Legality Tentative: MBR Official Ruleset for 2012

[Cactuar]

So, for a situation that happens an equal number of times, one player will be punished much more severely because of their character choice than the other player.

 

[Kal]

Characters getting shafted for being bad is a ubiquitous game element present on every stage. And a typical response would just be "pick a different character." And I don't think it's the responsibility of the TO to try and balance the game.

 

[Cactuar]

The point is to balance the sets, not the game.

 

[Kal]

What do you mean "balance the sets?"

 

[Cactuar]

Give both players (assuming equal skill) equal odds of winning the set, while preventing extreme matchup sway. FD is excluded due to popularity, which I'm not a fan of saying.

It also only takes into account viable characters.

 

[Bones0]

It really depends on how you look at it. To see that you can't account for the lava because you may already be in a combo could just suggest that you should be more careful about entering combos. The lava can clearly be accounted for (as there is an obvious mechanic for accounting for it: stay on the top platform), the complaint you seem to have is that you can't account for it while simultaneously playing the way you want. I don't see that as a problem.

In the long-term, the randomness will effect both players equally. This may be something you have a problem with, but it's not the case that it's inherently bad. Skill no longer becomes a measure from game to game, but instead a long-term measurement, similar to any other game in which luck is a factor.

When you can account for randomness, the consistency merely improves.

The problem isn't that I can't play a certain way, it's that some people get away with going for combos while some people don't. I agree that if we played enough games that the randomness would even out, but we play once per stage, which isn't nearly enough. You would need to play a stage for at least 20+ stocks before it even begins to stop being a coin flip of who gets screwed.

What makes them bad options? The only worthwhile definition I can come up with for the value of an option is relative to the others; I can say an option is better or worse than another, but I certainly can't qualify an option as being bad. In the case you've mentioned, I only see "option A and option B," and I see the "good" option as the better of the two.

I was speaking about bad in terms of the objective and measurable kind via % and stocks. If someone is forced to choose between an option that loses their stock and one that gives them 50%, they are both bad, but the 50% is just less bad. Relative to losing a stock it is better, but it is still a bad option in the grand scheme of things. When the game forces players to make bad decisions, there is less work being done by their opponent.

In the long run, each player will be placed in the scenario an equal number of times. Frankly, I feel that randomness is not the reason people want this banned; they just don't want **** coming up and damaging the players. If randomness were such an issue, there would be more things banned which currently aren't (Pokémon Stadium in particular). It seems to me people will come up with whatever excuses they can to ban the stages they dislike.

Well obviously the fact that lava damages players increases the influence of the randomness. Wind on DL is random, but has very little effect on the match. PS's transformations have a greater affect on the match, but they are still incapable of actually damaging the player. Lava's damage makes the randomness so much more detrimental to the competition. I think you greatly underestimate the insane amount of zoning lava does for the players.

I am of the opinion that you very well can play the match in such a way that the lava rise benefits you, or at least does not harm you. Moreover, if I am wrong, I sincerely don't believe that you would be ok with a Brinstar with lava on a timer and paced in such a way that it could be accounted for as you mentioned.

The lava is on a timer, but it's still random in how it affects the match. Like I said, if there was a way for players to reliably control the pace of the match, it'd be a different story. In Halo, weapons respawn at certain time increments throughout the whole game. The affect the weapons have aren't random because teams are more than able to set up for the respawns accordingly ahead of time, and the game becomes about controlling different areas and weapons. Playing in Brinstar does not revolve around controlling the lava because it can't be controlled to any extent. The closest you get to that is controlling the top platform, and at that point you're just playing a handicapped opponent for a few seconds; you did nothing to deserve it other than happen to be on the top platform at the moment. Halo players are able to control and influence the respawn locations of players to greatly increase their chance of getting new weapons, but Melee players have no such control over what their opponent can do.

I've explained before that this "skill gap" is just players fixating on whatever skills they consider worthwhile. You're not making the game "more skilled," you're emphasizing your arbitrarily preferred skills.

I've already explained why player vs. player is the skill attempted to be tested at tournaments. Obviously this is a preference, but it is by and large the preference of the competitive players. The less competitive players are often much more interested in mixing in elements that call for "single-player" skills. This pretty much goes back to Cactuar explaining that you just want something different than the large majority of the community. If you want to play a ruleset with more stages, be my guest, just don't act like banning them is "QQing, johning, being a scrub, etc."

I think you're exaggerating the effect counterpicks have on Melee. Not every counterpick is Icicle Mountain.

