Legality Tentative: MBR Official Ruleset for 2012

[Bones0]

Well okay, is Pink Shinobi going?

 

[Hylian]

We should use peach vs ganon to test every stages legality.

 

[Bones0]

lol see, now we're entering into the argument that just because Ganon gets timed out doesn't mean the stage should be banned. Which is it?

 

[Hylian]

I've said several times that a character being bad on a stage doesn't make a stage bannable, it makes the character inherently worse, the same way a nonviable match-up does.

 

[Kal]

And what if Armada wins? Armada is arguably the best player in the world, and you still think that camping would be the sole reason for any victory of his on KJ64? Like I keep saying, if you can camp players worse than you but not players better than you, then clearly camping on KJ64 is not broken, because a broken strategy would allow you to beat players better than you!

I don't like the idea of using the status of better and worse players to determine whether something is broken. The logic is circular.

 

[Bones0]

I've said several times that a character being bad on a stage doesn't make a stage bannable, it makes the character inherently worse, the same way a nonviable match-up does.

Then Hyrule should be legal.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

I don't like the idea of using the status of better and worse players to determine whether something is broken. The logic is circular.

It's hard to avoid that sort of logic, but when/if I claim that player A is superior to player B, I attempt to empirically justify that claim (preferably based on tournament results). If I am claiming that player A is better than player B, that is the same as me saying, "Player A not only consistently beats player B in tournament sets, but also consistently beats other players who consistently beat player B." (However, this can sometimes become gray area. I know two players who are in the strange situation that the first player consistently beats other players who consistently beat the second player, but the second player consistently beats the first player. I couldn't tell you which player is "better" because my definition of "better" does not apply to either one.)

One of the reasons I am arguing this so hard is that I have a friend whom I consistently beat and who loses consistently to other players that I consistently beat. The general consensus is therefore that I am better than him. However, he consistently beats me on YS for no obvious reason. Maybe I'm just really bad on that stage. Maybe he's just really good on that stage. Maybe I play the matchup very poorly on that stage. Maybe he plays the matchup very well on that stage. But it's in no way proof that YS is somehow broken. That's why I don't like the example of Pink Shinobi vs. RockCrock as evidence that KJ64 is broken.

 

[Hylian]

Then Hyrule should be legal.

I'm not even sure how you logically came to that conclusion from my statement.

 

[Kal]

Bones, are you going out of your way to misunderstand the point?

Ferrish, I don't mind what you've just said. What I have a problem with is this idea that a better player can lose to a worse player. "Better" and "worse" are not such black and white concepts. Our usual definition of better and worse are:

"A player X is better than a player Y if the probability that X wins a tournament is greater than the probability that Y wins a tournament."

In that case, individual instances of anything prove almost nothing. But the reason I call examples of certain logical applications like "this player beat someone clearly better than him" circular is because it absolutely is circular. By claiming that the winning player was worse, you're assuming in the first place that whatever strategy you think is unfair was not present in the game being played. Well, then the opponent is better. At a different game. Once a particular strategy is introduced (or removed), the game is fundamentally different, and so who is better and worse changes accordingly.

 

[Bones0]

It isn't the fact that Pink Shinobi that is evidence of the stage being broken. The evidence is in the strategy he used where it is evident there wasn't anything Rock Crock could have done.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

Ferrish, I don't mind what you've just said. What I have a problem with is this idea that a better player can lose to a worse player. "Better" and "worse" are not such black and white concepts.

I think it's definitely possible for better players to lose to worse players, and I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing. I know that this seems like circular logic, but what I mean by that is that consistency also plays a role in determining the probability that player X wins a tournament vs. the probability that player Y wins a tournament. Even though, for example, Tai is clearly better than me, he still occasionally loses to me (last time we played, I beat him in a set). However, this is just due to the fact that, even though he is better than me, his probability of beating me is not 100%. I don't think Tai's probability of beating me necessarily has to be 100% to be able to say with a great deal of certainty that he is the better player.

