Legality Tentative: MBR Official Ruleset for 2012

[Cactuar]

Double Fox is vulnerable to Double Fox.

 

[Divinokage]

Yay quad Fox.. blip, blip, blip.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

Team TR4Q: Me (Link) and Angel (Yoshi). Best team EVAH.

 

[Kal]

I need to find someone with a Pichu as beastly as mine so that we can do double Pichu. Though Axe did promise to team with me one day and do Pichu + Pikachu. I would just feel very insecure the entire time because Pikachu is ****ing awesome.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Come on Sveet, bad analogies again? You can craft an analogy to justify whatever you want. An analogy is only as good as your inability to discover a flaw in it, and your analogy is clearly flawed: we're not starting with nothing and adding things to it. We're starting with Melee, and no matter what you do, there is always some ground you have to start with. In other words, you're not starting from nothing in the kitchen.

What you guys are doing is taking a fully-made sandwich recipe, going down to the bread and meat, then asking me to justify the use of each condiment. While some of condiments on the original recipe might have been bad, this doesn't mean I have to prove why every single one is not terrible. Except this analogy isn't even right, because the choice of dropping down to just bread and meat is a logical, consistent one (it's absolutely the "core" of a sandwich). The choice to drop down to only the starter stages is arbitrary.

Regardless, as you see, this type of argument is absolutely ****ing stupid. If you have an argument to make, make it, but analogies are to try and explain something to someone who is having a hard time understanding. Not to prove a point.

I find analogies to be very useful in describing how things work. For example, explaining how a dog reacts to mistreatment by explaining how you would feel if your dad smacked you and rubbed your face in your urine when you wet the bed. Of course there are differences, but the similarities are what should be focused on.

Btw, in the game of melee, the neutral stages are actually objectively the core of the game. They share the more common features than those that aren't included as neutrals. There are almost no differences between YS, BF and DL except scaling, and in my proposed stage list they were the 3 stages in the strike with PS, FD and FoD as counter pick stages (since they are the most dissimilar/least consistent).

Pokefloats and Rainbow Cruise share a lot of similarities, but they are fewer in number than the neutrals. I wouldn't mind a side tourney ruleset focused around these two stages as neutrals, but obviously that wouldn't be fit for standard play.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

From a logical standpoint, all analogies are essentially bad, but some analogies are useful (it's like we say in statistics: "All models are essentially bad. Some models are useful."). If you have some non-obvious argument and need an analogy to explain it, fine, but if your argument can't stand on its own without the analogy, then you really have no argument. Melee is not a sandwich and the MBR are not chefs, so why should the MBR give a **** about what chefs do to sandwiches? It just doesn't apply. Note the difference between:

1. The MBR should build Melee from nothing because chefs prepare sandwiches from nothing, and
2. The MBR should build Melee from nothing (much like chefs prepare sandwiches from nothing) because _____.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Very true Ferrish. I'll keep that in mind next time.

 

[KirbyKaze]

whoops wrong thread

the ruleset sucks but our game is wacky so it's the best we can do (for now)

 

[Kal]

I find analogies to be very useful in describing how things work. For example, explaining how a dog reacts to mistreatment by explaining how you would feel if your dad smacked you and rubbed your face in your urine when you wet the bed. Of course there are differences, but the similarities are what should be focused on.

What Ferrish said. Analogies are very useful to explain non-obvious arguments, but they don't stand on their own very well.

Btw, in the game of melee, the neutral stages are actually objectively the core of the game. They share the more common features than those that aren't included as neutrals. There are almost no differences between YS, BF and DL except scaling, and in my proposed stage list they were the 3 stages in the strike with PS, FD and FoD as counter pick stages (since they are the most dissimilar/least consistent).

They aren't the core of the game by any objective means. To call them "the core" is absolutely a matter of convention. You can argue that they're the core of the current metagame because we have played on virtually nothing but those starter stages for the past decade, and you can argue that they have some special properties you prefer (e.g. that they emphasize some specially preferred skill set). But there's nothing to make them "the core" of the game. We see that Melee without those stages (that is, if Sakurai had chosen to simply not include them) would not suddenly fail to be Melee. The metagame would be different, but it's not like we'd be playing a third person shooter.

In other words, with the sandwich analogy, removing the bread and meat means we no longer have a sandwich. Removing the neutrals doesn't mean we don't have Melee anymore. Maybe our current metagame would be drastically different, but that's a different argument altogether.

Pokefloats and Rainbow Cruise share a lot of similarities, but they are fewer in number than the neutrals. I wouldn't mind a side tourney ruleset focused around these two stages as neutrals, but obviously that wouldn't be fit for standard play.

The fact that they're fewer in number is just another "special property." Even if it's true (I don't believe this, because I think the term "neutral stage" is bull ****), it doesn't provide any reason for the game to be centered on these stages since, as I mentioned, we'd still have Super Smash Brothers: Melee without them.