I bet I would **** on IM because I can just shield drop all over. LOL

You're still testing skills against another player, because you are simultaneously engaging the opponent while "interacting" with the stage. You're telling me that it's "less" player vs. player because lava comes up and can hit the opponent? Supposing you're right, all I would tell people is "deal with it."

No one really cares about the skill it takes to interact with the stage. It is minimal at best. Knowing nuances of RC's platforms as they appear can obviously help, but it's not really worth it when the stage itself greatly limits the options of the players. Why should they deal with that? Maybe you need to just deal with the fact that most people don't care about those types of skills because they aren't worth what they take away in player vs. player skill.

However, I don't agree in the least. Dealing with your opponent while simultaneously dealing with other mechanics certainly adds skill, and by no means turns the game from "player vs. player" into "50% player vs. player, also a platformer." Emphasizing a second skill does not remove or necessarily lighten the emphasis on the first.

Well looking at it objectively, it HAS to reduce emphasis. If you could quantify a player's focus, you could just look at how often they are thinking about the stage and compare it to how often they are thinking about their opponent. If you have a player trying to do Race to the Finish, obviously most of their attention will be avoiding the hazards and fighting their opponent becomes secondary in their priorities. It's really obvious on Brinstar. As soon as that lava comes up, people are looking for 1. a way to get higher, and then 2. a way to prevent their opponent from getting higher. I will concede that how skill plays out isn't as strict as a 0-100% mark, but it is definitely clear that some skills matter more in different games. In teams, tech skill is less important. It isn't less USEFUL, but a player with bad tech skill can fair much better in teams than in singles because there is less emphasis on that skill.

And your statement telling me to play HRC is basically just "this is how the game should be played." Come on, I thought we were past this sort of nonsense. I could just as easily say "if you want a game with no stage 'interference', go play Street Fighter."

I was just exaggerating. "Go play your own rule set!" Better? It's ironic you think I am telling you how the game should be played because that's what you're doing... The MBR posted a rule set reflecting the tournaments these days, and you are basically saying "No, you guys can just ban all this stuff for no reason."

And, of course, we conclude with "the majority hates this **** anyway." Great point. I've never once given thought to the fact that maybe the majority of players want to play on only the starter stages. I mean, why else would the entire community not be up in arms about the most recent MBR ruleset?

The idea that the stages provide more chance than skill is nonsense. It's not like random noobs can take top players there and win a good proportion of the time by chance. These stages test skills you're not a fan of, and they allow for mechanics you dislike, fine, but don't act like it's just an inherently more-skilled game without them.

Also, Fox vs. Luigi is pretty ********.

Pretty sure the new rule set IS inherently more skilled. That's why I'm supporting it as the new tournament standard. If you want to consider your own rule set more skilled, I don't really care. There are plenty of Brawl players that think their game is on par or even better than Melee, so that just goes to show you how ridiculous peoples' perceptions of "skill" are (not comparing your rule set to Brawl; I'm not a ****ing barbarian!).

 

[Kal]

@Cactuar

Oh, your edit about the viable characters is where I was headed. I strongly disagree with any ruleset focusing on a subset of the entire cast. But, if that's where your justification lies, I certainly understand, and there is certainly less variation in the starter stages than the starter stage + counterpicks when you focus exclusively on the viable characters.

 

[Bones0]

Viable character is the worst term ever. Ugh.

For instance, didn't you hear Cactuar will win Apex with G&W???

 

[Cactuar]

It's an unfortunate implementation, but it has to be done. It is a lot easier to account for 36 matchups than 351.

I also have the opinion that the removal of CPs benefits non-viables. The strongest characters on potential CPs are generally either Fox/Falco or Puff/Peach, dependent on stage type.


Also, the only reason I will be winning with GaW is because he is secretly top tier, and thus, secretly viable.

 

[Kal]

There are 351 matchups, Cactuar.

 

[Cactuar]

My maths is teh wrong. I'm at work and not thinking. I should actually know that from the Cape whispering it into my ear like 5 years ago. Totally spacing out here lolol.

Fixing! Also, the statement is still true.

Spoiler

For anyone curious, I was doing maths on number of matchups and first thought factorial is wrong, and skipped straight to multiplying it to itself instead of the correct answer, which was using triangular numbers or whatever they are called.

 

[Kal]

The one about Game & Watch? I would challenge your G&W with Pichu, but that matchup is terrible for Pichu. As far as Pichu is concerned, G&W is a miniature Marth.

 

[Anand]

There are 351 matchups, Cactuar.

