Legality Tentative: MBR Official Ruleset for 2012

[The Star King]

The majority of matchups, though, will remain unchanged; low-tiers will get ***** by the high-tiers just as badly, and most good characters will do equally well against each other. In other words, any stage that isn't broken is probably neutral under this definition.

Hm... bold claim, my friend.

 

[Bones0]

If you think the stalling issue alone warrants a ban, then the stage should be legal in teams, sure. I just don't see why you want it as a neutral over Pokémon Stadium in teams. The randomness on both stages is negligible (the layout change on Pokémon Stadium is very easily adapted to, possibly more so in teams), and one ceiling is very high while the other is very low. One doesn't seem any more "neutral" than the other, even given this poorly defined notion of neutral that's been thrown around.

Also, I'm finding it difficult to take seriously posts that use the term "uncompetitive." This term is just a loaded way to make differing view points appear worse.

The randomness on PS is certainly not negligible. It comes into play ALL the time, and if you ask any top level player, they will tell you they certainly consider how the transformations affect their character when choosing stages. The transformations randomly alter the way you need to play the stage at any given time, whereas on KJ, while the barrel is random, you are by and large going to be playing the same regardless of where the barrel is. It doesn't play a role whatsoever until a player is off stage, and much like Randall, it's customary for the edge guarding player to take into account that their opponent may be able to use the barrel, and the recovering player takes into account that if they stall in the air properly, they could potentially use the barrel to recover.

Simply put, having a transformation in your favor all game would make much more of a difference than having the barrel near you every time you recover.


How is ceiling height relevant to anything? It's being high is only relative to the other stages, and it isn't like a high ceiling is overcentralizing of game play. There aren't any characters that are virtually incapable of killing off the sides/bottom, and I'm sure the ceiling is only a few kill %s away from DL's.

 

[Smasher89]

First of all, I do support more stages being used since its extreemly good for strategic choices and thinking strategic and out of the box.


However there has been a trend that stages more often get banned then unbanned, so it´s only logical to try to get the stages I less like in the current ruleset to go away, therefore I´ve played matches that can support my opinion and make the argument stronger for banning the stage, and I will go on until a certain stage is gone that I do not mention at the time being, just because this is how "play to win" the scrub way has been implemented the last 3 years, get rid of the problem instead of facing it


About KJ64:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fj_1LR_wjtg
One timeout, the two others are just even better examples why getting rid of it should be done, not that i NEVER practice falcon, even loose sets against AJP, and yet I win with a character I NEVER play except in the cases where I can use KJ64 as a powerful pick(which as "always" gets countered if my opponent would use a secondary...)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tNGDB95Ah4 (lol at 7min)

EDIT, i guess pink shinobis match should be considered too, but as allways with counterpicking where characterswitch is allowed, its just a mistake to get that away).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcTzwjJV-eM#t=6m37s

 

[Cactuar]

One side is saying:

"The ability to use stage selection to gain a large constant advantage over the opponent is one of value and indicates skill and intelligence."

While the other is saying:

"The ability to use stage selection to gain a large constant advantage over the opponent does not add value and doesn't indicate skill or intelligence."

Both are opinion.

Do not confuse the first one with:

"The ability to use the stage to earn a temporary advantage over the opponent is one of value and takes intelligence and skill."

 

[Kal]

As a rule of thumb, I don't waste time addressing anything Sveet has to say. In this case, I don't need to bother addressing an analogy that's clearly not applicable to virtually every stage being banned.

The randomness on PS is certainly not negligible. It comes into play ALL the time, and if you ask any top level player, they will tell you they certainly consider how the transformations affect their character when choosing stages. The transformations randomly alter the way you need to play the stage at any given time, whereas on KJ, while the barrel is random, you are by and large going to be playing the same regardless of where the barrel is. It doesn't play a role whatsoever until a player is off stage, and much like Randall, it's customary for the edge guarding player to take into account that their opponent may be able to use the barrel, and the recovering player takes into account that if they stall in the air properly, they could potentially use the barrel to recover.

