Legality Tentative: MBR Official Ruleset for 2012

[The MC Clusky]

A true warrior already knows this. I can just spam fairs and win, right?

Cactus, also I really don't mind how you play, you can do wtv you want.. even x100 dairs inside the lava it's all good. Camping or no camping, I'm not one to get frustrated by anything.

Spoken.... like a true warrior.

 

[Divinokage]

I mean if he's busy doing lasers that means I can eat space easier with having less risk of getting hit by a move. I would rather have every situation thrown at me, I mean there's always something to learn right?

 

[Cactuar]

^.^

I believe this is how our endless MMs began.

"HEY KAGE, YOU SUCK VS SPACIES COME PRACTICE WITH ME!"
"We need a TV..."
"LETS DO INFINITE MMs OVER HERE!"

 

[Divinokage]

Lmao, so simple and yet so effective. =)

 

[PEEF!]

I am very excited about this ruleset, but we could afford to be a bit less wordy. Might have to write up a "normal-person" lingo version.

 

[Kal]

What's wordy about it? Seems pretty straightforward to me.

 

[PEEF!]

What's wordy about it? Seems pretty straightforward to me.

I'm not on a campaign against it, but does this seem like concise wording to you?:

When running a pool, the game count of each set should be recorded (whether the set was 2-0 or 2-1). Ranking in a pool is determined by the number of sets won. There are several methods of determining a tie-break, but each has advantages and disadvantages. It is the TO's responsibility to determine which method they will be using, advertise which method they will be using in the tournament thread, and to consistently use that method across all pools during the tournament."

Belabored and unneeded language throughout the ruleset makes it clumsy, difficult to read and yet easy to miss important things. AKA it has all of the problems of a wordy wall of text.

At this point I might as well go all the way and reword it:

Pools: Record the game count of each set. Ranking in a pool is determined by number of sets won. Tiebreaks are done at the TO's discretion, but should be applied consistently and explained in advance.

 

[Kal]

I agree that everything after the second sentence is wordy and can be removed (telling people that things are up to the TO's discretion is entirely unnecessary, in my opinion). I just wouldn't say that the single paragraph you isolated represents an across-the-board verbosity to the ruleset. I suppose I should read through it again to see if it really is wordy. I just didn't notice this through any of my previous reads. It probably should be mentioned that I focused more on the legal stages than anything else, of course.

 

[Cactuar]

I just typed it all out as if I was speaking. If someone else wants to go through and make it concise, they are more than welcome.

 

[Merkuri]

I think it would actually be best if it was stated what the other options are, instead of just saying they exist.

 

[PEEF!]

I agree. In fact I think that really the MBR should just choose one.

The best tiebreak is to go by overall match win%, IMO. Although some do head to head (does not help in 3 way, and seems too "glory based"), and some go by overall wins (which ignores one's losses for no real reason).

It doesn't seem to be the biggest deal, as every tourney I have been to in the last year used overall win%, and if that was tied, then go to head to head. That seems like the best way of doing it. Maybe the MBR could come to some kind of consensus.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

I disagree, I don't think that is the best. I'll quote a post I made on the issue in the MBR:

A series with the score of 2-1 generally means a close set; either player could take a game off the other. In equal set wins, the player with more game wins had closer sets with the people he lost too, while more game losses means he had closer sets with the people he won over. Following the priority of ranking, set wins is obvious; it sorts by who won the most overall. If that is a tie, game wins is next meaning the player with closer sets against people ranked higher is ranked higher. If that is also a tie, game losses is next meaning the player who lost less to players ranked lower is ranked higher. If all of that is a tie, the player who won the set between them is ranked higher.

The only bad thing about head to head is that it is generally mutually exclusive with who beat the higher ranked player. In the event of a tie, the person who won the head to head lost to someone the other person beat.

For going by W/L ratio, it favors people who have less close sets with people ranked below rather than people who have more close sets with people ranked above. I think that in every case for realistic pools, W/L ratio has the same outcome as judging game losses before game wins. IMO taking games off better players is a better system, but i guess its matter of preference.

I know many people won't read that so I'll summarize. Judging by W/L Ratio is equivalent to judging by least losses before most wins in every realistic scenario. I believe it is more important when breaking a tie to judge by who has done the best vs the better players in the pool, not who has done better against those that did worse in the pool. Because of that, I believe the best tie break order is Sets Won, Games Won, Games Lost, Head to Head.

 

[Kal]

I have to agree with Sveet here, but for somewhat different reasons. I expect the win condition of pools to match that of the bracket, in some sense, so I expect the number of sets won to take priority over the number of games won.

 

[tsetse]

Will the long drawn out timeouts by Hbox and Armada maybe reducing the timelimit to 6 or maybe 6:30mins? Actually I think that reasonably 5 minutes wouldnt be to bad either!

 

[Bones0]

Because of that, I believe the best tie break order is Sets Won, Games Won, Games Lost, Head to Head.

This makes sense, and I like it a lot.

Will the long drawn out timeouts by Hbox and Armada play into maybe reducing the timelimit to 6 or maybe 6:30mins? Actually I think that reasonably 5 minutes wouldnt be to bad either!

The only reason there is a time limit at all is to prevent the tournament from running out of time. It really isn't unrealistic that a MELEE tournament could use a 30 min+ timer and still finish on time because so few matches actually go to time. Suggesting a reduced timer for your own preference about how long sets should last is horrible. If you only want to see Hbox vs. Armada play for 5 minutes, just watch the last 5 minutes. In addition to that, with a shorter length of time that players are required to time out, stalling becomes MORE popular. It's way easier to run away without getting hit for 5 minutes than it is for 8 or 10 or 15, etc. It's helpful to think in extremes. Just imagine if the timer was only 1 minute. The game would be completely different. The goal of the game would shift from knocking your opponent of the stage and edge guarding them until they die into gain the lead and waste as much time as possible.