 

[Beat!]

this idea that a better player can lose to a worse player.

Yeah I know right? Everyone knows that the better player always wins.

 

[Hylian]

It isn't the fact that Pink Shinobi that is evidence of the stage being broken. The evidence is in the strategy he used where it is evident there wasn't anything Rock Crock could have done.

Right, and you are saying that Peach beating ganon on that stage(even though kage claims RC didn't play it correctly) is justification for banning that stage?

 

[Bones0]

Well that match, along with the others which used different characters, plus I haven't seen a Fox attempt to do it even though he'd probably be even better at it.

 

[The Star King]

I'll ask the obvious question. What other matches?

 

[Divinokage]

And what if Armada wins? Armada is arguably the best player in the world, and you still think that camping would be the sole reason for any victory of his on KJ64? Like I keep saying, if you can camp players worse than you but not players better than you, then clearly camping on KJ64 is not broken, because a broken strategy would allow you to beat players better than you!

I already tried KJ vs him before once or twice but I got destroyed just because he's better than me but I mean we fought just like a regular match because that's how I fight. I'll say it one more time, I think Ganon vs Peach on KJ is a good CP for Ganon, I would totally bring a Peach on KJ and have done so when I could. I've beaten Vwins on that stage plenty of times when he usually beats me pretty hard on the regular stages. Edgeguarding Ganon on KJ is not as easy as the neutral stages and Peach loses some of her strengths on that stage too I think, because of the slants on the ground, certain combos don't work anymore for example.

 

[Bones0]

I'll ask the obvious question. What other matches?

There were 5 or so matches that were posted a while ago. Pink Shinobi vs. Rock Crock, Smasher89 vs. AJP and others, and I think someone said something about Pink Shinobi vs. Mango; I didn't watch that one.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Why play on a stage that clearly less fair than standard stages? Ignoring whether the camping is broken or not, it is significantly stronger than on any legal stage in recent times. The standard in the metagame is neutral stages and has been since the MLG days. Variance from that is a bonus, but only if the gameplay from those neutral stages is maintained. Until now, KJ64 has gone by unnoticed. At first glance it is simply a large stage with similar characteristics of the neutrals: Symmetrical, 2 edges, mostly flat, regular property platforms (as opposed to solid or attackable). Because of its somewhat normal properties but counterpick status it has been one of the least picked stages in the game's history. As the number of counterpicks began to dwindle, more people explored this stage and new things were discovered.

What is camping? Is it a problem? If so, why? These are the questions at the root of this discussion. What I define as camping might more accurately be described as severe defensive play. Maximizing the risk/reward ratio by minimizing risk to as close to 0 as possible. The ultimate reward is the game win and if no retaliation is possible the risk is 0. Any game that allows one player to make their risk/reward infinite is by definition imbalanced and broken. If this were ever possible the game would instantly devolve into all players attempting this strategy and whoever could land the first hit would win. This is the principle that Hyrule was banned under.

As our metagame grew from players running at each other into a fluid positioning battle, our knowledge of optimal risk/reward increased. Some players are still able to compete at high levels with high risk strategies but that is not the norm; the most consistent results are found by players who have low risk strategies. Because of the metagame is focused on minimizing risk, we are walking a tightrope when it comes to large stages. While smaller stages make player interactions more frequent and mistakes more costly, larger stages allow for less interactions and therefore stronger defensive options. The whole game can be imbalanced simply by playing on a stage that is too big, allowing the risk/reward ratio to exceed normal bounds.

But what is too big? Where is the line drawn? I don't think there is any way this can be decided through logic alone, and experience must be drawn from.

 

[Deleted member]

Maximizing the risk/reward ratio by minimizing risk to as close to 0 as possible. The ultimate reward is the game win and if no retaliation is possible the risk is 0. Any game that allows one player to make their risk/reward infinite is by definition imbalanced and broken. If this were ever possible the game would instantly devolve into all players attempting this strategy and whoever could land the first hit would win. This is the principle that Hyrule was banned under.