How frequently something comes into play does not alone dictate how severe its impact is. If the middle platform of Battlefield randomly changed color every second, you would not concern yourself with it. In my opinion, the warning of the transformations on Pokémon Stadium that is given to the player makes these transformations sufficiently easy to account for, such that the transformations have little impact on the match.

Simply put, having a transformation in your favor all game would make much more of a difference than having the barrel near you every time you recover.

You'd have to demonstrate that this is actually significant. Most transformations can be accounted for, even if they're in the opponent's favor, by a simple "don't stand in the bad spots" strategy.

How is ceiling height relevant to anything? It's being high is only relative to the other stages, and it isn't like a high ceiling is overcentralizing of game play. There aren't any characters that are virtually incapable of killing off the sides/bottom, and I'm sure the ceiling is only a few kill %s away from DL's.

High ceiling makes worse characters who prefer to kill off the top, whereas low ceilings makes better said characters. I was stating the difference in ceiling heights to point out that I don't see any real distinguishing characteristic to declare Kongo Jungle 64 "more neutral" than Pokémon Stadium. If you think that the transformation is sufficient, then by all means go ahead and have your starting stages include Kongo Jungle 64. I don't think the transformations warrant any distinction.

One side is saying:

"The ability to use stage selection to gain a large constant advantage over the opponent is one of value and indicates skill and intelligence."

While the other is saying:

"The ability to use stage selection to gain a large constant advantage over the opponent does not add value and doesn't indicate skill or intelligence."

Both are opinion.

Do not confuse the first one with:

"The ability to use the stage to earn a temporary advantage over the opponent is one of value and takes intelligence and skill."

While I appreciate you trying to state my view for me, you should observe that my view hasn't been to subjectively declare anything as indicative of "skill and intelligence," or to say that any particular mechanic is one of value. This is what you seem to misunderstand, Cactus; as far as ruleset making goes, I have nothing to say on the issue, because all of these notions are absolutely subjective and poorly defined in the first place. I would not ban Kongo Jungle 64 for the same reasons I won't ban Falco; I think neither the skill of properly using Kongo Jungle 64, nor the skill of properly using Falco, is one of value.

Luckily, my opinion on what skills are valuable is unimportant. The game is not a judged sport, and there is an objective, discrete method of judging skill: the winning player is the better player. It's fine that you think what you think (we all have subjective preferences on what skills are "valuable;" it would be really cool, in my opinion, if we could have some sort of math test before a smash tournament to determine handicaps), but my argument hasn't ever been "these skills are worthwhile." It's "you have no right to force your arbitrarily preferred 'worthwhile skills' down the throats of the attendants of your tournament."

As the TO, it's your job to dispassionately judge what does and does not belong in the game. It is not your job to ban something because you believe that it is not a valuable skill.

Hm... bold claim, my friend.

Obviously, you would need to measure the standard deviation of matchups on each stage (keeping in mind that there is more than one way to do this) and come up with some cutoff for what makes a stage "neutral." Such a cutoff will necessarily be chosen arbitrarily (likely you will simply take a significant gap of some sort), but I do think that it will be hard to even make a canonical choice.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if some stages counterpick stages, and even banned stages, appeared more neutral than the starter stages under this definition. Of course, all of this is just talk until we get some actual computations going. Neither the players claiming the counterpick stages to be less neutral, nor the ones claiming them to be as neutral or more neutral, have provided any evidence either way outside of anecdotes like "Peach beats Fox on Brinstar and Mute City but loses to him everywhere else."

And I perhaps misspoke when I said that the matches would be unchanged. I should instead have said that the total impact of these matchups would remain unchanged or the change would be negligible. That, while some matchups might get worse, others might get closer to even, and that sometimes matchups are actually made more even (in the grand scheme) with the introduction of these stages. You could argue that Peach vs. Fox is in Fox's favor, but with the introduction of Brinstar and Mute City you could argue instead that the matchup is even or in Peach's favor. With that in mind, you can see that the issue is, at the very least, not black-and-white "the counterpick stages are not neutral."