 

[Kal]

Will the long drawn out timeouts by Hbox and Armada play into maybe reducing the timelimit to 6 or maybe 6:30mins? Actually I think that reasonably 5 minutes wouldnt be to bad either!

You have to be careful with changing the time limit. When you reduce it, it encourages the winning player to camp. And when you increase it, it encourages the losing player (technically both players) to camp.

You want the time limit low enough that players have some sense of urgency, but high enough that simply avoiding your opponent does not immediately become the best strategy. To give an example: if you set the timer to forty minutes, it would clearly discourage any form of approach from either player, because there would be no sense of urgency. On the other hand, if the timer were at thirty seconds, there would be no need to approach after gaining a lead, as your greatest chance of success would be from camping your opponent.

It's possible that six minutes is a healthier medium than eight. The reason eight was chosen is, I believe, to provide one minute per stock. However, there is no real justification for "one minute per stock" being chosen over any other time, save for the fact that, until now, no serious issues have arisen from it. And, in my opinion, the grand finals at APEX do not constitute a serious issue.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

What Kal said. I believe NJ/NY area uses 7 minute timer. I haven't heard their justification at all, though. I think 6 minutes is too low, especially for floaty or attrition based characters like Samus and Peach. Rat once said to me "if you lower the timer, I would definitely time people out intentionally". I've seen Samus vs Peach played legitly go to 7+ minutes for 3 games. Its long, but it doesn't time out.

That being said, theres no objective "fairness" that can be described for a specific time limit. Its simply a win condition whose intention is to give players incentive to approach each other. I think 8 minutes is about right in terms of giving incentive while not being easily reachable.


edit- lowering the time limit in the case of APEX GFs would simply cause the camping to be more extreme. Sure it would go faster, but players would be more adamant in not approaching. Hbox seriously fought for the first few games at least. I didn't get to watch the whole series because of a starcraft tournament I had to play in, but it definitely didn't go the same way it went in the past.

 

[Kal]

Strictly speaking, while not objective, there is a canonical choice for the timer, which is the medium I mentioned earlier. The issue is proving that some chosen time is this medium.

Eight minutes has been working. I understand that people don't like camping, but they're just going to have to not be whiny *****es. Sadly, the game doesn't conform to every subjective preference they have. They should just be glad that the stage list does.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

What a troll you are Kal. Also, is your real first name Kal? I think i saw you on facebook

 

[ShroudedOne]

Peach/Samus MU never goes under 5 minutes. Period. Trust me when I say that neither one of us ever dies. (Okay, so maybe 4:45 )

I think that 7-8 is good for now. There might be justification to turn it up to nine, but lowering it, considering the trend of matches in the current metagame (mostly 3-4 minutes, with some spacie battles on the lower end, and tank floatie battles on the higher end) wouldn't prevent camping, but encourage it. And if you wanted to lower it due to camping, this would be counter-intuitive.

And furthermore, the time limit should NOT be altered just because you don't like watching slow matches. If tournaments can be run efficiently and quickly on 8 minute timers, then 8 minute timers are fine. We should only be worried about how efficiently and quickly the tournaments will go, when we look at changing the timer.

 

[Mew2King]

i actually used peach at mlg finals of 06 against hugs to beat him on dreamland in the tournament, and it went down to last 30 seconds. unfortunately, only top 3 got paid at that, and i got 4th

 

[KirbyKaze]

M2K never misses a chance to point out an instance where he didn't get paid.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

i actually used peach at mlg finals of 06 against hugs to beat him on dreamland in the tournament, and it went down to last 30 seconds. unfortunately, only top 3 got paid at that, and i got 4th

I wish the vids of that or you vs KDJ (epic fox dittos i heard) existed.

 

[Kal]

What a troll you are Kal. Also, is your real first name Kal? I think i saw you on facebook

My first name is Khalid, but it's too super-ethnic for the white people to pronounce properly, so I go by Kal. In retrospect, I could have picked an alias that was awesome, rather than the name everyone but my parents calls me.

I am on this "Facebook." I am friends with Strong Bad.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Yeah i found you through him. If I find you again, i'll add you. What ethnicity is that, btw?

 

[Divinokage]

M2K never misses a chance to point out an instance where he didn't get paid.

Gloating in the past, ftw?

 

[Mew2King]

i wasn't gloating, i was saying that from personal experience of high level peach samus, it DOES go close to time

 

[Varist]

so m2k what do you think of javi

is his fox better than yours

 

[Luma]

so why would have to add you didnt get paid at that event? how was it helpful for the discussion?

 

[Varist]

dude it's just some nice smash history for you to know.

get some of that. everyone wants it, we're making a documentary to teach the world already

 

[Kal]

Yeah i found you through him. If I find you again, i'll add you. What ethnicity is that, btw?

i'm arabsies

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

O really man? Ur pic is deceiving

 

[Kal]

Sweeney Todd?

 

[Strong Badam]

DK vs. Peach has gone to time for me. Only in like the last 15 seconds was the player actively avoiding me.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

is that what thats from?

 

[Kal]

Yeah. It's a good movie. Beware, it is a musical.

 

[Mew2King]

javi's the best fox vs falco and he's good vs fox too, but idk how good he is at other MUs and i know he's weaker in teams than singles. It's hard to rank him, but I do like his fox a lot

 

[-Sinister-]

who honestly WANTS to play a serious tournament match on jungle japes? it's ridiculous.

 

[Hylian]

who honestly WANTS to name themselves -Sinister-? it's ridiculous.

 

[-Sinister-]

who honestly WANTS to name themselves -Sinister-? it's ridiculous.

you sure got a good point there.