Legality Tentative: MBR Official Ruleset for 2012

[Kal]

I'm just not following how playing additional games, all things the same, won't increase the length of a tournament. Your math is right in that the increase in duration does not scale with the size of the tournament, but it seems necessarily true that the duration of the tournament will increase somewhat. And I don't see this as an issue to hate anyone over, so I'm not going to drop it in fear of hostility arising. they just woirds

 

[Divinokage]

Well also accounting for every single player there doing 1v1s in a tournament is unlikely though especially at national tournaments. There simply isn't enough setups to make this viable. It sounds like another argument about the "Perfect" tournament which again is pretty dumb.

 

[Kal]

I think if people were to handle their tournaments a little better, and to just be a little harsher in dealing out punishment, it would be viable at a national level. It's not an argument about the "perfect" tournament, either. Ferrish and I are both arguing from practicality. The most time lost in a tournament is from players ****ing around. Actually committing to your rules and really punishing people for being late or for playing friendlies would fix this, making best of fives, in my opinion, viable even at large tournaments.

 

[Divinokage]

I think if people were to handle their tournaments a little better, and to just be a little harsher in dealing out punishment, it would be viable at a national level. It's not an argument about the "perfect" tournament, either. Ferrish and I are both arguing from practicality. The most time lost in a tournament is from players ****ing around. Actually committing to your rules and really punishing people for being late or for playing friendlies would fix this, making best of fives, in my opinion, viable even at large tournaments.

I'm not sure if that's what people would want though. Well, I personally enjoy having my free time doing friendlies, MMing or just relaxing/having some time for myself. I don't think it's a good idea to enforce rules of people having to play right away their matches at the cost of having fun. I also don't see the big deal of having best of 5s between lower skilled players because you can always just MM or play friendlies... And also it's not something many people would like to watch over a period of time, I think it would make people more impatient to see the actual good matches everyone wants to see.

 

[Kal]

I've never been a fan of giving a **** what the people want. They usually just want what's best for them, and don't put thought into much more than that. We all enjoy friendlies and money matches, but those shouldn't be run during the tournament, in my opinion. I think it benefits everyone to have the tournament run promptly, so even if you have less fun at a tournament because of it, I think it's worthwhile. Tournaments are not, in my opinion, about having fun; they are about competition.

And I agree that it's not a big deal if worse players have to play best of three, but at the same time you're making them play a "different" version of Melee simply because of their level of skill (or, in many cases, how they are seeded in the bracket). Everyone's tournament fee is the same in my eyes, and I don't think better players should receive better treatment (i.e., get to play longer sets) just because they are better. And keep in mind that this also benefits better players who are doing worse in a particular instance (if, for example, you ****ed up two matches in a row, you can pick up and comeback in a best of five).

People may not want to watch best of fives, but that's also not an issue I consider worth worrying about. If people don't want to watch, they don't have to watch, but I won't make rules to pander to their flimsy, fickle preferences. It's assumed that most people don't want to watch Peach dittos or Puff dittos, but we would not change rules for that reason. Preference is not enough to warrant a rule.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

Well, I personally enjoy having my free time doing friendlies, MMing or just relaxing/having some time for myself. I don't think it's a good idea to enforce rules of people having to play right away their matches at the cost of having fun.

MMs are always more fun when the tournament is over! Then you get everyone watching, saltiness/crew rivalry pumping up the bets, people cheering and booing with every move, and it's overall pretty awesome.

Friendlies can and should happen before a tournament, and I see no reason why they can't happen after tournaments as well. The only time I've played friendlies during a tournament was late bracket where there legitimately were TVs that weren't being used for anything else.

Seriously, what are you losing if your tournament finishes two hours early and you stick around for friendlies and MMs afterward?

 

[Kal]

Well said, Ferrish.

 

[Divinokage]

MMs are always more fun when the tournament is over! Then you get everyone watching, saltiness/crew rivalry pumping up the bets, people cheering and booing with every move, and it's overall pretty awesome.