 

[Cactuar]

I wasn't saying your argument was the statement I made, I'm saying those are, in black and white, the two sides. Our opinions can be any shade of grey.

In terms of competition, if there is nothing to deem of value, there is no reason to compete. If there is nothing to measure, there is no competition.

As a TO, it is your job to judge what does or does not belong in the game. The game is our competitive medium. Everything that makes up that medium has a measure of value. Your job is to determine what does or does not add value.
To me, your response is a contradiction...


Smash is an open game, in terms of what is provided. Through the course of time, majority (or shady *** Midwest dominated MBR) rule has determined what the framework of the game that will be played competitively is.

To look at this accurately, rule sets and stage lists are filters. We have filtered the game down to what we think is best for the competitive scene. The method involved doesn't matter. It isn't even important to use logic for elimination of elements. The only thing that is important is opinion. Finding the right filters that give maximum value to all players based on majority opinion of what does or doesn't add value.

In summary: What makes my win mean the most, both to me and to others?

It doesn't matter if you are the best at multishining if no one cares about multishining. It doesn't matter if you beat everyone in the world on Mute City if no one else gives validation to wins on Mute City. The only person taking pride in those win is you, and we are laughing at you for it.

That said, it is very easy for older members of the community to become bitter and rigid about the changes. They won on those stages during a time when they were legal counterpicks. It sucks to come into the forums and see people basically discrediting those victories because we determined that those stages are unfit for competitive play. There is nothing wrong with using all the tools at your disposal to win. Respect should still be given, regardless of current vs past.

 

[Tero.]

aww you're still using my design for the first post .(^o^)/

can't agree with japes as a counterpick stage in doubles.
even if you can't camp in doubles that stage still has that random claptrap killing you when you still have 0% + in doubles there are also times when you have 1v1 situations which can be camped.
no one should be forced to play doubles on a stage that wasn't ever (long long ago) legal in singles (else we could also consider termina bay)

i'd rather go with rainbow cruise or the like, w/e

 

[Kal]

As the TO, it is certainly my job to decide what belongs in the game. It is also my job to do so as objectively as possible. I shouldn't be banning Falco because I don't personally find it rewarding to win with him. Nor should I worry if the majority of players share this view.

As usual, Cactuar, your post reeks of a dismissal under the veil of practicality. Though ending with a less-than-subtle insult is a nice touch.

To think we are bitter because we are no longer able to make use of these tactics is nonsense. If something is broken and available at a tournament, I will certainly use it (e.g I have no problem going Fox on Hyrule if the TO decided to enable it), but that doesn't mean I want to have it enabled at future events. Unlike the MBR, some of us are capable of dispassionately assessing whether something is worth banning with justification outside of "I don't like it."

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

As a rule of thumb, I don't waste time addressing anything Sveet has to say. In this case, I don't need to bother addressing an analogy that's clearly not applicable to virtually every stage being banned.

I can't believe you ever once called me out on being offensive. This type of content has been in every one of your replies referring to me in the last few weeks. I am going to start referring them for flaming/harassment from now on.

 

[Cactuar]

Where did I end on an insult?





I don't understand you or Kish when you approach with this objectiveness idea. Your purpose is to be as objective as possible, measured against what base line? Everything about competitive smash is based on opinion and preference...

 

[Dark Hart]

**** the mbr

 

[Kal]

I can't believe you ever once called me out on being offensive. This type of content has been in every one of your replies referring to me in the last few weeks. I am going to start referring them for flaming/harassment from now on.

