Legality Tentative: MBR Official Ruleset for 2012

[FerrishTheFish]

@Sveet You don't get it. Stalling only leads to victory if you have a stock or % lead. Don't insult my intelligence. Inability or unwillingness to address my claims on your part does not constitute mental *********** on my part.

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.

Since gameplay ought to proceed pretty normally until that happens (surely my opponent wants to damage/KO me even if they don't have a stalling strategy?), all I have to do is make sure my opponent doesn't get a stock or % advantage on me (surely I want to prevent my opponent from damaging/KOing me?).

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

Even though I understand that this is one of those hypothetical sort of situations, I feel compelled to bring up the fact that circle-camping on Hyrule is harder than this.

Besides, there is still a risk of getting bored. As long as this game is being played with physical controllers, there is a miniscule risk of messing up (accidentally inputting another action which would disrupt the endless stalling). There is still the risk that people booing you for stalling this way will make you voluntarily stop or involuntarily mess up. There is certainly the risk that the TO will come over and force you to stop.

 

[Kal]

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.

It does require a stage. You have to be able to play the game to deduce that it's a worse moveset, because you have to have a game to play to qualify the statement "Pichu's moveset is worse." What if every single stage happens to accentuate Pichu's combos so that every hit is a 0-death, but not Fox? You can't answer this without having stages to play. You can pick a stage and deduce that Pichu is worse than Fox. You can pick a set of stages and deduce that Pichu is worse than Fox. But without a stage, what the **** does "Pichu is worse than Fox" even mean? There's no game to play!

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Stalling in that case has no risk of losing and at worst could tie, unless the player chose to change their action. No the TO could not make a player stop, unless there is a rule in place that isn't part of this ruleset. Yes there is still a miniscule chance that something could happen, but i assume you get my point and i don't have to build my hypothetical to the point of being in a bomb shelter 5 miles below the surface surrounded by a faraday cage so that no physical or electrical disturbance could interfere... etc

And yes, circle camping on hyrule is harder than this. Hylian would call it incredibly easy, but there is still the chance of a mistake, so it must be fair, right? No. Even in the case of potential mistakes, the risk/reward is still far outside the bounds of fairness.


edit- @Kal, we do have standard stages, they are the neutrals. These have been considered the important stages for well over 5 years. Gameplay, match-ups, movesets, etc can all be judged based on their performance on them.

 

[Kal]

I haven't read the discussion you two are having, because it seems pretty nonsensical. Our goal isn't to balance the game past brokenness. If the risk/reward of something ratio is too high, then yes, we ban it. Our point from the get-go has been that Hyrule does have too high a ratio, whereas Kongo Jungle 64 does not. Of course, we have to be careful and specific with these points. You can't identify a single instance of high risk/reward (i.e., Peach vs. Falco on Brinstar) and conclude that the strategy is broken. It has to be measured across the entire game.

And Sveet, if you want to consider the starter stages special in some way, that's up to you. That's not the point being addressed. Reading comprehension is helpful.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

No the TO could not make a player stop, unless there is a rule in place that isn't part of this ruleset.

Coincidentally, there is such a rule in the current ruleset, which I read before commenting in this thread.

[*] Some kind of stalling prevention is highly recommended. Since a definition of stalling is too potentially ambiguous here, all instances of stalling are determined by you.

PS And before you willfully misinterpret my post and get all indignant about it, this means that the TO could make the player stop, not necessarily that the TO will make the player stop.

 

[ShroudedOne]

It does require a stage. You have to be able to play the game to deduce that it's a worse moveset, because you have to have a game to play to qualify the statement "Pichu's moveset is worse." What if every single stage happens to accentuate Pichu's combos so that every hit is a 0-death, but not Fox? You can't answer this without having stages to play. You can pick a stage and deduce that Pichu is worse than Fox. You can pick a set of stages and deduce that Pichu is worse than Fox. But without a stage, what the **** does "Pichu is worse than Fox" even mean? There's no game to play!