You'd think that, and that people would play to win, etc, but they don't. This game already has a handful of strategies that are super close to having freebies but then they don't use them. Like for whatever reason Fox players still insist on attacking Zelda when they can camp her and make the match basically 100-0. Sheiks refuse to CG and most IC players I know of refuse to wobble or are terrible at it. And so on. For the last 9 years I've been playing this game, people will time and time again forfeit free victories willingly.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Yet the best players are usually the ones who play closest to the optimal strategy, or at least their own optimal strategy (high risk isnt very high if you know what they are planning/doing)

 

[Divinokage]

There were 5 or so matches that were posted a while ago. Pink Shinobi vs. Rock Crock, Smasher89 vs. AJP and others, and I think someone said something about Pink Shinobi vs. Mango; I didn't watch that one.

Even that evidence is not good enough imo since there are so few instances. Why not ban Dream Land when Armada camped Hbox successfully everytime? You know? lol.

I think it's important to separate a well-used strategy comparing it to a strategy where someone can't do **** about it. Is KJ really like that? I'm not convinced.

 

[Bones0]

Armada vs. Hbox is a horrible example because both players were stalling. Even Yoshi's would result in time outs if you have to Sheik players just Shino-stalling the whole game. I don't see how there being so few instances is relevant. Firstly, these are only the matches recorded that are referenced. Secondly, like Umbreon just pointed out, a lot of the community willingly opts out of using tactics that seem boring or "cheap." The same goes for the stalling methods that are already agreed upon. If we unbanned Peach wall bombing for Apex, do you think Armada would be CPing to FoD and just timing people out? Hell no.

That's fine if you really think KJ can NOT be used to time people out, but for once I would like to see some evidence that it ISN'T ban-worthy. Every match I've ever seen people attempting to time someone out on KJ, they've succeeded. If you wanted to prove that at the very least Ganon is not susceptible to time outs on KJ, then record some of the players in Canadia attempting to time you out.

 

[Divinokage]

Well it's obviously not limited to just Ganon, but.. I guess other matchups could get different results on that stage though I don't really know. =P

 

[Armada]

Kage: I remeber our match from Pound 4 at KJ.
The reason I didn´t tried to time out you is cause Im not that kind of player (EXCEPT against puff ).

To be honest I have never even tried to play the MU like Shinobi did/does but IF ganon can´t reach her when she is useing float stalling with dubble jump uair I think he has a big problem against her.

And what is he supposed to do against a Falcon for example?
He only need one jump to jump between the top plattforms and it takes less than a second.

But if Peach is playing "normal" yeah then I agree that KJ is a good stage for ganon against her but not if Peach is playing to win (and if he can´t reach her).

Hylian: The problem I see with your exmaple of a terrible MU compared to a terrible stage is that you should not be forced to play other chars just becasue some stages have strategys that can´t be beaten with severalls of chars just becasue of the timeout reason

The thing with the char is that really bad chars are really bad at pretty much all stages from the BEGINING and they are not loseing cause some broken strategy they are just not working as good as the better chars.

Character: Change cause they suck from the begining
Stage: Change char cause less/no skill involved things force you

That´s a big difference in my eyes

 

[ShroudedOne]

One would say that the burden of proof lies upon those who want to ban KJ64, Bones, not upon those who defend it, or are asking for proof. So far, no one who is against banning KJ64 has seen anything conclusive from those who do want it banned. Or, it'd be better to say that nothing that has been mentioned makes it seem ban-worthy. But perhaps this is just a difference of opinion?

And Umbreon is exactly right. People do NOT play the way they need to in order to win most of the time. And I think that this, combined with the rather difficult to ascertain "cheapness" of KJ64 is what is making this so difficult. In this instance, since, as Sveet mentioned, it does have some neutral characteristics, I think it would probably be in order to see some proof of it's brokenness before banning it.

