Legality Tentative: MBR Official Ruleset for 2012

[Geenareeno]

No Kongo is good because some characters can get camped on it. That is all.

 

[ShroudedOne]

Well I guess wheel find out.

At first I was like:

But then I was like:

 

[Kal]

Holy crap, Obama's black?

 

[kevo]

For the past several weeks, I've glanced at this topic in the topic list and saw that a) it has gained 5 additional pages and b) Kal, Bones0, or Cactaur was the most recent poster. I finally was bored today and clicked in to see how ridiculous the debate has gotten. I can only conclude that the stagelist has driven everyone ludicrous and we are now making puns.

 

[Mattnumbers]

I am not certain of the nature of the barrel in KJ64. Does it always follow a set path? Does it spin the same way when entered every time if you enter it at the same position? If there is no random factor on the stage I think it should be a counterpick. Even if it does contain slight random factors, PS does as well, since it decides what to transform to at random. This has an affect as certain characters are most definitely better at certain transformations than others, and based on luck may get that particular one. If this is not enough randomness to move it out of counterpicks, then a slight random variance on say, the spin of the barrel upon entering it shouldn't constitute removal from the counterpick list either.
And Rainbow Cruise/Poke Floats have absolutely no random factors whatsoever, although I can understand how they may be considered too hazardous to navigate or lopsided in terms of character performance.

 

[King5280]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTNaAUJZz5k
broken.

 

[Mattnumbers]

Seems much more like a problem with the ruleset not having sufficient anti-stalling rules than a problem with the stage itself to me. Not to mention that that is only a single instance of that happening, and Rock Crock could have banned the stage in the first place.

 

[Kal]

There's no good anti-stalling rule. All one does is tell people not to break an arbitrary, poorly defined rule. This is why we ban Hyrule instead of mandating some nonsense rule about manning up and fighting.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

Ganon vs Peach on KJ should not be the evidence used to prove that KJ is broken. Everyone seems to point out again and again the Rockcrock vs Pink Shinobi match when I thought Rockcrock played it totally wrong because he was not willing to approach. I personally think it's one of the stage that Ganon clearly beats Peach on so I don't really understand it myself, Peach can't even edgeguard Ganon as good as the regular stages and Ganon having more opportunity to get on stage can be devastating. I'm just saying Peach loses some of her strengths vs Ganon on KJ while Ganon doesn't really lose anything for setups and things like that. He actually gets stronger because his recovery is buffed.

As for you Bones, I'd like to see you try that camping vs me on KJ.

I rest my case.

 

[Strong Badam]

There's no good anti-stalling rule. All one does is tell people not to break an arbitrary, poorly defined rule. This is why we ban Hyrule instead of mandating some nonsense rule about manning up and fighting.

Yeah. No stalling rules end up being a case of "Play to win, but not too much" which is inherently bad.
Which is why we just ban stages where it's possible.
Ledgeplanking isn't unbeatable so it isn't a problem in this game, though it's kind of dumb

 

[Mattnumbers]

I also agree with Kage that, although I don't have the same amount of Ganondorf knowledge as either him or RC obviously, RC really wasn't playing that match correctly.

One possible solution to the stalling problem would be to make timeouts stalemates instead of giving the win to the leading player. That way instead of trying to punish playing to win, you just change the conditions of victory so that stalling is no longer a viable winning strategy. I'm not sure about if it would work though, as it would just switch the incentive to stall from the winning player to the losing player. Still, even in this case, the most it could be abused would be if a player gets an early disadvantage and wants to restart the match via timing out and forcing it, while the current system can be abused to actually directly win. Additionally, 6/7 minutes is a long time to attempt to stall just to get a tie match.
Just a theory though, I'm sure it has some holes and I invite people to point them out.

 

[Kal]

I personally don't like the idea of a % lead deciding a timeout, since the goal of the players is not to try and increase the opponent's damage. You increase damage to try and take a stock, but your goal isn't to try and damage your opponent. So I don't like the idea of a % lead resulting in a win.