Friendlies can and should happen before a tournament, and I see no reason why they can't happen after tournaments as well. The only time I've played friendlies during a tournament was late bracket where there legitimately were TVs that weren't being used for anything else.

Seriously, what are you losing if your tournament finishes two hours early and you stick around for friendlies and MMs afterward?

I think that only happens in local tournaments though, I don't think I've been to any nationals where there was a lot of free time before or after the tournament, it's pretty rare. Actually.. there is a bit of free time before the tourneys but if there is a lack setup where the tournament finishes really late already, would best of 5s be viable? I mean in this case TOs would have to be extra strict and have a ton of staff to make everyone play their matches but it's not everyone that's willing to do that. It's pretty hard to control 100s of smashers in one room lol.

 

[Strife]

Feh, it was slow all weekend and now the thread moves quickly. I really liked the previous topic we were on.

Does anyone have any statistics for ahead of or behind schedule national tournaments usually run?

From what I've seen they tend to run behind schedule, it's rare for a big tourney live stream to end before midnight(eastern time); and if that's the case then best of 5s shouldn't even really be considered. The only way that would work if TOs and smashers suddenly became more prompt and responsible because of the rule, and that's just unrealistic.

 

[Kal]

If the rule were enforced, I really think people would behave better.

 

[ShroudedOne]

Could someone explain to me the reasoning behind wanting all sets to be bo5? I must've missed that. Thanks.

 

[Strong Badam]

Taj's Better Rule: A player may ban ONE neutral or ALL counterpick stages.

This rule is in effect for singles Best of 3 sets.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

Could someone explain to me the reasoning behind wanting all sets to be bo5? I must've missed that. Thanks.

The idea is that a set is meant to determine which player ought to advance. Statistically speaking--and no, I do not use that phrase lightly--the most accurate way to determine which player ought to advance is to have the two players play a set of infinite games and tally up the results when they're done (which is obviously not very quick). Practically speaking, the quickest way to determine which player ought to advance is to have the two players play a one-game set (which leaves too much up to random chance). The current practice of bo3's is simply a happy medium between the two extremes. We propose that bo5's is a happier medium. We have some evidence that bo5's can work on small- and large-scales (something to do with toilets flushing backwards in Australia and stupid ******* with no math skills).

This rule is in effect for singles Best of 3 sets.

... So does that mean you will add some CP stages and implement the rule, or are you just trolling because you regard any contribution by anybody whose name isn't purple as a complete waste of time/effort/space because you only start these threads as jokes to make the community feel as if the MBR is somehow representing their best interests?

 

[Cactuar]

@Kal: I honestly don't like discussing things with Sveet, but I feel that it is important to have a broad presence in the MBR. As such, recruitment is done by Regional Leaders, not me. I actually have no control over who gets into the MBR beyond the ability to voice my opinion and having to hit the accept button.

No offense, Sveet.

And regarding Strife: I wouldn't infract him just because of his direct insults towards me. I have considerable tournament presence and a huge amount of the tournament scene of this game has had a chance to interact with me at some point. The opinion of someone who means nothing to me will mean nothing to me, by extension.

 

[Strife]

@Kal: I honestly don't like discussing things with Sveet, but I feel that it is important to have a broad presence in the MBR. As such, recruitment is done by Regional Leaders, not me. I actually have no control over who gets into the MBR beyond the ability to voice my opinion and having to hit the accept button.

No offense, Sveet.

And regarding Strife: I wouldn't infract him just because of his direct insults towards me. I have considerable tournament presence and a huge amount of the tournament scene of this game has had a chance to interact with me at some point. The opinion of someone who means nothing to me will mean nothing to me, by extension.

Hmmm....not sure how to take this.

When I was calling you an ***, I wasn't trying to hurt your feelings or something. We don't know each other, so you're right in that nothing I say should have any meaning to you. My purpose in voicing my opinion on your character and you being an *** was to ascertain if other people agreed with me on how much of a douche you're being. But the thread has moved on from that, so against the risk of being infracted for trolling I'll drop that topic.