And keep in mind that calling them "neutral" requires some distinction; you've said that they're emphasized more in the current metagame, which is true. This is a definition for neutral, but then the word loses its implied meaning. In other words, without an actual meaningful definition of "neutral," all you're doing is attaching a word to a set of stages. This is fine, but is also an obvious example of loaded terminology. I could just as easily call the starter stages "bad stages," but unless I've provided a real definition of the term, it's just a word. But you see how it still implies, in a very unfair way, that these stages are somehow inherently worse than the remaining ones, without really providing an explanation why. This is why I always refer to them as starter stages; calling them "neutral" is pretty much the same practice as calling your stance on abortion "pro-life" or "pro-choice." Both sides are obviously not against life nor choice, but slapping on a term that sounds good just makes you seem that much better, and makes your opponents seem that much worse.

 

[RaphaelRobo]

Isn't battlefield considered neutral because it has the bare minimum (land and platforms) and absolutely nothing else? Then Yoshi's Story and Dream Land 64 are considered neutral because they're almost the same. Fountain of Dreams and Final Destination are considered neutral because people are stupid.

Keep in mind I've only been playing for two months, so I probably have absolutely no clue what I'm talking about.

 

[Strong Badam]

The point being that the criteria are still crafted in order to ban the stages you dislike.

I guess you could say that but I don't see Fountain of Dreams being banned even though it's notorious for being hated. Seems more a case of chicken or the egg for you guys.

 

[Kal]

Isn't battlefield considered neutral because it has the bare minimum (land and platforms) and absolutely nothing else? Then Yoshi's Story and Dream Land 64 are considered neutral because they're almost the same. Fountain of Dreams and Final Destination are considered neutral because people are stupid.

Keep in mind I've only been playing for two months, so I probably have absolutely no clue what I'm talking about.

There's not any real reason for them to be called neutral. Originally, we chose the first stage of a set randomly, so we restricted the random select to a small subset of stages. We called that subset of stages "neutral," though "starter" would have been a more appropriate term. Now, we still refer to these stages as "neutral stages," despite the fact that there is no longer a need for the distinction between neutral and counterpick.

 

[RaphaelRobo]

Based off neutral being as similar to Battlefield as possible, counterpick would be stages that aren't different enough from Battlefield to be banned, but similar enough to be legal.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the reason neutral and counterpick stages are separated so that the first game always takes place on a Battlefield-like stage?

Starter would have been a lot more appropriate than neutral. They should consider changing that. I doubt anyone would be too upset about it, and it'd make the rules nicer for new players.

 

[Varist]

Isn't battlefield considered neutral because it has the bare minimum (land and platforms) and absolutely nothing else? Then Yoshi's Story and Dream Land 64 are considered neutral because they're almost the same. Fountain of Dreams and Final Destination are considered neutral because people are stupid.

Keep in mind I've only been playing for two months, so I probably have absolutely no clue what I'm talking about.

The bare minimum is land. Why are platforms required? Final Destination is more "neutral" than Battlefield because it has the only element needed for play -- something for each character to stand on after they fall off the life beemytheengy.

Platforms are an added stage element, like pipes or blocks or giant turtles or floating balloons or ice patches or wrenches. Since when does a stage "need" those things?

 

[RaphaelRobo]

Platforms are considered required because almost every stage has them. It's a requirement we added because we consider having platforms important. Because we consider land and platforms to be the norm for the game, and battlefield is those but nothing else, we end up with Battlefield as the neutral stage.

 

[Mew2King]

i think double fox is a bit overrated unless it's pokemon stadium

i think sheik teams better with fox vs most team combinations on most stages

and nothing tops Puff Fox. Puff can OHKO off of a shine or grab easily, and can always save fox.

 

[SpaceFalcon]

My favorite part is how personal hygiene is a rule.

 

[Varist]

Platforms are considered required because almost every stage has them.

What if I said,

"Moving hazards are considered required because almost every stage has them."

That's just as true as your platform statement. So why aren't you advocating moving hazards?

It's a requirement we added because we consider having platforms important.

Who decided to add platforms as a requirement? Who is this "we"? Who was the one person or who was the small enthusiastic group of people who got together and decided to start telling people platforms were important and that we should agree with them?

Even better, why are platforms important?

Because we consider land and platforms to be the norm for the game, and battlefield is those but nothing else, we end up with Battlefield as the neutral stage.

Okay, but why do we consider platforms to be the norm?

Land-only is the basic form.

And I've already proven that moving hazards are the norm for the game.