Sveet, you consistently enter a discussion with nothing but a poorly thought-out aside. The aside you throw out often has nothing to do with the actual discussion (e.g. we are discussing whether "Smash without stages" makes sense, and you mention something about neutral stages being the standard). Yeah, I'm harsh. This might be because the first post you've directed at me (other than "Kal, you're wrong, JPOBS is right") was self-important and obnoxious, and ended with "feel free to argue some more" (thanks for granting permission) "but please do so rationally" (thanks for being a pompous ***). You even prefaced this argument with "do you play the game? This is not an ad hominem."

Yes, I typically dismiss your posts. On the one hand, this makes me an *** hole, and I don't really care (if I wanted to be liked, I would be). On the other, you've done nothing but provide me with perfectly good reason to do so.

And really, once I explicitly call Ferrish ********, you can definitely compare my "being offensive" to yours.

Where did I end on an insult?

It doesn't matter if you are the best at multishining if no one cares about multishining. It doesn't matter if you beat everyone in the world on Mute City if no one else gives validation to wins on Mute City. The only person taking pride in those win is you, and we are laughing at you for it.

This particular comment just seems needlessly condescending. Though, in retrospect, the insult is more implicit than anything, and likely just me overreacting. I'm a little girl at heart.

With regards to "objectiveness," obviously the more nihilistic you want to be about this, the less objective we can be. The point I make (I will try not to speak for Kish) is that I see no difference between "let's ban Brinstar, the lava rises randomly and 'interferes' with gameplay" and "let's ban Falco, his lasers are ****ing gay." Because once you push the first point, it falls to about the same thing: "randomess is ****ing gay." And so the justification is really the same. We can use subjective notions of what skills are valuable to get whatever we want banned. This suggests, to me, that you should not be banning things at all except in extreme circumstances where the game clearly breaks as a result.

 

[Cactuar]

words words that Kal already ready, next post

 

[Kal]

If I had a dollar for every brain you don't have, I'd have one dollar.

 

[Cactuar]

The problem with your approach is that the vast majority of the community doesn't want to play an objectively pure Melee. They want to play competitive Melee. I've actually stated this argument before (SSBMvsSSBM:C).

You are not a TO if you have no community. The community needs people who want to play. No one wants to play vanilla Melee, because quite frankly, it ****ing sucks. Hence the evolution of the competitive ruleset/filter. Things don't need to be broken for them to be removed. They only need to make people not want to play the game.

 

[Kal]

Well I'm not suggesting "vanilla" Melee, by any means. There are certain things that need to be banned. While I doubt that attendance would be severely affected if TOs used a more conservative ruleset instead of the current very liberal one, your point definitely stands. I just doubt that enabling stages like Mute City, Brinstar, and Kongo Jungle 64 would really decrease the turnout of most tournaments.

I also wonder where you draw the line between "what is right" and what the people want. Supposing, for example, that the current Jigglypuff hatred one day gets to the point where the vast majority of the community simply does not want to play with Jigglypuff enabled. Would you tell people to suck it up and get over it, or would you ban Jigglypuff?

This also makes me question the usefulness of the MBR "recommending" a ruleset, since any rule made with "people don't like it" as justification has no need for the MBR. All you need is a forum. It seems inconsistent to me for the MBR to create a recommended ruleset but then justify things with "it's what the people want." The people will use the ruleset they want anyway.

 

[Cactuar]

There is no definite answer for your Jigglypuff question, but if 90% of the community was just flat out saying "Jigglypuff is ruining my experience and I'm not going to tournaments where puff is legal", then yes. Even if she was proven to truly be a mid-tier character and it wasn't about winning or losing, but just making everyone's experience miserable. In that extreme situation, Jigglypuff would be banned.

The thing about your third paragraph... is that what you suggest is what we have. We have a forum for people to explain their opinions. The MBR just aggregates opinion from across the country in the medium of top players and intelligent (other than Sveet) posters. The majority of my "opinions" are just a consolidated view of the game from the perspective of the majority of the NE. I spent my first 4 or so years in the smash community always talking game theory to other players and getting the opinion of everyone I could talk to on whatever I could think of, and I did that on a national scale, not just NE.