However, I thought I remembered Cactuar saying that the MBR had to also keep in mind what the community as a whole wanted. If most people want KJ64 banned because of whatever, then it'll probably get banned, because that isn't what people "want" from their stages.

Should we be banning stages based on what people want? Well...I don't think so. But I'm not so sure that people want what is objectively fair, as much as they want something that fits into their notion of what is fair. That's all.

P.S.: Bring back Mute City. Please.

P.S.S: Armada does make an important distinction that I've constantly thought about. There IS a difference between characters invalidating characters, and stages invalidating characters. Using Sheik's invalidation of low tiers as an example for why KJ64 shouldn't be banned because it invalidates some MUs never made much sense to me (sorry if that sentence sounds weird, I'll re-word it if it's confusing). When decide what to take out, I think that taking out characters is far more extreme than taking out stages, because of the amount of skill required to control a character versus learning a stage, and the fact that there is no "Turn X character off" button, as there is for the stages. Kal has already argued against the second point, I realize, but at the end of the day, your character wins you the match, not the stage...

 

[Hylian]

There is no "in the beginning" armada. That's why I said stages make them inherently worse as a character, the same way having bad match-ups will make the character inherently worse.

If Marth loses to some characters horribly on final destination, he is a worse character because of it. The stage doesn't need to be banned just to try and balance the game.

If Marth loses to pichu horribly, he is a worse character because of it. Pichu doesn't need to be banned just to try and balance the game.

If every character loses to fox horribly on fd but not every other stage, some attribute of the stage makes it broken and the stage should be banned due to over-centralization.

If every character loses to fox horribly on every stage, then fox as a character is over-centralizing and needs to be banned.

You see the difference? The fact that some characters aren't viable on some stage just makes them worse characters. If you really want everything to be the same, you should only play on one stage that you deem give the least advantage to any character over another.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

One would say that the burden of proof lies upon those who want to ban KJ64, Bones, not upon those who defend it, or are asking for proof. So far, no one who is against banning KJ64 has seen anything conclusive from those who do want it banned.

That is something that has been annoying me. The pro-ban side, rather than attempting to prove that KJ64 is ban-worthy, expects us to prove to them that KJ64 is not ban-worthy, knowing full well that it is infinitely more difficult to prove that something is not ban-worthy. We basically have to prove that 325 MU's (dittos are automatically balanced) are not broken, which (because examples are logically insufficient) requires a lot of abstract reasoning and hypothetical thinking, methodologies that they purposely try to discourage. And when we ask them for evidence that KJ64 is ban-worthy, they hide behind the guise of, "You should be proving this to us, we don't need to prove anything to you!" rather than providing anything of substance!

BTW, yes, the stage list does affect how good a character is. If we drastically changed the stage list to include only stages that (for example) Puff was good on, then Puff would be #1, not to mention the other rankings that would be affected. (Granted, I doubt we could come up with a stagelist that would put Fox or Falco in the mid- to low-tiers, but that's not the point.)

BTW2 Sveet, just because a strategy is very low-risk or even close to zero-risk is not enough to ban it if it is not sufficient to allow worse players to beat better players. At the end of the day, the purpose of a set is to determine which player should advance to the next round. If a zero-risk strategy fails to disrupt that, if a zero-risk strategy only works when the player who would advance under normal circumstances attempts it, then what is wrong with it? All it does at that point is guarantee that the better player advances, which is exactly the point of the set to begin with.

 

[ShroudedOne]

When he says "in the beginning," I think he means, "in a vacuum." Like, looking at characters absent of stages. I'm not sure if Pichu being worse because it loses to a lot of characters is comparable to Pichu being worse because it loses on a lot of stages. Regardless of stage, Pichu loses to Fox. That's why Pichu is bad. Not because Pichu has less viable stages...

 

[Armada]

In the begining actually excist.

A char is better from the begining if they have better opurtunities as a char to have more MU in their advantage. Range/speed/Guarantee stuff/exc is what makes a char better form the begining and Fox is better than Bowser in this game no matter what (pretty much what I mean with from the begining).