So why is Battlefield the "neutral" stage?

sorry to bother you
but as I was following you
i noticed a trickle

you'll find that there's been some
logic leaking out of your logic
for quite a long time
and i'm afraid there's no more logic left in your logicCONTAINER

 

[RaphaelRobo]

I suppose we would be the community. At some point, the community decided that land and platforms were the two things a stage was required to have. Deciding what stage is neutral is entirely subjective.

What if I said,

"Moving hazards are considered required because almost every stage has them."

That's just as true as your platform statement. So why aren't you advocating moving hazards

If we felt like making hazards required, then we could. I assume our new neutrals would be brinstar, big blue, mute city, onett, and green greens. Honestly, I think that'd be a pretty fun list to use.

In order to define battlefield as neutral we have to define neutral. It's like saying the sky is blue. First you have to define blue. Then you have to define color. Etc.

 

[Divinokage]

i think double fox is a bit overrated unless it's pokemon stadium

i think sheik teams better with fox vs most team combinations on most stages

and nothing tops Puff Fox. Puff can OHKO off of a shine or grab easily, and can always save fox.

Indeed, normally 2 of the same character is not super good. Imo, you need to have different character composition in order to do better like to compliment one character's weakness and strength even more and I don't feel like double Fox does that well.. For example, how does Fox save Fox off-stage without running the risk of getting owned out there? lol. In that regard, Falco/Fox > Double Fox.. and it's most likely so in general too.

 

[Bones0]

Fox can really only save with up-B regardless of who his teammate is. Although I guess you could use side-B if you have badass timing, but again, that can be done with any character. I agree that double of any character sucks a lot for some reason.

 

[Divinokage]

I wonder if it would be cool to do like some sort of a guide in Doubles I mean, I don't think I've seen any really in depth or anything. I could try to make one, I kinda feel like it. =P

 

[Bones0]

Umbreon talked about doubles in his Drastic Improvement thread, and he linked to a big post King made about doubles. You should definitely post one though.

 

[Mew2King]

-attack through your teammate's shield
-cover all their options HARD
-hit them back and forth, 0-80 them fast, cover all options in an edge guard quickly

doubles in a nutshell

 

[RaphaelRobo]

If I have the opportunity to KO the other three players at once should I take it?

I'd think so, given that they'd lose more stocks overall than we would. However, if we're too far down on stocks, I'd think I'd only KO one of them (this is assuming I can't KO both opponents without KOing my teammate).

 

[Mew2King]

yea usually

but if ur teammate is good he'll block ur attack most of the time and you'll only hit those 2 in most situations

 

[Deleted member]

teams is very strategic in a lot of ways. like it's okay to hit your partner a lot of times. or it hasn't been banned yet but 2 sheiks can shino stall on one edge. fun stuff.

i think mk2 should be legal. it encourages depth and rewards tight play, and a lot of characters are surprisingly gay there so it evens out in the end. the cooking strawman sucks.

the personal hygiene rule was my idea. as was banning MK. as were a lot of other things from the old rule set that got a cut + paste into this one.

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

I'm glad to see the MK2 train picking up steam.

Tho I gotta say, if we mean to be conservative, then Stadium double spacie is absolutely dominating the doubles metagame atm. Stadium gets counterpicked in almost every set these days.

I think its a super fun stage for dubs tho so I would never want it banned...

 

[Strong Badam]

every stage gets CP'd in almost every set
because there are only like 5 stages

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

Maybe I'm fuzzy with the math here but with a bo3, there are only 2 counterpicks per set.

So every stage doesn't get CP'd in almost every set.

Bro.

 

[Strong Badam]

Real men care about semis and finals

 

[Smasher89]

teams is very strategic in a lot of ways. like it's okay to hit your partner a lot of times. or it hasn't been banned yet but 2 sheiks can shino stall on one edge. fun stuff.

i think mk2 should be legal. it encourages depth and rewards tight play, and a lot of characters are surprisingly gay there so it evens out in the end. the cooking strawman sucks.

the personal hygiene rule was my idea. as was banning MK. as were a lot of other things from the old rule set that got a cut + paste into this one.

In the same way, I think brinstar and jungle japes should be allowed since they can work on the exact opposite way (or more like create better 2vs1 situations).

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

Real men care about semis and finals

Yeah but you play DK and I play Marth.

 

[Divinokage]

Does that mean neither of you are real men?

 

[Bones0]

daaaaaaaaaaag

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

Does that mean neither of you are real men?

Hence the joke.

Also, more realistically, because of our low tier status, I don't think we'll have to worry about grand finals sets much

 

[Strong Badam]

LOL I love it when Captain Falcon/Marth players complain about how bad their character is

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

I have fair, you have bair.

I have chaingrabs, you have cargo throw.

Neither of us have real shields.

Donkey Kong is just Marth wearing a gorilla suit. The characters are basically the same.

 

[Beat!]

WORST NINJA EVER

This post never happened

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Disjointed hitbox?

Smooth Criminal