I don't know what you mean by weak genetics. My parents are both intelligent successful people, and I was born with no mental defects. There is nothing genetically weak about me.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

I don't know what you mean by weak genetics. My parents are both intelligent successful people, and I was born with no mental defects. There is nothing genetically weak about me.

Must've skipped a generation.



Smooth Criminal

 

[Kal]

@Kal: I honestly don't like discussing things with Sveet, but I feel that it is important to have a broad presence in the MBR. As such, recruitment is done by Regional Leaders, not me. I actually have no control over who gets into the MBR beyond the ability to voice my opinion and having to hit the accept button.

I never really claimed that you were solely the one recruiting. The recruitment process is still something I find to be quite nonsensical, since there is no real way of determining whether anyone is "qualified" to be in the MBR. Further, the method of determining who is qualified seems to just be to ask the self-proclaimed experts, which just seems circular to me. And recruitment is but one issue I've stated having with the MBR.

And regarding Strife: I wouldn't infract him just because of his direct insults towards me. I have considerable tournament presence and a huge amount of the tournament scene of this game has had a chance to interact with me at some point. The opinion of someone who means nothing to me will mean nothing to me, by extension.

Pointing out that you're a mod was more of a joke. You haven't infracted anyone yet, as far as I can tell, and there has been a lot of flaming in this thread.

Strife, we've gone over that there is no point in trying to "ascertain" if other people share your opinion against Cactuar. It's not relevant to the thread. What you think of him personally has no bearing on the discussion or the decisions he's made in the MBR.

 

[Cactuar]

Lol. I actually don't have anything to say beyond what people have already said.

Don't insult people. That you were trying to gather support around the idea of insulting someone doesn't magically change the message into one with purpose.

I also don't infract people. Never have, and don't want to start. I much prefer directly addressing the individual.

@Kal: Just curious, how would you go about with recruitment? Like I said before, you tend to write a lot about your dissenting opinion on the state of the universe, but usually come up dry with suggestions unless spurred to create one. That should be part of your opening statement on a topic in this kind of context imo.

 

[Kal]

I would make a terrible moderator. I would infract people for grammar errors. I would be a total Nazi about it too.

"The correct phrase is, 'it is I. 'To be' is a copular verb. BANNED."

I would not bother recruiting at all, as I think the MBR shouldn't exist in the first place. However, some of these issues could be ameliorated if the MBR's discussion were at least open to the public to view (which I have already stated). I don't like your idea that my suggestions are dry; there is not much one dissenter can do against a group-think that has acquired this kind of pseudo-authority within the community. All I really can do is state my opinion and hope people see it my way. And to suggest that this is some sort of trope of my writing is a little insulting, because so far I've complained about two things, the MBR and the MBR ruleset, neither of which is going to change with any suggestion I can make. If there were a fix outside of what I thought to be a mass-shift throughout the entirety of the community towards non-scrubbiness, I would have said it by now. The best solution in this case is to state my opinions in the hope of educating as many people as possible. It's likely a lost cause anyway.

 

[Cactuar]

A noble cause imo.

Also, I just calls em like I sees em. I tend to ask for the alternate destination rather than dissenting opinion of current path. It makes it easier to see what all the steps are before starting the trip. I didn't mean to suggest your lack of alternatives was a consistent flaw in your lifetime of statements. That is just what I've had to ask for in my very brief experiences in discussing things with you. It is constructive criticism. I don't mind asking, I just feel like it would be more time efficient if that was included. And really, Kish vouched for you. I have no questions about your ability to debate, homey.

I do think you should drop the "reduce scrubbiness" idea. There are many paths towards scrubbiness. One of them is promoting X factors, random elements, etc, that reduce consistency in expected outcomes, or artificially inflate comebacks.

 

[danieljosebatista]

^which is why im very happy rainbow cruise is gone that stage is bs

 

[Kal]

I do think you should drop the "reduce scrubbiness" idea. There are many paths towards scrubbiness. One of them is promoting X factors, random elements, etc, that reduce consistency in expected outcomes, or artificially inflate comebacks.