I realize what you're saying, but I have to ask: Why can't we just determine how good moves are by looking at their properties/frame data/strength/hitboxes, and then compare these sets of moves to other moves? (I know I'm being bullheaded, I apologize )

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

I don't really want to get into the technicalities between a rule being part of the ruleset and being recommended, but yes it is possible for a TO to make a player stop.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

I realize what you're saying, but I have to ask: Why can't we just determine how good moves are by looking at their properties/frame data/strength/hitboxes, and then compare these sets of moves to other moves? (I know I'm being bullheaded, I apologize )

For a move to be "good," there must be some sort of situation in which it can operate. Shine-spikes are overpowered, right? Except not on stages where there is no "off the edge" place to fall from (granted, they're still pretty good). Up-smash is really strong, right? Except not on stages where you can't kill upward for whatever reason. Etc.

@Sveet Also, I'm pretty sure that stalling from the get-go and taking the match to time with both players at 4 stocks and 0% would just cause the match to be replayed and accomplish nothing in the way of victory.

 

[ShroudedOne]

Yeah, I generally agree with that Ferrish. At the same time, Fox's upsmash is still really strong. High damage, good knockback, sets up for techchases on fast fallers...I understand that taking moves out of situational context won't give a strong representation of the moves compared to what they do in game (in game meaning in an actual match with stages), but you can't say that moves can't be good or bad in a vacuum. At least, I wouldn't think you could.

 

[Kal]

What Ferrish said. These things you're describing are rules of thumb, Shrouded. They're good rules of thumb for the game we're currently playing. However, they serve no use when you have no game to play. A move being short and fast seems good, but you have no way of knowing if the game actually supports that without being able to play it.

Also, "sets up for tech chases" requires a stage to even be defined. If, for example, you were on Rainbow Cruise, you wouldn't argue that it sets up for tech chases; if there were a stage (not currently present in Melee) in which there were no ground, but you simply floated towards each other, then this quality you're calling "good" about the usmash would similarly not exist. I would suggest giving this more thought, since what I've just mentioned should have been an immediate realization when considering this query.

 

[Hyperhavoc5]

I feel that any reasonable stage should be allowed as long as both players (or all players) agree to it. Ie rainbow cruise, brinstar, fountain, pokemon, (corneria?), DK64

 

[Kal]

I am actually not ok with the Gentleman's Clause, because I don't think we should allow breaking the rules just because both players agree to it. At the same time, there's nothing stopping players from just playing whatever they want "as a friendly," and simply reporting the results as that of the tournament match.

 

[ShroudedOne]

Fine. You got me Kal. I tried.

 

[Kal]

<3

10<3s

 

[FerrishTheFish]

Fine. You got me Kal. I tried.

Shrouded One, you're such a good sport How could anyone fail to forgive you with an avatar like that?

 

[Kal]

Is that avatar a girl or a boy? Also, I think my Sweeney Todd avatar wins at everything.

 

[Divinokage]

It looks like the young version of Yggdrasil. There was a new Tales of Symphonia anime that came out recently it's like a 45 min episode but I still havent found it with english subs.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

... That definitely looks like Colette to me. Yggdrasil's hair wasn't that long. Besides ... THOSE EYES ... They stare into your soul ...

 

[ShroudedOne]

It is Colette Brunel, from the amazing game known as Tales of Symphonia (for the Gamecube). And she is most certainly a girl. Also, Ferrish, this avi is how I get away with my stupidity.

 

[Kal]

I still think she looks like a boy. Kind of like Kaiba's little brother from Yu-Gi-Oh, but blonde.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

I thuoght she looked like Knives when he was a kid (trigun)

 

[Cactuar]

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?

This is incorrect. The current model is that stages have to be proven as viable to be enabled. The burden of proof is on the group that wants to legalize a stage.

This is something that will not be changed for this rendition of the rule set, though you may discuss/complain about it if you'd like.

I originally provided ample evidence for Jungle Japes to be included, though the argument for keeping it banned was weaker than it should have been purely because no one really plays the stage currently and the opinions against it were weak due to inexperience. I playtested it quite a bit, but I haven't gotten to play any high level matches there, as it has just been M2K and I vs random teams thus far, and certain space animal standard patterns have seemed ridiculous, but it could just be an effect of the skill difference.