Also, in the result of a tie, you often use a rule of thumb to decide who is more likely to win, and call that player the winner: in this case, we would say "the player with the % lead is more likely to win." I think this is a terrible rule of thumb.

Generally, if a match times out with both players having the same number of stock, I use a one-stock sudden death rule, i.e., the players play a one-stock match on the same stage. I acknowledge, however, that this greatly reduces the viability of certain camping strategies. You can't really force an approach if your opponent knows he has less to lose by simply waiting. Can't say I've come to terms on what rule is best here.

Yeah. No stalling rules end up being a case of "Play to win, but not too much" which is inherently bad.
Which is why we just ban stages where it's possible.
Ledgeplanking isn't unbeatable so it isn't a problem in this game, though it's kind of dumb

I don't think it's "don't play to win too much." I think the rule is just stupid. A ban needs to be discrete, enforceable, and warranted, and such a rule rarely satisfies the first or second criterion, let alone all three.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

The problem with anti-camping rules is that the best strategy simply becomes to get as close to breaking the rule as possible. If standing in 1 spot for 30 seconds is defined as camping, then players should stand in one spot for 29 seconds. Anti-stalling rules have a similar problem. At what point does rising pound cease being recovery and become stalling? If its after 10 pounds in place the goal is to do 9 in place. Obviously this is only an issue if the ideal strategy is camping/stalling, which i'm not sure it is.

edit- it should be noted that puff's rising pound does not maintain height. Even if you do it perfectly you lose a small amount of height each time.

 

[Geenareeno]

Seems much more like a problem with the ruleset not having sufficient anti-stalling rules than a problem with the stage itself to me. Not to mention that that is only a single instance of that happening, and Rock Crock could have banned the stage in the first place.

A character shoudn't have to waste a ban because he will get camped and lose with a very high chance against a competent player. Also Puff can camp that stage too, I bet DK and Bowser would also have trouble.




Makeshift quoting Kage since I can't find it.

Ganon vs Peach on KJ should not be the evidence used to prove that KJ is broken. Everyone seems to point out again and again the Rockcrock vs Pink Shinobi match when I thought Rockcrock played it totally wrong because he was not willing to approach. I personally think it's one of the stage that Ganon clearly beats Peach on so I don't really understand it myself, Peach can't even edgeguard Ganon as good as the regular stages and Ganon having more opportunity to get on stage can be devastating. I'm just saying Peach loses some of her strengths vs Ganon on KJ while Ganon doesn't really lose anything for setups and things like that. He actually gets stronger because his recovery is buffed.

As for you Bones, I'd like to see you try that camping vs me on KJ.

In order:

- It's not just that matchup, as I said Puff can do it too.
- Honestly, you could be right about this, but we need to see you beat a good puff and peach on that stage
- Everything else you said is very accurate and a good matchup analysis.

 

[Kal]

A character shoudn't have to waste a ban because he will get camped and lose with a very high chance against a competent player. Also Puff can camp that stage too, I bet DK and Bowser would also have trouble.

This is just your opinion. I think a character being forced to waste a ban is just a character flaw. The entire view that a character is "wasting a ban" assumes there exist stages he can do better on in the first place. This issue doesn't come up when a character does badly on every stage, e.g. Mewtwo vs. Marth. It seems all too contrived to me.

And keep in mind that there is nothing inherently wrong with camping. I can't tell if your issue is with the wasted ban or with the fact that the loss is due to camping, but if it's the latter then you're basically just trying to force people to play how you like (aggressively).

 

[Acryte]

oh god. what have I been missing? Not much I guess, except bones ****** a few.

 

[Divinokage]

A character shoudn't have to waste a ban because he will get camped and lose with a very high chance against a competent player. Also Puff can camp that stage too, I bet DK and Bowser would also have trouble.




Makeshift quoting Kage since I can't find it.



In order:

- It's not just that matchup, as I said Puff can do it too.
- Honestly, you could be right about this, but we need to see you beat a good puff and peach on that stage
- Everything else you said is very accurate and a good matchup analysis.

