Legality Tentative: MBR Official Ruleset for 2012

[Varist]

this man has got it.

to counter the floaty era, bring in yoshi's island. let's start waveshining some *****es up that cliff. **** you peach.

 

[Divinokage]

If that's the case, then isn't what we need a stage with walk off edges so everyone has the same advantage near the edge?

What we need? We need stronger players in general lol.

 

[Kal]

Parents always gotta come in and ruin our fun. I do like the novelty in unbanning Yoshi's Island solely because the world's top players main floaties. And once spacies start winning again, we'll unban Brinstar and Mute City. It's perfect!

 

[Merkuri]

If stalling is against the rules then why can Yoshi Story qualify as a legal stage? Isn't the reason it's ban in the first place because players can just hide away on the cloud?

 

[RaphaelRobo]

You're thinking of the wrong stage.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

They are talking about Pipes

 

[_Kip]

I've always been under the impression that a counter picked stage was to counter some aspect of your opponent, or you grant yourself a tactical advantage through stage selection and knowing how to use that part of the game to your advantage. With the current entire stage list consisting of neutral stages it seems to remove the whole idea behind a 'counter pick'.

While I'd rather see more stages as playable options that fewer stages (I like KishPrime's No Johns Rulset) I feel you should either go all or none. If you're going to strip most of the stages go ahead and just pick one stage (say Battlefield) and make that the 'official' only stage. That way people who are somehow new to the game don't have to learn a handful of other stages and you can all focus on the character meta or whichever other aspect you feel is enhanced by removing stages.

 

[Xyzz]

It's not like the "neutrals" were all the same stage with different graphics; they are all pretty different, and often are more beneficial to one character over another.
Their influence on the match is just a little less pronounced then the old cp stages.

And while I prefer to play on the 6 stages of this ruleset (Europe has done so for quite a while), Smash on just BF is not what I would enjoy. The stage diversity is one of the things that makes smash so much fun compared to more classic fighting games.
Plus, those six are pretty sufficient in giving small tactical advantages to players, inho.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

I pretty much agree xyzz. I'm looking forward to cactus' new ruleset, though. Sounds really fun and competitive

 

[Kal]

A counter pick stage was actually only dubbed such because it wasn't "fair" in the following sense: if two players both went in with our high-tier mains, there was a fair chance one of them would be shafted. For example, suppose I main Peach and you main Falco. If we play the first match on Brinstar, you will be ****ed. Since, when we originally dubbed these sets "neutral" and counterpick," we selected the first stage at random, and simply allowed a single strike ("random reset" it was also called), we decided to separate the stages into categories: neutral, i.e., can be chosen by random stage select for the first match, and counterpick, i.e., cannot be chosen by random stage select for the first match.

Today, we have a methodology for avoiding the above predicament, and we can thus choose the first stage fairly (subject to the number of good stages your character has available to him; character strength and all that Jazz). Thus, I think the terms "neutral" and "counterpick" have lost their meaning. Stages are now either "legal" or "banned."

However, the point still stands that the six starter stages (what the rest of the community calls "neutral," though I stubbornly refuse to do so) are different enough to allow for very minor matchup variance. Nothing severe, but you'll see Falcon generally doing worse on Fountain of Dreams, and Marth generally doing better on Yoshi's Story, for example.

 

[Purpletuce]

I think PS should not be a legal CP. The transformations are kind of a gimmick. The fire transformation has the ability for camping on the left, as well as the fork in the tree that can be abused. The earth transformations have the odd rock with a tiny ledge that can be used for camping and the hole that must be avoided/camped in. The water stage has the windmill which is kind of a gimmick, as well as the broken ledge on the right. All of these things are little, but they add up to a very odd stage.

I would rather see something like Jungle Japes as a counterpick. It has different attributes, and the water makes some characters change recovery options, but it isn't too big of a change I think. The claptrap is a little but of a gimmick, but if players avoid the water, the effect of the claptrap shouldn't be too huge. The positioning of the platforms also make some unique effects, and new gameplay options.