As certain abilities scale much higher with skill than others, the scaling on stage effects vs certain move sets in high level play may be a little ridiculous, and provide teams already favored to win a much stronger counterpick and accelerate/magnify their victory vs lower level teams unfairly. As such, the stage will be getting removed for official publication.


This is a process that works for me:

1) A player champions a stage and prepares a body of evidence for its use.
2) The MBR provides evidence against the legality of the stage.
3) If the evidence of the player > evidence of the naysayer, the stage is considered and temporarily included, allowing a vast group of players to be aware of the potential change and personally test it, then report back their findings.
4) Collect evidence and examine.
----a) If evidence is present that displays a glaring flaw in the stages legality, remove the stage, keep the data.
----b) If no evidence has been presented that displays a glaring flaw, keep the stage. And the data.

Always keep the data.

 

[EthereaL]

MuteCity MuteCity MuteCity MuteCity MuteCity

I approve of your 4-step method, however.

Edit: I just realized what you said in your post. A stage will be banned because it gives a superior team an unfair advantage? How is that not a ridiculous statement?

 

[Kal]

This is incorrect. The current model is that stages have to be proven as viable to be enabled. The burden of proof is on the group that wants to legalize a stage.

This model is a bit poorly defined, since you haven't really explained what the starting point is (e.g. do we start with Battlefield, or do we start with all six starter stages) nor does it seem consistent with how we go about handling the rest of ban-related issues (do we have to prove that every character is "viable to be enabled?").

1) A player champions a stage and prepares a body of evidence for its use.
2) The MBR provides evidence against the legality of the stage.
3) If the evidence of the player > evidence of the naysayer, the stage is considered and temporarily included, allowing a vast group of players to be aware of the potential change and personally test it, then report back their findings.
4) Collect evidence and examine.
----a) If evidence is present that displays a glaring flaw in the stages legality, remove the stage, keep the data.
----b) If no evidence has been presented that displays a glaring flaw, keep the stage. And the data.

Always keep the data.

This methodology doesn't really make sense, though. We can't provide evidence for the legality of anything. What good arguments are there for keeping Final Destination, Yoshi's Story, or Pokemon Stadium? That they aren't broken? How exactly are we supposed to prove that something isn't broken? You can't reasonably expect us to exhaust every possibility in order to prove that something isn't broken. And if it's not about brokenness explicitly, you haven't really provided us any set of criteria around which to justify the legality of anything. As far as I can tell, all we can do is try and prove that these stages don't fall under poorly defined notions of player vs. player which have been crafted in the first place to get these stages banned. That's obviously not possible.

It seems easier to just admit that you guys are banning it because you dislike it, or because it goes against your personal philosophy of how games "should" be played. Asking people who want to keep the stage to provide evidence seems absurd; the burden of proof lies on the person making a claim (in this case, the self-proclaimed experts saying that these stages should be banned), and for good reason: it's simply not practical (if even possible) to prove a claim false.

 

[Strong Badam]

lolol this thread is just arguing in circles now. I'm unsubscribing. Thanks for entertaining me some of the time tho guys

 

[Kal]

This thread was arguing in circles 41 pages ago. Why haven't you unsubscribed already? >_>

 

[Cactuar]

Yeah, we already had that argument. I'm building ground up, vs you starting with a complete building and tearing out sections.

And it isn't unreasonable. I did it for Japes. The method is to analyze the stage and present your entire body of evidence on things that break the stage vs reasons the stage works in competitive play. Prove the normally considered broken things to have less impact than originally thought, highlight the beneficial features. Just like in real life when doing a project proposal...

For the record, these aren't methodologies that I've invented or anything. These are standard processes...



@Ethereal: It further accentuates the superior team's advantage due to certain characters' standard high level play.

On a neutral, the already favored team is 75-25. On Japes, the already favored team suddenly goes to 95-5. On the off chance that the underdog wins that first stage, they now have to go to a stage where they are almost guaranteed to lose.

It sways advantage too heavily between skill gaps.

The reason it wasn't a ridiculous statement is because of the the word "unfair". There is no problem with a stage giving a superior team an advantage, it just depends on scale.