Well, if we're talking about balance, there are only 325 matchups, because the dittos are automatically balanced.

If we're talking about analyzing a character's options/strategy, then I think it's fine to say there are 676, because Sheik vs Marth (from Sheik's point of view) can be considered distinct from Marth vs Sheik (from Marth's point of view).

 

[Kal]

I wouldn't agree, Anand. You can't balance stages for Sheik vs. Marth and not have it already balanced for Marth vs. Sheik.

 

[Anand]

I wouldn't agree, Anand. You can't balance stages for Sheik vs. Marth and not have it already balanced for Marth vs. Sheik.

Uh, sorry if I was unclear, but please re-read what I wrote; I meant if we're writing a guide or something, we could say there are 676 matchups to write about. For balance, I already said there are only 325. (You can't have stages that aren't balanced for Sheik vs Sheik.)

 

[Kal]

Ah, my bad. Just tired and not reading everything straight. Yeah, obviously I would expect separate guides for Marth vs. Sheik and Sheik vs. Marth.

Except the Marth vs. Sheik guide would be short: "go Fox."

 

[Cactuar]

Lol. I used to love that matchup as Marth... I still kinda do.

I meant the statement about it having to be done due to limitations in matchup consideration.

 

[Kal]

It's pretty fun, actually. It can be very stressful because tiny mistakes in spacing cause Sheik to own you, and Sheik players are pompous ****ing *** holes that think they can do whatever they want because Sheik's moves have almost no end-lag. But it is a pretty fun matchup when you know what you are doing.

 

[Cactuar]

Knowing how to get around the Sheik "triangle" and keeping your sword on the outside edge of it, or under it when she rises, then tech chasing her forever is generally my strat. I get a lot of grabs in on Sheik for some reason...

 

[Kal]

I prefer to run around and fsmash. But that's because my roommate jumps into all them.

 

[Cactuar]

Hey man. There is a time and a place to fsmash. And that is always and everywhere.

 

[Kal]

There is a time and a place to fsmash. And that is always and everywhere.

All of the thread's debate and discussion culminating into one statement of absolute truth.

 

[Cactuar]

There is a time and a place to fsmash. And that is always and everywhere.

I'm going to start using that as the title to all my posts.

Also, realization: The title line is essentially a second signature line.

 

[Kal]

This would be mine if it weren't too long. That's what she said.

melee has its strong points, but sometimes it can be too hard with attacks like zelda's d-tilt which, without insane DI is hard to get out of and can combo infinitly almost

 

[Cactuar]

There is a time and a place to fsmash. And that is always and everywhere.

Man. That makes me think of the early days of Brawl Sheik. Could just ftilt people forever because everyone would DI out like in Melee and end up getting trapped for massive damage.

 

[Beat!]

I like Marth vs Sheik.

*walks away*

 

[Kal]

This would be mine if it weren't too long. That's what she said.

I was actually a decent Brawl player when the game first came out. I won two of Texas's first Brawl tournaments. But I don't like the game. I'm sort of a crackhead and rush everyone down all the time. It's made maining Marth a challenge.

 

[Max?]

*moves cursor to Fox*

There is a time and place to Usmash. And that is always and everywhere.

 

[Cactuar]

*moves cursor to Fox*

There is a time to press all the things. And that is always and as fast as possible.

Fixed.

 

[Max?]

I can't disagree with that.

 

[KishPrime]

Give both players (assuming equal skill) equal odds of winning the set, while preventing extreme matchup sway. FD is excluded due to popularity, which I'm not a fan of saying.

It also only takes into account viable characters.

Brinstar?!?!?!?!!

Man I remember tossing out the idea of set balancing for rulesets in like 2006 and basically everyone thought it was dumb. Probably because Brinstar was a part of it.

 

[Cactuar]

One day, I will probably go through the archives and mine good ideas out of your old good ideas.

<3

 

[KishPrime]

Don't dig back too far. You'll start finding stuff about wheels and other non-Smash-related stuff.

 

[Cactuar]

No harm in reinventing the wheel, is there?

 

[Bones0]

No harm in reinventing the wheel, is there?

Well I guess wheel find out.

 

[Cactuar]

...

*slow clap*

 

[Kal]

I think this thread should go back to bickering.

 

[Bones0]

There is a time and a place to make puns. And that is always and everywhere.

 

[KishPrime]

It's like I always say, "better snickering than bickering."

(quotes mine)

 

[FerrishTheFish]

I prefer bickering to puns. Because I am a mastur debater.