I also am a fan of Corneria, I am aware that there are problems with the stage, paticularly with the right end of it, but I don't know how much that affects the match... worth considering?

You have DK64 and Kongo Jungle listed as counterpicks, but they are the same stage... lol? I'm assuming you meant KJ64 and Jungle Japes... KJ64 should be neutral in Doubles in place of Poke Stadium. The only thing that makes it ban-worthy in singles is excessive stalling, but it isn't an issue in teams. As far as Jungle Japes goes, has stalling been identified as an issue on it? Otherwise I don't see why it would be legal in teams but not singles (I have almost no experience on the stage so if there is a reason I am genuinely curious; I am assuming the Klap Trap is not the reason, though I could understand why it would be considered less of an issue in an 8 stock game as opposed to a 4 stock one).

Disabling pause should simply be a RULE. It is pretty unprofessional to have a rule set that relies on players to press start at the correct time or not at all, especially when we have a perfectly effective way of just disabling it entirely. If neither player remembers to or doesn't care enough to turn off pause, then they should simply have to deal with any resulting accidental pauses, and if someone quits out, then they lose.

I also think selecting Random at all should be disallowed. A lesser-skilled player could essentially win by getting a lucky stage for the matchup that the opponent has to randomly guess (oh wow, you got FD and won because you could chain grab; there was no way I could have known not to select my character because I had a 4/5ths chance of beating you on every other stage!).



Instead of all the varying ban rules for different set lengths, there should just be one rule set. It will be applied more easily because it will apply universally, and players do not have to keep track of how many bans and which DSR rule they are using. I also believe it is better than no-ban sets which can force some particularly difficult matchups (mainly FD, which is great for most matchups, but is usually ridiculous for matchups with chain grabs).

- The winner of the last game can ban a stage. Stage bans do not last for the entire set, which means a player can change their ban from one stage to another after any game they have won.
- Modified DSR: Players cannot counterpick the last stage they have already won on.

The effect of these two simple rules allows players to play without extremely biased stages, and DSRM takes another stage out of the counterpicking decision so that players are ensured to be playing on only the 3 most fair stages.

The way I like to break it down is this. You have 6 stages, numbered 1-6. Players strike from 1-5, and they strike to 3 because it is the most neutral for the matchup. Stages 1-3 favor one player while stages 4-6 favor the other. Stages 1 and 6 are very biased in each player's favor. I think I speak for most players when I say that I would rather play this set:

3-5-2-4-3

Each player bans 1 and 6 respectively through the whole set. DSRM prevents 5 and 2 from being played a second time, so what you end up having by the 4th and 5th game is both players not being able to choose their 2 best stages, which means you will be playing the two most fair stages, 3 and 4. This makes the set overall much more competitive as counterpicks are less of a free win than if there are no bans and players are forced to play on more radical counterpicks.

This is the type of set you would have with the current rule set:

3-6-1-5-4

DSRM still prevents 6 and 1 from being played again, but the lack of bans just forces games onto more radical stages. As you can also see, stage variety is hardly being supported any more in the first rule set where the only stage being played on twice is stage 3, which was the most neutral based on the initial stage strike.

I agree with Bonse0's stagepicking idea quoted above and would like to see this implemented.

Thanks for reading a noob's post :D

 

[Bones0]

I think PS should not be a legal CP. The transformations are kind of a gimmick. The fire transformation has the ability for camping on the left, as well as the fork in the tree that can be abused. The earth transformations have the odd rock with a tiny ledge that can be used for camping and the hole that must be avoided/camped in. The water stage has the windmill which is kind of a gimmick, as well as the broken ledge on the right. All of these things are little, but they add up to a very odd stage.

I would rather see something like Jungle Japes as a counterpick. It has different attributes, and the water makes some characters change recovery options, but it isn't too big of a change I think. The claptrap is a little but of a gimmick, but if players avoid the water, the effect of the claptrap shouldn't be too huge. The positioning of the platforms also make some unique effects, and new gameplay options.