I've never promoted randomness, I'm simply promoting not removing anything on subjective preference alone. If I were to build a game from the ground up, I would exclude as much randomness as possible. However, there isn't anything inherently wrong with randomness (especially if its impact is small or if it can be sufficiently accounted for), so I would not ban it from an already existing game for that reasoning alone. I see this as no different than my decision not to ban Falco; if I were to create a fighting game like Melee, there is absolutely no chance I would create a character with a projectile like Falco's (for largely subjective reasons). However, I don't mandate that the game we have right now be played without Falco.

I don't plan on dropping the "reduce scrubbiness" idea. Kish words it nicely:

If I may sum it up as follows - what we're saying is that when I get hit by a car and my opponent takes advantage, I blame myself for letting myself get in a bad position. When you get hit by a car, you curse your bad luck and blame the stage for interfering with your match.

It's not scrubby to promote randomness. Lots of games are built on randomness. Scrubbiness is not playing to win. It's creating your own contrived rules the game does not acknowledge. You can personally dislike randomness, but I don't think there is any meaningful definition of "scrub" which applies to "player who plays to win, but likes randomness."

And kudos to the above poster for citing Cactus's post as a reason to ban Rainbow Cruise despite Rainbow Cruise having no random elements.

 

[The MC Clusky]

I've never promoted randomness, I'm simply promoting not removing anything on subjective preference alone. If I were to build a game from the ground up, I would exclude as much randomness as possible. However, there isn't anything inherently wrong with randomness (especially if its impact is small or if it can be sufficiently accounted for), so I would not ban it from an already existing game for that reasoning alone. I see this as no different than my decision not to ban Falco; if I were to create a fighting game like Melee, there is absolutely no chance I would create a character with a projectile like Falco's (for largely subjective reasons). However, I don't mandate that the game we have right now be played without Falco.

I don't plan on dropping the "reduce scrubbiness" idea. Kish words it nicely:



It's not scrubby to promote randomness. Lots of games are built on randomness. Scrubbiness is not playing to win. It's creating your own contrived rules the game does not acknowledge. You can personally dislike randomness, but I don't think there is any meaningful definition of "scrub" which applies to "player who plays to win, but likes randomness."

And kudos to the above poster for citing Cactus's post as a reason to ban Rainbow Cruise despite Rainbow Cruise having no random elements.

Well said Kal.

I saw this on the news feed and just cried when I saw only 6 stages. It's no wonder other communities still take shots at Melee and Brawl (well Brawl is..... yeah not even going to go there) but still:

While Melee's metagame is still advancing, the stages themselves have not. No body has found new tactics on some of the crazier stages that make things completely unwinniable.

And insta-win? That term needs to be wiped out. It's so scrubby it makes my eyes bleed. There's supposed to be gayness in fighting games, it's called playing to win. The solution? Also playing to win.

The whole point of a counterpick is offer an advantage to the player that chose it. We tell people what stage is being chosen so they have a chance to switch characters or be aware of what they're getting into.

Too many new players seem to be jumping on board with trying to promote too much balance, and by such are limiting the metagame of counterpicks.

 

[Cactuar]

This is really the same conversation we had before. Competitive melee is not the same as SSBM. We have built a competitive game out of a casual one. The approach you are taking is one for traditional fighters, where the objective is to be somewhat flat to both parties.

"Player who likes to win, but likes randomness" is a casual player. As a whole, the majority of us are not casuals.


What other community even has to deal with stage selection being a major influence on match outcome? I feel like any other fighter community would laugh at us because of it. None of their stages have random factors or influence the match so heavily (maybe SC to compare ringouts, but still not as huge an element). Stages that affect matches independently is an inherently bad mechanic to have in a fighting game.

The statement of randomness not being bad in a fighting game is subjective. What are you basing that opinion on? I would think in the long term, the vast vast majority of fighting games eliminate nearly all random factors, especially in competitive play. That actually makes your opinion the vast vast minority. You are the <1%!