Example 1: If they stage would involved strategys that is not skill involved to beat severall of chars then the stage would have been a problem for the game

2: A weakness make him worse ofc. But if Pichu as a char is not broken then he should not be banned just becasue Marth gets ***** by him

3: The example is a really extrem version of the KJ example but does not involve as many factors/char as this example

4: Yes if he is rapeing everything (not MK in brawl situation)

The thing I notice is that your third example just is a really extreme version of what the entire discussion is about.

The discussion about KJ is that chars that is way better can´t do anything against some worse chars cause some attribute of the stage make it broken

Edit:Shroudedone did a kinda good job to describe what I mean

 

[FerrishTheFish]

When he says "in the beginning," I think he means, "in a vacuum." Like, looking at characters absent of stages. I'm not sure if Pichu being worse because it loses to a lot of characters is comparable to Pichu being worse because it loses on a lot of stages. Regardless of stage, Pichu loses to Fox. That's why Pichu is bad. Not because Pichu has less viable stages...

True, but then we have to consider what "in a vacuum" means. Does this mean an infinitely large, flat stage like FD with no death barriers? Does performance on platforms affect this? Do weight and falling speed affect this, even though how "good" or "bad" weight and falling speed are depends on the size of the death barriers? etc. There are, I think, far fewer MUs than you think that can be determined by this method, because it really only applies to MUs where one side has an advantage that is not decreased by any possible game mechanics.

EDIT: I mean, could I design a stage that would make the Pichu-Fox MU favor Pichu? Maybe not, but I could make it a lot better. I could take a stage like Dreamland, raise the ceiling until a fully-charged Fox usmash on the top platform wouldn't kill Pichu at 999%, widen the walls until Fox couldn't kill Pichu horizontally at 999%, raise the floor until it was just barely low enough to allow Pichu to jump out of a shine spike hitting him on a ledge, introduce a type of low-knockback lava that would quickly rise to just below the top platform and lower at a rate designed to mimic the way Peach's umbrella can carry Fox to his death (where the KB carries people as horizontally far away from the stage as possible and the stage is designed to make this possible from close to the center of the stage) and repeat that cycle as quickly as possible, introduce amazingly accurate rapid-fire (6 lasers per run, 5 seconds between runs, random character targeted) Arwings whose lasers had shine-spike KB ... (wow, this is kinda fun)

 

[Kal]

Like, looking at characters absent of stages.

Absolutely nothing can be said about this game without stages. You need a stage to make any claim like "Pichu loses to Fox," because there is no game to be played without stages.

Regardless of stage, Pichu loses to Fox. That's why Pichu is bad. Not because Pichu has less viable stages...

No. Pichu loses to Fox because he has no stages on which he can win. Whether a stage could exist is open for debate (though a contrived example is easy to come up with), but this argument in its entirety is absurd.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

BTW2 Sveet, just because a strategy is very low-risk or even close to zero-risk is not enough to ban it if it is not sufficient to allow worse players to beat better players. At the end of the day, the purpose of a set is to determine which player should advance to the next round. If a zero-risk strategy fails to disrupt that, if a zero-risk strategy only works when the player who would advance under normal circumstances attempts it, then what is wrong with it? All it does at that point is guarantee that the better player advances, which is exactly the point of the set to begin with.

I don't think you are understanding the meaning of a zero risk strategy...

 

[FerrishTheFish]

I don't think you are understanding the meaning of a zero risk strategy...

I think I do. Make Sheik's ledge-stalling better to the point where it is literally frame-wise impossible for Link to do anything about it. That is a zero-risk strategy. There is no way I can touch Sheik once she's on that ledge. But Sheik still needs to get a stock or % advantage against me AND evade my projectiles to grab the ledge before I can do anything about it AND successfully ledge-stall for 8min without getting bored or messing up. Someone who has the patience, skill, and determination to do all that to me would probably beat me under normal circumstances. It'd be boring. I'd probably feel salty about it. But it wouldn't disrupt the set as a whole other than making it take forever.

