip should not be banned, we have then agreed that a ban on randomness alone is unacceptable. There is more than one approach to how to address randomness, and I will go into depth on these.
Players often profess their displeasure with something on the basis that it is random. To a degree, randomness is bad. While, “in the long-run,” randomness does not effect the game at all, it is very frustrating when a tournament is lost because the capsule that fell happened to be an exploding one or when the turnip your opponent pulled happened to be a Bob-Bomb. I present three schools of thought on addressing randomness.
a) The first school of thought is to leave randomness alone. Randomness has no long-term impact on a game, and many feel that removing it because it is simply upsetting is a bad idea. Randomness in many cases tests an additional set of skills, such as improvisation, ability to measure risk vs. reward, and an ability to react to new circumstances.
b) The second school of thought is to set a “threshold” of random impact on the game and to ban anything which surpasses the threshold. For example, KishPrime uses the “Turnip Threshold,” which is to ban any randomness whose “significance” is greater than that of Peach’s down-B move.
With that in mind, it is important to understand what exactly a random event’s “significance” is. In fact, it is more than simply the severity of its possible outcomes. In order to measure a random event’s significance, you need to know the probabilities of these outcomes, and measure them against their respective impacts. In other words, “significance” here refers to “expected impact.” This is subjective unless concrete numbers can be drawn, but to make this clearer, I shall explain the mathematical concept of “expected value.”
The "expected value" of something is the product of its payout and its probability. Let's suppose, for example, that we bet on a coin flip. Suppose I pay you $50 every time you flip heads, and you pay me $25 every time you flip tails. Then my expected return is:
(.5)($25) = $12.5
And my expected losses are:
(.5)($50) = $25
And my total expected payout is $12.5 - $25 = -$12.5, i.e., I lose $12.5. You can perform the other computation and see that you'll gain $12.5. This means that, on average, I will lose $12.5 per coin flip, and you will gain $12.5 per coin flip.
By this school of thought, we would avoid banning Yoshi’s Story on the premise that the cloud behaves randomly. For, while it can have an impact on matches, it happens rather seldom, and the impact is generally quite small (e.g., a combo which should end in death instead ends with landing on the cloud). Moreover, the vast majority of the time, the cloud has no impact on a match at all.
c) The third school of thought is to ban what is referred to as “bad-random.” That is, any randomness which cannot be accounted for in a meaningful way, whose impact on gameplay is severe, and which suddenly and without warning influences the match in favor of one character should be banned. Such randomness is referred to as “bad-random.”
By this school of thought, it becomes clear that items should be disabled due to exploding capsules and crates being bad-random. Conversely, we see that other elements of randomness, such as the cars on Mute City and the lava on Brinstar, are not bad-random. Thus, Mute City and Brinstar would not be banned due to randomness.
I lean towards a combination of b) and c), but mostly c). Some randomness is ****-terrible, like Items-On and Icicle Mountain, but others are more-or-less acceptable, like Peach's turnip, Mute City's cars, and Brinstar's lava.
5) Selling Out
An aside I have to make is on this notion of adjusting our ruleset to increase turnout. To a degree, it's necessary; if you really think Hyrule should be on, that's great, but frankly the rest of the community (literally, everyone but you) disagrees, and probably won't show up to your tournament. So, on the one hand, we absolutely need to sell out in order to have a turnout.
On the other hand, **** that ****.
6) What the hell, Hero?
Finally, the only thing I really want, out of all of this, is an actual set of standards the MBR is going by. Without standards, the "recommended" ruleset (I hate that it's called that) is just subjective, baseless opinion. If you create a set of standards, those standards, and their implications, can be discussed.
What we have right now is mostly *****ing from the minority who does not agree with this ruleset. And rightfully so they should be *****ing: the majority doesn't have the right to tell us not to pick Mute City any more than they have the right to tell us not to pick Peach.
tl;dr - I'm alive again, more alive than I have been in my whole entire life. I can see these people's ears perk up as I begin to spaz with the pen.
I'm only going to address this once:
Please refrain from posting Europe vs USA comments. We are one community. The only thing that makes Armada or Amsah different in smash from anyone else isn't where they live. It is how they play.
I don't make posts about "Europeans" or "Americans" being foolishly prideful of their region just because a handful are. Stop generalizing the whole based on the comments of the few.
That aside: I tend to agree on the Euro ruleset being pretty phenom.
Please refrain from posting Europe vs USA comments. We are one community. The only thing that makes Armada or Amsah different in smash from anyone else isn't where they live. It is how they play.
I don't make posts about "Europeans" or "Americans" being foolishly prideful of their region just because a handful are. Stop generalizing the whole based on the comments of the few.
That aside: I tend to agree on the Euro ruleset being pretty phenom.