I didn't organize this post at all...


Also, @ Clusky: We would much rather promote character counterpick diversity over stage counterpick diversity. The counterpicking player still has advantage over the other player, but that advantage should be earned through either having a character counterpick, or being stronger on a relatively even stage. Advantage should not be gained through using an unplayed stage in a specific matchup. All that does is promote the usage of Pocket Fox or Pocket Peach as a defendall against corneria/boat or mute/brinstar. Losing the massive advantage gained through stage counterpicks, players have to be stronger with their main on all of the neutral stages, and put time into their bad matchups or learn a character to cover those matchups. It is ridiculous to have to either spend time practicing on an outlier stage like brinstar or boat, or pick up a character just to counter a stage. Stages should not have the ability to force a character change. (An argument against FD as a neutral could be made here.)

To summarize: the usage of CPs essentially creates enormous time sinks. Time that could be better spent practicing on the neutral stages with a main against any character and bettering yourself as a player ends up getting spent practicing for either a very specific matchup on a CP, or learning a new character just to play that one stage. The alternative is to complain about those stages being ******** every time we are forced there by a character with massive ad.

 

[crush]

well maybe just then we settle this with process of elimination?

 

[Kal]

This is really the same conversation we had before. Competitive melee is not the same as SSBM. We have built a competitive game out of a casual one. The approach you are taking is one for traditional fighters, where the objective is to be somewhat flat to both parties.

"Player who likes to win, but likes randomness" is a casual player. As a whole, the majority of us are not casuals.

There are plenty of reasons to like randomness. Don't dismiss everyone who enjoys random elements as casual players.

What other community even has to deal with stage selection being a major influence on match outcome? I feel like any other fighter community would laugh at us because of it. None of their stages have random factors or influence the match so heavily (maybe SC to compare ringouts, but still not as huge an element).

So far, I haven't compared Melee to another game at all. I'm not applying something I think works for a particular type of fighter and extrapolating. I'm applying the ideals I think are true to Melee. King Mosquito brought up the other fighters, not me.

Stages that affect matches independently is an inherently bad mechanic to have in a fighting game.

This is not remotely true, nor is it well-defined. It's fine that you think the game should basically be played on one stage, but that's not how I feel it should be played, and when I run a tournament I don't plan on forcing everyone to play according to my preferences.

The statement of randomness not being bad in a fighting game is subjective. What are you basing that opinion on?

Not inherently bad. Whatever subjective preferences you have will necessarily let you decide whether randomness is bad for you. But there is no inherent badness to randomness.

I would think in the long term, the vast vast majority of fighting games eliminate nearly all random factors, especially in competitive play. That actually makes your opinion the vast vast minority. You are the <1%!

I'm not sure what you mean by "the long term." It's pretty basic probability theory that the long-term eliminates the effects of short-term randomness, which is why Poker players can still honestly say "I play Poker for a living."

As for whether I'm in the minority, I bet you it's quite the opposite when you start polling players across multiple games. Virtually all players of traditional fighters would call my ruleset too liberal and say that I should leave items on and play on every non-broken stage, with 2-minute time matches.

Also, @ Clusky: We would much rather promote character counterpick diversity over stage counterpick diversity.

My usual QQ about subjective preference applies here, of course, because there's nothing inherently better about character diversity than stage diversity. To each his own, but, as I've said many times before, I try not to force people to play according to my subjective preference.

However, I think stage counterpick diversity necessarily goes hand-in-hand with character counterpick diversity. Are you a Falco main who dislikes Brinstar? Perhaps you should consider picking up Peach!

 

[Cactuar]

The inherent badness to randomness is that it reduces consistency in match output, as random elements can have enough sway to turn a match. To say otherwise is to say that, despite Player A outplaying Player B, random number generator, therefor Player B wins.

My statement regarding the long term was directed towards the idea of all standard fighting games when they are published retail. Over the course of time. They are generally developed without random elements. Fighting game communities don't have to go through and remove things because there aren't random elements in the first place. Considering our base game vs their base game can barely even be done, as our base game is unplayable competitively. Poker cannot be used as a good comparison here because of that.