I also am a fan of Corneria, I am aware that there are problems with the stage, paticularly with the right end of it, but I don't know how much that affects the match... worth considering?



I agree with Bonse0's stagepicking idea quoted above and would like to see this implemented.

Thanks for reading a noob's post :D

Cactuar's reasoning behind not using that was because he wanted to encourage use of the more radical stages (1 & 6). I think it mostly comes down to preference. Some people don't think spacies getting chaingrabbed on FD or slow characters getting platform camped on DL are sufficiently unbalanced enough to warrant a ban. Personally, while I wouldn't mind playing vs. a chain grabbing character on FD as Falco (especially because I would get my own best CP against them), I'd rather sacrifice a bit of stage variety (within sets) and just play on a slightly more neutral stage twice. I really would just like to try the no bans for a while before I make up my mind though.

As far as Corneria goes, the Arwings interfere way too much for me to ever recommend it for competition.

 

[Kal]

The Arwings have never occurred to me as particularly intrusive. Occasionally, a combo will get interrupted by the Arwings lasers, but I've never seen any matches seriously impacted by them. Is the presence of Arwings the only thing that leads you to banning the stage?

 

[Cactuar]

The issue with using Bones's CP method lies in the direction it is heading. If that is the aim, why not just stage strike down to 3 (the agreed upon stage, not 3 stages) and play on that stage for the entire set? That would ensure the most even possible set, as determined by the players. If either player wants to change stages, winner changes characters if desired, then loser, then players restrike before the next match to determine the next stage (the order of these events can be played with for optimization). This essentially removes stage counterpicks and makes every subsequent match controlled by both players by allowing the strikes to shift with the changed matchup. This would also allow for the removal of PS.

This is actually the method that would put us closer in similarity to other fighting games as it would reduce how impactful counterpicks are. I'd rather not *****foot around with halfway bull****. You are just trying to hold appeal with both sides, when an in between option really doesn't provide any additional benefit or utility over either of the ends of the spectrum.

Just for example, the rule would look like this:

Spoiler

After any match in a set, either player may call for a stage change. The steps are as follows:

1. Winner of the previous match selects character.
2. Loser of the previous match selects character.
3. Stage strike.

 

[Bones0]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeRaDqKGkN0

I didn't think of that as a compromise. I value stage variety a lot, and if sets were ever reduced to people playing on the same stage 3 times in a row I'd be really disappointed. I am just most comfortable with 3 different stages because with the 2 best cps it feels like the value of stage variety gets outweighed by the match simply being too difficult to win on. It becomes almost a waste of a match that instead could have been played on a less radical cp which keeps stage variety, but is also still "winnable."

I also think we should just trash DSR all together (unless it's like in Cactuar's rule set where it's only used to make sure 5 different stages are played). When there are bans as well as DSR, it ends up not making sense and screwing with the winner of Game 1. Like if I win Game 1 on BF, G2 I lose on FoD, then G3 I should be able to cp BF unless they ban it. People complain about winning on the same stage twice, but if that stage were that bad, then they would just ban it. I think in most cases people would still cp a different stage anyway.

 

[Kal]

Bones, are you referring to the laser at the end which hit SilentSpectre primarily because he was stuck in a jab combo?

 

[KirbyKaze]

FD is the least neutral of the neutrals without even trying.

 

[Bones0]

The Arwings had huge impacts on the match at ~5 different points... Just watch it. I also hate the drift caused by the whole stage moving. It makes spacing recoveries or even attacks a lot more "random."

 

[Cactuar]

You are implying that the neutrals cause any of the viable matches to shift more than like 20 points. That only happens on FD, and possibly on PS, which are a paired combo in the first place. This is not a surprise.

I actually have an entire other response to your 3 match scenario, but I'm still bouncing the idea around. I'm going to be making a thread that will address it peripherally in the next few days.

 

[Bones0]

Yeah, I mean I might just be FD-biased as a spacie who plays a Marth all the time, honestly.