Well I wonder who would be willing to experiment this with me then. =P

 

[Mattnumbers]

The problem with anti-camping rules is that the best strategy simply becomes to get as close to breaking the rule as possible. If standing in 1 spot for 30 seconds is defined as camping, then players should stand in one spot for 29 seconds. Anti-stalling rules have a similar problem. At what point does rising pound cease being recovery and become stalling? If its after 10 pounds in place the goal is to do 9 in place. Obviously this is only an issue if the ideal strategy is camping/stalling, which i'm not sure it is.

This is why I think time outs should always result in a tie. If stalling is not a tactic capable of securing you the win, there will be very little reason to stall at all.

As far as rising pound goes, you wouldn't stall with it if it doesn't bring you any closer to winning, so with the change to the timeout rules it becomes a nonissue.

 

[Bones0]

I agree that % leads should not dictate wins. If you have equal stocks, you do a rematch. If the match ties in stocks again, you do a 4 minute, 2 stock match with % as a tie breaker.

 

[KishPrime]

If time outs always end in a tie, then you will have 150%-10% match resets. It happened before we did tiebreakers by percent in the sudden death era, and it's not a good solution. In that case, the rules actually encourage stalling even more than the percent tiebreaker - by the loser! If anything, the winner should hold control over the match per the ruleset.

Bones' solution sounds reasonable, but if you have a timed out match, you're already holding up a bracket somewhere, and now you're playing a rematch that will probably also go near the time limit? From a TOs standpoint, this rule would be a nightmare. The player who wins that match will probably also have a negative time impact on his entire side of the bracket, so you really can't afford that kind of delay. The domino effect is too great.

The percent-timeout rule is a practical consideration, and it's fairly effective from a competitive standpoint as well. There are not many, if any, good alternatives.

 

[Bones0]

Well yeah, I mean you could just skip to the 4 minute, 2 stock match then. The main point was getting rid of %-deciding matches.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

But if the 4 stock 8 min went to time, isn't the 2 stock 4 min likely to go to time to? In the end its going to be about percent

 

[Bones0]

Usually when someone attempts to time someone out the other person will be much more prepared for it the second time.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

I never really considered the match going to time as a surprise to the players. Usually there is a lot of turtling on both ends and then around the 2 minute mark both players go "ok well its going to time".

Also, if I were the one winning 10% to 150% the first game then had to reset and lost, I would be pissed. From that perspective I don't see how the reset is fair to the players as it essentially gives the person who is behind a chance to wipe the slate clean and start back on even ground. Like kish said, it would encourage the person who is losing to time the game out.

 

[KishPrime]

Ninja'd...in response to Bones:

You're still building a ruleset that favors people that are behind instead of people who are ahead. Does that really make sense to you?

 

[Bones0]

I thought it was understood that the whole flaw of the % system is that it assumes that % dictates how close you are to victory? Ganon being 1% higher than Kirby doesn't mean he is losing.

 

[Strong Badam]

Multiply their % by some arbitrarily contrived "Survivability factor" imo imo

 

[KishPrime]

You have a fairly esoteric viewpoint. I think if you asked 100 people, 99 of them would say that the person who is "ahead" should hold the advantage per the ruleset.

I understand your point, but at some point practicality has to enter the picture.

 

[Cactuar]

The scene tends to have different ideas about this, but a lot of it is drawn from a desire to see decisive endings to matches, and also the problem of our health resource being different than other fighters.

I have issues with the percent thing deciding last stock matches due to % weighing more or less for characters. In fighting games, they have a 100% bar of health, regardless of actual health value. We only have a rough idea of what percent a character will get to before they die, and that changes based on weight and falling speed, but to assign victory to a % lead on... say jigglypuff being at 50% and Fox being at 51%, Jigglypuff really isn't in the lead in this situation. Another example is Marth vs x character. Marth has problems killing opponents at very high percents, so a legitimate strategy vs Marth is to purposely DI to get combo'd into that high percent area, then play a safe game and only allow yourself to either trade with non-kill moves or go for clean hits.

Realistically, our overall health gets affected in 25% increments. No actual damage is done to our stock until it is removed. The only thing that increases with percent is the likelihood of our health taking damage on the next hit.