I don't even know what point is made to say that an outside community's player might say we are too liberal when you consider the difference in base game. If his suggestion were used, we would not exist, as such, it is a bad suggestion and a bad example. If a player in another community were given the laundry list of random variables we account for, I don't think that hypothetical opinion would be in your favor.

In the end, I applaud you for wanting to apply ideals that you think are true to Melee. I am a player vs player purist. I've stated this before. We are obviously not going to agree.

Also, SSBMoker would be a great title for an items on stagelist.

 

[Strong Badam]

... So does that mean you will add some CP stages and implement the rule

I'm saying that your rule is already effectively implemented.
"Ban a neutral"
You can ban FoD, Dreamland 64, FD, YS, or Battlefield.
"Ban ALL CPs"
You can ban Pokemon Stadium, the only CP, and thus all of the CPs.
yes I'm being a sarcastic *******, deal with it

or are you just trolling because you regard any contribution by anybody whose name isn't purple as a complete waste of time/effort/space because you only start these threads as jokes to make the community feel as if the MBR is somehow representing their best interests?

I really don't see the point in these kind of posts. If we didn't care we wouldn't even exist, and such posts don't really contribute to the topic at hand. If you feel a rule not in the ruleset is a viable one, use it in your tournament's ruleset and get a decent following for your ruleset showing it's an agreeable rule. Actually testing a ruleset is the best way to see if something is good or bad.


Cactuar: SSBM: Poker MM at Apex?

 

[danieljosebatista]

Kal you're right rainbow cruise really isn't "random". But it is bs lol. I mean, there are places places peach can grab you and throw you to death at 40%, as well as odd platforms that dont allow you to phase through. I know lots of people say "learn the stage," but to me it goes back to what cactuar was saying about some stages skewing the competetive edge of the game. It doesn't make sense to me personally as a stage

 

[Life]

There are places ICs can grab you and throw you to death at 0%. Like FD. No johnz.

 

[Hylian]

Kal you're right rainbow cruise really isn't "random". But it is bs lol. I mean, there are places places peach can grab you and throw you to death at 40%, as well as odd platforms that dont allow you to phase through. I know lots of people say "learn the stage," but to me it goes back to what cactuar was saying about some stages skewing the competetive edge of the game. It doesn't make sense to me personally as a stage

It's funny you mention a throw killing at low % on that stage when the stage itself counters a lot of characters throw games because chaingrabbing is hard there. Just because it "doesn't make sense" to you (for god knows what reason, I'm pretty sure it makes sense to the people who want to ban it for the most part) doesn't mean it's "bs". I mean Marth can gimp a lot of characters at 0% by throwing them off the edge, you know what people do? They try not to get grabbed in that position lol.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

I really don't see the point in these kind of posts. If we didn't care we wouldn't even exist, and such posts don't really contribute to the topic at hand.

Says the guy who just posted a one-line troll, but whatever. Double-standards certainly are the norm when it comes to purple tags, after all.

If you feel a rule not in the ruleset is a viable one, use it in your tournament's ruleset and get a decent following for your ruleset showing it's an agreeable rule. Actually testing a ruleset is the best way to see if something is good or bad.

I've explained this before. TBR is enforced at most AZ tournaments with great success. Go to the AZ PR/Social Thread and ask people if they think Taj's Better Rule is a good rule when there are multiple CP stages.

Time that could be better spent practicing on the neutral stages with a main against any character and bettering yourself as a player ends up getting spent practicing for either a very specific matchup on a CP, or learning a new character just to play that one stage.