 

[Cactuar]

I know that pain more than anyone.

 

[Bones0]

After Apex crews, I think Leffen knows it more than anyone.
**

 

[Mew2King]

real talk, FD is the only reason MARTH IS VIABLE - AT ALL -

it's like a spacie taking marth to poke stad, it's just as **** as a marth taking a spacie to FD. In fact, Jman beats my marth on FD (one time) more than i've beaten his fox with marth on poke stad (I 4 stocked him 3 years ago... but recently i haven't won ANY), but I win most fox dittos vs him there, and that just proves my point. Without FD, marth is NOTHING. I'm not even exaggerating at all. He is NOTHING without FD

 

[Divinokage]

3 stock comeback on Yoshi's vs Dashizwiz 3 YEARS AGO. *cough* So funny Jason.

 

[Purpletuce]

First off, to claim FD is unbalanced due to its lack of platforms and the ease at which spacies can get chaingrabbed is a little odd in my opinion. FD is flat, making a different play enviroment, also giving a disadvantage the the #1 and #2 characters in the tier list... This is a flaw with the characters as fastfallers, not with the stage. Platforms are beneficial as combo-breakers to spacies, and in that respect, all nuetrals other than FD are the least nuetral on the opposite viewpoint. To claim that FD is not nuetral is just as valid as to claim all stages other than FD are not nuetral. (Note: I am not trying to say FD is the only nuetral stage, just pointing out a different viewpoint that has been overlooked.)

Valid point in regards to stage variety, but I feel like allowing players to narrow down stages to the top three (in terms of nuetrality) by using Bonse0's idea would prevent any paticularly disadventageous stages toward a paticular character, and thus allows stage variety as well as a more thorough attempt toward stage nuetrality. However, it is worth noting that there would always be a stage the is statistically most balanced, and finding and playing on that stage would be the most nuetral. However, to have the most variety, allowing all stages would be the best toward that effect.

This leads me to the idea that the amount of stages available to play on effectively offers a range from variety to fairness.

If that idea was accurate, then an effective compromise would be to add more (reasonable) stages and more bans, so that players can decide for themselves which stages are most fair and also a larger stage variety. The sum of both players bans - amount of stages available = amount of playable stages. So to have the 5 stages that are different in a 5 stage set, adding more stages (previous counterpicks like Japes, RC(eww), Corneria, etc.) and allowing Bonse0s, idea would have both more nuetral counterpicks and more stage variety.

The only problem I see with this idea is if too many irregular stages are added favoring any tipe of character or a specific character than the character that tends to have more disadvantageous stages will use their bans to reduce the amount of "unfair" stages, where the benefitted character is able to ban less advantageous stages, leaving only advantageous stages for the initial character. This means that the newly added stages should try to be available as CP picks for a wide and even amount of stages....

Thoughts?

 

[FerrishTheFish]

I am in favor of more CPs and more bans (check out my signature), but I think you are overlooking the relationship between the characters and the stages, and that is causing you to make circular statements regarding the "fairness" of a stage. There is no way to statistically determine the "fairness" of a stage, because that would automatically be dependent on the interactions between the characters on that stage, which in turn depends on the "fairness" of the stage. See what I am driving at? The stage is "fair" because statistical data taken on that stage is consistent with MU odds. Statistical data taken on the stage is consistent with MU odds because the stage is "fair." It's circular logic.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Or we gatherd 5-6 stages with fairly consistent match-up ratios and set that as the relative starting point for "fair". Anything that deviates a certain amount is considered "unfair". Not circular.


edit- @Purpletuce: continuing on my stage consistency point, FD is not a neutral because of how different it is. What is more different, different sizes and/or positions of platforms or lack of platforms? Lack of platforms is the answer. Also, in terms of match-ups, FD does have the most variance of the 6 legal stages.

 

[Kal]

Doesn't have to be circular to be totally arbitrary.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

What isn't arbitrary in a video game? Even the creators made completely arbitrary decisions in design. That doesn't make the decisions wrong.