The recommended ruleset is basically "this is how we are currently playing the game in the competitive scene," not "this is how you should play the game." We added a few rules to account for some very specific situations and to place greater control over fairness into the hands of the players, but aside from that, nothing has really changed...

 

[Kal]

Fair enough about the way the MBR handles things. I still don't think it's necessary; simply having people create tournaments will amount to exactly the same thing. There will still be a generally accepted ruleset, and there will still be things no one is ok with. I think things would be identical to how they are now.

It does seem a little silly to me, however, to get a group of the best and brightest together only to create a ruleset that is basically "this is how we play by convention." While I wouldn't bother creating a back room of any sort, if I did it would create a ruleset that did more than simply reflect the ruleset conventions of the community's majority.

 

[Cactuar]

Lol. The MBR isn't just here to make rulesets and stagelists, but its hard to get people to put time into community activities when they could be playing the game instead. That and inherent laziness.

We actually have a ton of projects in queue, but MBR activity is uberlow and, like I said, its hard to get people to put time into it.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

The MBR just aggregates opinion from across the country in the medium of top players and intelligent (other than Sveet) posters.

Really? Really...

Just wow. Didn't expect that from you cactus.

 

[Cactuar]

Lmao. I was clearly taking a jab at you because of your little scuffle with Kal.

You know I don't mind interacting with you.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

Such a cutoff will necessarily be chosen arbitrarily (likely you will simply take a significant gap of some sort)

2.5 Standard Deviations away from the mean is the accepted definition of an "outlier," and it seems like you are suggesting that we remove "outlier-ish" stages. Personally, I think it's a waste of time because equally qualified people can disagree on a particular MU ratio, much less how certain stages will affect it. Also, please don't call me ********

Also, the reason the current CP system works is because picking a stage is less committing and less powerful than picking a character. Most legal stages have a plethora of characters who do well on them, whereas most legal characters only have a few stages they do well on. If you refuse to learn a second, then you are essentially choosing your character first, thus making the more committing choice first and opening yourself up for punishment. I fail to see how this is anyone or anything's fault but your own.

Also, Taj's Better Rule fixes pretty much every "problem" that would be created by adding in a few more CP stages. I keep saying this.

Also, if the MBR truly does things "by convention" then KJ64 would be legal, because that is what the convention is. In other words, Kal, they do more than simply reflect the ruleset conventions of the community's majority. They just don't want to admit it because not enough people like what they are doing beyond the conventions of the community's majority.

 

[Kal]

I thought it was pretty clear Cactus was just kidding. But I only say that because of the giant grin on my face.

Ferrish, I agree with you, but I don't think Cactuar would be dishonest here. While I think that the MBR is doing more than simply trying to reflect the current ruleset conventions of the Smash community, I don't think Cactuar is refusing to admit it. At the same time, since I am not a member of the MBR, I can't really say I have any idea what goes on back there.

Oh, and if I remember correctly, the convention that 2.5 Standard Deviations away from the mean is an outlier is not chosen for any particular reason.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

Oh, and if I remember correctly, the convention that 2.5 Standard Deviations away from the mean is an outlier is not chosen for any particular reason.

I'm pretty sure it was proven in one of my 400-level courses, but I'm not about to hunt down my notes from that class -.-'

 

[Kal]

How would you prove something like that? Seems entirely a matter of convention to me.

 

[Varist]

mbr banned mk even before urc did. do wus competitive

 

[Cactuar]

Yeah, but 95% of Melee players hate Brawl. So we had a majority ruling on that one...

 

[FerrishTheFish]

How would you prove something like that? Seems entirely a matter of convention to me.

Something about how the relevance of that particular data point vanishes up through the second-order Taylor expansion term, thereby making it impossible to account for in a linear model, and all statistical models are linear models of data sets that can be linearized. (Ex: If x and y have an exponential correlation, you cannot calculate their relationship by finding a and b from y = ae^(bx) because it has not been proven that this kind of model is valid. Instead, you linearize the data set by taking its ln(y) and then finding the linear correlation between x and ln(y).) I could be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure it was a solid proof beyond mere convention.