 

[ShroudedOne]

Absolutely nothing can be said about this game without stages. You need a stage to make any claim like "Pichu loses to Fox," because there is no game to be played without stages.



No. Pichu loses to Fox because he has no stages on which he can win. Whether a stage could exist is open for debate (though a contrived example is easy to come up with), but this argument in its entirety is absurd.

So Pichu doesn't lose to Fox because of his inability to approach Fox, or his poor answers to Fox's pressure? I understand that all games are played on a stage, and so looking at an MU outside of a stage sounds silly, but if you consider the characteristics/options of one character compared to another, than you can, to a degree, see who loses to who.

 

[Kal]

So Pichu doesn't lose to Fox because of his inability to approach Fox, or his poor answers to Fox's pressure?

In order to know whether Pichu is unable to approach, or whether Fox has any sort of pressure, you need a stage to play on. If a stage came up where Pichu were able to beat Fox (and, as I said before, a contrived example is easy to come up with), what would you really say?

You would say "Pichu loses to Fox, except on this new stage." And it's the same here, Pichu just happens to lose to Fox on every stage. Yes, there are explanations for this, and many of the reasons Pichu loses are shared from stage to stage, but it's nonsense to pretend that there is this special stage-less version of Smash we are using to assess matchups. It makes absolutely no sense.

I understand that all games are played on a stage, and so looking at an MU outside of a stage sounds silly, but if you consider the characteristics/options of one character compared to another, than you can, to a degree, see who loses to who.

You really can't. You can pretend to, but how are you even defining expressions like "approach" and "pressure" without having stages to play on?

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

I think I do. Make Sheik's ledge-stalling better to the point where it is literally frame-wise impossible for Link to do anything about it. That is a zero-risk strategy. There is no way I can touch Sheik once she's on that ledge. But Sheik still needs to get a stock or % advantage against me AND evade my projectiles to grab the ledge before I can do anything about it AND successfully ledge-stall for 8min without getting bored or messing up. Someone who has the patience, skill, and determination to do all that to me would probably beat me under normal circumstances. It'd be boring. I'd probably feel salty about it. But it wouldn't disrupt the set as a whole other than making it take forever.

But thats not even a 0 risk strategy. Theres the risk of getting hit and the risk of messing up. A strategy without risk would be like starting on the edge and the only thing needed to continuously stall is hold A, as well as having full invincibility and counting as holding the edge at all times so you can't be edgehogged.

edit- actually a true no risk strategy would be automatically being invincible and stalling unless another action is chosen.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

But thats not even a 0 risk strategy. Theres the risk of getting hit and the risk of messing up. A strategy without risk would be like starting on the edge and the only thing needed to continuously stall is hold A, as well as having full invincibility and counting as holding the edge at all times so you can't be edgehogged.

... I'm just gonna quote something that I wrote a little while ago, with some added emphasis.

I think I do. Make Sheik's ledge-stalling better to the point where it is literally frame-wise impossible for Link to do anything about it. That is a zero-risk strategy. There is no way I can touch Sheik once she's on that ledge. But Sheik still needs to get a stock or % advantage against me AND evade my projectiles to grab the ledge before I can do anything about it AND successfully ledge-stall for 8min without getting bored or messing up. Someone who has the patience, skill, and determination to do all that to me would probably beat me under normal circumstances. It'd be boring. I'd probably feel salty about it. But it wouldn't disrupt the set as a whole other than making it take forever.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

All i can do is wonder if you understand my posts... I didn't think my grammar was that bad


btw when i said "get hit" i meant before getting to the edge.

 

[Mr Postman]

4. Maintaining Personal Hygiene

This!

 

[ShroudedOne]

Kal, at the very least, you can look at Pichu's moveset compared to Fox's, and see that it is a worse moveset. That doesn't require a stage.