But, do we want to make a change to this rule? Do we have a legitimate alternative method? I don't like any of the suggestions thus far tbh.

The best suggestion I have for an alternative is tedious and unreasonable to set up, so I don't think I would recommend it.

Games have to be won by a stock lead.
If a game ends with equal stock, the percentage and stock must be carried into the next game as closely as possible.
If the stock count was 1 for both players, the percentage is carried over and each player receives one additional stock.
The timer is set to remaining stock + 1 minute for percentage setup.
If the match times out again with equal stock, both players receive a win.
A set cannot be won by timeout.
If the match would cause one of the players to win the set, that player does not receive a win for the match, but is given the counterpick selection for the next match.
In last match sets, the next stage must be selected by stage striking.

 

[KishPrime]

Seems like a lot of work to fix a system that isn't substantively broken. In the absence of serious issues, I far prefer simplicity of rules. It's more elegant.

 

[Cactuar]

I agree. I don't think it is possible create a rule that addresses this simply and would much rather leave it alone unless there is a large amount of support for implementing a change.

 

[Strong Badam]

If it times out and DK is losing for whatever reason, DK wins.

 

[Cactuar]

If it times out and I am losing for whatever reason, I win.

This is how I read your post.

 

[Bones0]

I think only using % as a tie breaker in rematches is super simplistic without compromising a lot of time.

 

[Strong Badam]

This is how I read your post.

That's how I wrote it.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

i think only using % as a tie breaker in rematches is super simplistic without compromising a lot of time.

you're still building a ruleset that favors people that are behind instead of people who are ahead. Does that really make sense to you?

1 0

 

[KishPrime]

His point earlier still stands, that he doesn't think a percentage lead comprises a match lead, since stock death is the only way you "score" in this game.

However, I think even he could agree that 99% of the time, the person who has a % lead is at least 50.0005% favored to win the round (winning).

 

[Strong Badam]

LOOOL Kish I think that second line is just trolling

 

[KishPrime]

Shrug. Not to me. His argument was that Ganon is actually ahead/favored/winning if he's only 1% behind Jigglypuff (changed for metagame relevance) is correct from a theory perspective, but what percentage of playing time are matches that close between characters with massive variance in survivability?

I'll attempt an edit and ask it by saying "what percentage of playing time is spent within the window where the player who is behind is only behind by less than the survivability difference zone?" It's just not going to be that often. You're not just trading hits back and forth and staying close the whole match - players go on runs, you go through the window to one side or another, there are blowouts, there are simply solid wins that are close on paper but never actually that close, etc. And in almost all cases, the person with the percentage lead is statistically favored to win the match.

Given the choice between rewarding the player who is losing with the player who is winning, you want to lean towards the winning player. And 99% of the time, that is the player with the percentage lead.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

True, I re-read his second comment and thought about editing my post, but didn't.

While stock loss is the only thing that technically deals resource damage, we have two methods for victory. One is stocks, the other is time; both are pre-programmed into the game. Percent is a "lead", which is different from "has won" which is definite. In street fighter, time outs have a similar problem in that the normal way to win is to remove the opponent's health bar but if it goes to time the person winning by percentage wins the round. One character could have more percentage but be 1 hit/combo away from death while the other is "losing" but could take 2 hits.

The differences in this case are two-fold. One, each round has its own timer which would be equivalent to each stock having its own time limit. This isn't possible for us though, since we don't play stock by stock, we play game by game. The second is that the game is programmed to act the way it is and thus there is no argument as to how the game is intended to be played. In a sense, we as TOs and creators of rules are game designers, shaping the mold of how the game should be played. Our choices don't necessarily have to be justified logically, however what is important is that they are consistent and they don't encourage the players to play in a way we don't intend. We don't want the person who is losing to time out a game in order to gain an advantage in the rematch, so we have a consistent rule that says "if you don't want to lose, don't get behind in percent; or take all their stocks before the timer runs out".





Not to mention, if we did a modifier for each character, falco would always lose in time out since he spawns at death percent.