 

[Geenareeno]

So those Kongo Videos made me think... (and i'm sure this question has been posed before) How much does a stage have to affect the match before we ban it? Most people agree that Hyrule makes Fox too powerful. I like Kal's post about no clear definition and subjectivity. Kongo can sway a match pretty heavily in some matchups, and might be "broken" in others.

 

[Cactuar]

If it has hazards that can damage the player directly, its out. (Be reminded that Japes is being removed)

If it forces you to move or die, its out.

If it has walkoff edges, its out.

If it promotes camping to the extent that it cannot be countered reasonably, its out.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

If it has hazards that can damage the player directly, its out. (Be reminded that Japes is being removed)

If it forces you to move or die, its out.

If it has walkoff edges, its out.

If it promotes camping to the extent that it cannot be countered reasonably, its out.

Not that I necessarily disagree with all these, but no wonder Kal complains that your criteria are specifically engineered to disqualify all the stages you don't like.

 

[Divinokage]

But it's not his criteria, it's basically most competitive player's criteria, I also usually agree with those. Though KJ 64 is still up for debate probably.

 

[RaphaelRobo]

Speaking as someone who was no clue what he's talking about, I'd think that if we were to take any given matchup, neutral stages would alter as few of those as possible by 0-5 percent. Counterpick stages would be 5-10, and anything else would be banned.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

"No OP camping" I get (and yeah, I still think KJ64 is up for debate on this one).

"No walk-off death barriers" I get.

But "move or die" is automatically in effect vs. any capable opponent anyways. How terrible does your opponent have to be for you to reasonably expect to not move and also not die?

And "damaging hazards" is pretty arbitrary as well. YS's Randall and Shy Guys, PS's transformations, DL's wind, BF's edge, and FoD's changing platform heights have all damaged me. Just today, I was playing Falcon vs. Peach on FoD when a rising platform messed up a SHFFL'd knee. Because I was still holding down and at low damage, I immediately ate an 80% dsmash that led to an easy edgeguard, and because I didn't finish Peach with that knee she was able to give my next stock 60~70%. A stock loss + 70% due to a rising platform is actually worse than a 300% lava combo on Brinstar, because that's just a stock loss.

 

[Strong Badam]

Not that I necessarily disagree with all these, but no wonder Kal complains that your criteria are specifically engineered to disqualify all the stages you don't like.

that or we went all the way with our criteria and banned the stages that didn't fit them...
whichever way you want to look at it

 

[Geenareeno]

If it promotes camping to the extent that it cannot be countered reasonably, its out.

And this is the point of debate. Everything else is easily agreed upon, except the damage thing. I could argue that but it doesn't look like people are really going for Japes, plus I don't have much sway.

DOES KONGO JUNGLE 64 FIT THE CRITERIA?

 

[Cactuar]

Hilarious either way.

@Ferrish: Cool story bro.

@Geenareeno: For the moment, yes. Like you said, its a point of debate, as that particular point is one of opinion.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

@Ferrish: Cool story bro.

If your Brinstar anecdotes are somehow sound, irrefutable evidence, then my anecdotes are also sound, irrefutable evidence

 

[Varist]

i think he wants to make the distinction that, in that instance, it was the player you were fighting against in the first place who caused damage, which is called competition, instead of the stage. FoD is cool

 

[knightpraetor]

In favor of the brinstar and rainbow cruise removal from singles. Brinstar falls into the category of too much randomness and certain floaties auto-win....and rainbow cruise is only viable for too small a portion of the cast.

pokemon as a counterpick seems fine...certain matchups are harder there and certain matchups favor stages with more room making the ability to choose two large stages kind of crucial in 5 match sets...

i think in 5 match sets you can't repick a stage? so you go through the whole lineup practically? not sure about that...just glanced over the post