 

[Strong Badam]

 

[Kal]

Yeah, we already had that argument. I'm building ground up, vs you starting with a complete building and tearing out sections.

I still don't understand how you're building from the ground up. From what "ground" are you starting? As far as I can tell, you're just starting with a complete building and taking sections out, and somehow distinguishing that from my method because I'm choosing to be more conservative about what sections I remove. There is no well-defined "ground" to start from.

And it isn't unreasonable. I did it for Japes. The method is to analyze the stage and present your entire body of evidence on things that break the stage vs reasons the stage works in competitive play. Prove the normally considered broken things to have less impact than originally thought, highlight the beneficial features. Just like in real life when doing a project proposal...

This example you're provided doesn't really show anything. You've shown how this methodology can be used, not how it's reasonable (i.e., well defined, not contrived or arbitrary).

For the record, these aren't methodologies that I've invented or anything. These are standard processes...

Cool.

 

[KishPrime]

If we were sitting down to play a game of Clue with people in the Smash community, before we play we'd have to debate the legality of every room in Clue to see if that room is too dominant in pathing strategies, and every player would have to start on the same spot to create a neutral start location. We'd also have to get rid of the die and play rock-paper-scissors with the entire table every round, with the winner being allowed to move one space.

This post is a joke and if you try to argue with me about the accuracy of an analogy that's not intended to be an actual analogy, you're a nerd.

Cue nerds.

 

[Cactuar]

<3 Kish. Never stop posting.

 

[Kal]

I have never actually played Clue. My family made me play Monopoly growing up, which I think reflects how dysfunctional we are.

 

[Cactuar]

Say you are given a set of tools. A screwdriver, a knife, a hammer, a water balloon, a garden hose, and a piece of cheese.

Now say that our objective is to rotate a screw into the wall.

Using your method, I have to disprove that the functionality of each of those is not sufficient for turning that screw before attempting to do so.

Using my method, all I have to do is prove that a screwdriver can turn a screw.

The knife could also be used as an alternative, but we don't use it because the screwdriver does the job better.

This is only a half-joke of a post. I'm still practicing to get to Kish's level of complete nonsense.

 

[Kal]

The fact that you've appended that it's a half-joke suggests to me that it's a full-joke of a post. Or perhaps not a joke at all?

*prepares in-depth response*

 

[Cactuar]

The fact that I've appended that it's a half-joke suggests that I don't have faith in others to realize that it's a half-joke.

My actual intention is ambiguous and up for interpretation.

**

 

[Kal]

It is a serious issue that people are unable to detect facetiousness on the internet. This is what happens when you give people free speech. They abuse the **** out of it. We should be more like China.

 

[Cactuar]

We should be more like China.

/thread

If I could Like or +1 or Upvote that, I totally would mang.

My boss actually looked over at me because I lol'd.

 

[Kal]

... That means you're going to legalize Mute City, right?

 

[Mew2King]

cactuar those teams just weren't that good. Didn't we also 6 and 7 stock husband+wife last weekend 3 times in a row? We just ****; I don't think you should be using such a small sample of data of how badly we ***** some newbs as the basis for the stage. Give it more of a chance than that imo.

jungle japes is much worse in singles than teams imo, because of camping the platform and the random aligator (the aligator is a problem either way, but camping is way more important and dominant in singles than teams). I don't care if it's not a true randomness, but there is no way a top player will be paying attention to that pattern WHILE 100% focusing on the fight. You should just call it luck for the most part. I would actually say it should ONLY be legal in teams, and NOT in singles, if anything. Imo either ban it entirely, or only have it legal in teams. It's fine if you don't, but I'm always going to try to time people out with jigglypuff on that stage if it's legal in singles because that's the optimal strategy.

I also agree with Armada about KJ64. That stage is terrible, at least in singles, due to time outs. But the barrel is pretty bad too.

so my opinion is these 2 stages should either be banned entirely, or at least banned in singles. In teams, because of all the chaos, I feel like it matters less than it does in singles. Especially for KJ64.

 

[Cactuar]

Lol. I believe part of my statement was that we were playing vs randoms. Or I can be a **** and say "The people we were playing against weren't that good."

You ****.