But practically every non-spacies character has to do that anyways! I started out as a Falcon main who CP'd Link when my opponent took me to FoD or played Sheik/Falco, now I'm a Link main who CP's Falcon on YS and most CP stages or when my opponent plays Marth/a few others. I know Marth has to learn his way around the Sheik MU, Falcon has to learn his way around the Sheik/Falco MU, ICS have to learn their way around the Peach MU, I'd imagine Sheik and Puff having at least one bad (if perhaps uncommon) MU that they would have to practice for. The current ruleset seems to be trying to ensure that the ONLY players who no longer have to practice very specific MUs or practice on specific stages (Falcon on FoD, anyone?) are the spacies mains.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

How do you figure, ferrish? Neutral based rulesets have allowed for things like pikachu getting top 5 at national tournaments. Before, they would have to change characters or just accept having a free loss every set. If anything, i think removing stages is worse for spacies which are good on every counterpick stage.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

I've always done better in Falcon vs. spacies on Brinstar and KJ64. Both stages force spacies to actually be intelligent in how they recover, forward-b or up-b at an angle don't always work as well.

BTW Axe also sometimes plays Falco. On neutrals. Against good players. Believe it or not.
BTW2 Axe just ***** in general. Not just on neutrals.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

>_>

Falcon also has a lot of room to run around on KJ64 and, to a lesser extent, Brinstar.

Don't forget to mention that.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

@ferrish @ your anecdote, falcon is around fox's level in terms of movement versatility. Fox is actually one of the better characters on brinstar, IMO. Puff, Peach and maybe Falcon and Sheik are just better.

I FIGHT ANECDOTE WITH ANECDOTE! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3RoxYRF0Qc

edit- also i think fox has some of the best recoveries on brinstar and KJ64. Many angles and platforms for fox's long upb, and shine stall for the barrel on KJ64

 

[Strong Badam]

Says the guy who just posted a one-line troll, but whatever. Double-standards certainly are the norm when it comes to purple tags, after all.

You act like MBR members can't ever have fun in these threads lol. Lighten up a little, man.

I've explained this before. TBR is enforced at most AZ tournaments with great success. Go to the AZ PR/Social Thread and ask people if they think Taj's Better Rule is a good rule when there are multiple CP stages.

If there are so many people liking this rule, why aren't they posting in here about it in hopes of it becoming standard....?

 

[danieljosebatista]

It's funny you mention a throw killing at low % on that stage when the stage itself counters a lot of characters throw games because chaingrabbing is hard there. Just because it "doesn't make sense" to you (for god knows what reason, I'm pretty sure it makes sense to the people who want to ban it for the most part) doesn't mean it's "bs". I mean Marth can gimp a lot of characters at 0% by throwing them off the edge, you know what people do? They try not to get grabbed in that position lol.

What you mention about chaingrabbing is true, but that's not the point at all. What I mentioned was one situational example, but I meant it to illustrate a point. Rainbow cruise simply skews the competitive balance of the game too much imo. Worse players disproportionately benefit from situations that simply would not occur on other neutral stages. Obviously the MBR thought so too or they would not have removed rainbow cruise from the list. What you say about Marth is true, but that's a character example not a stage example. Marth can do that on any stage, and it's not by any means a guaranteed kill. Good players know how to avoid it and punish accordingly. I really don't understand what you mean by mentioning this anyway. When I said it doesn't make sense, I was referring primarily to the constantly changing boundaries of rainbow cruise. In some places the boundaries are acceptable for competitive play, in others they are not. Before someone says to me "how can you objectively measure that?", I can't. But there are stages that are no more random than Yoshi's which would be awful to play on due to boundaries. A perfect example of this is Mushroom Kingdom 2. Try fighting gannon or marth there. Or peach for that matter. Anyway, all I'm saying is that Rainbow Cruise takes away something of the competitive element from the game and replaces it with gimmicky situational tactics which can allow less skilled players to beat better players.

 

[ShroudedOne]

Before Kal says so, I'm going to say that what you personally feel "skill" is is simply arbitrary, and lacks definition. Someone could feel that being able to abuse a stage makes one the better player. But seriously, what does it mean to be a skilled player? Doesn't taking advantage of your opponent's weaknesses/the properties of a stage make you better than those who don't?

Again, devil's advocate.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

I think most people's definition revolves around being able to play on neutral stages.