Also, I believe that it is possible to show that the 5-6 neutrals are the most similar set of stages in the game by judging stage properties amongst them all. I had done some analysis of this once and the results were pretty convincing (28 of 29 stages have platforms).

 

[Kal]

My opinion is that, once we have a given game (SSB:M with 4 stocks), we should do our best to justify the rest of our decisions. Of course, the initial choice is arbitrary, and you can just tell me "we're playing SSB:M with this exact ruleset," and that is more or less the end of it. It's important to realize that, once you do that, you can have whatever you want banned. All the more reason for me to think the game as is, only banning what is broken, is best.

It's also a little silly to try and construct some notion of "the most similar set of stages" based on qualitative information. It's hard enough with quantitative data.

And I think the troll face was a good indicator that I was just trolling. FINE JEEZE

 

[Bones0]

I would have to agree that choosing stages based on similarity of properties is a horrible way to go. The majority of stages have hazards, but I wouldn't want to compete on only stages with hazards. If there were a bunch of stages like Icicle Mountain where the terrain constantly moved, I'd still rather play on the neutrals.

 

[Kal]

**** that, Icicle Mountain tournament please. Your opinion is subjective, etc.

 

[Bones0]

Your opinion is subjective, etc.

That's just like, your opinion man.

 

[Kal]

False, my opinions are facts.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

I would have to agree that choosing stages based on similarity of properties is a horrible way to go. The majority of stages have hazards, but I wouldn't want to compete on only stages with hazards. If there were a bunch of stages like Icicle Mountain where the terrain constantly moved, I'd still rather play on the neutrals.

I find its fairly easy to describe 5-10 stage properties. While some things are inherently broken, it has to be admitted that the way the game is played on some non-broken stages is very different from others. Look at pokefloats compared to FD. We choose to favor the neutral stages because they are the largest group of stages that share common traits. If there was only battlefield and the other neutrals were replaced by static circular moving stages, we would probably play all the matches on them.

TBH I have no problem playing a Mute/Brinstar only tournament or a Cruise/Floats tournament, but to include all of them in the same tournament is too inconsistent IMO.

 

[Bones0]

Okay, yeah, I agree with that mentality. Though I doubt competition would ever form around non-neutrals. I mean it might happen, but I don't think anything compared to what we have to day would exist if there weren't neutrals, or if there was, we would be playing BF only. In a way, having only 1 or 2 "hardcore" stages with the rest being filled with hazards, moving plats, etc. might have made the process of banning stages much more swift. It's kind of funny how much of an outlier PS has become.

 

[Purpletuce]

Again, I am not trying to show the viewpoint of FD's nuetrality by not having platforms as a different playstyle, so to say that FD's matchups seperate it from all other nuetrals is also a valid statement against all other nuetrals, in that they have platforms and change the matchup from a plain stage. Think of it as FD being the most nuetral stage, and all other stages are less nuetral because they have platforms that can interupt chain-grabs, one of the biggest drawbacks of the top 2 characters on the tier list. This is a controversial viewpoint, but I believe a universal ruleset, even if it is only a sugestion should encompass all viewpoints. To claim FD is less nuetral is to believe that platforms are the standard(even thogh they are, the game was not necessarily meant to be played on the platform-based stages), and fall into a bias.

That being said, I think chaingrabs are a boring exploitation of grabs that is a flaw in the game, and wouldn't mind if they were removed, I am merely pointing out a neglected viewpoint.

Also, in terms of counterpicks, I am not proposing all the counterpicks be played in any paticuar set, I am only proposing that more bans and counterpicks be added, so players are exposed to mroe variety and also have viable counterpicks that avoid any extremes, as they can remove the more extreme counterpicks at their own discretion. This would balance the stage selections and also increase variety, I would very much like to se this implemented, or at least considered.

 

[RaphaelRobo]

I find its fairly easy to describe 5-10 stage properties. While some things are inherently broken, it has to be admitted that the way the game is played on some non-broken stages is very different from others. Look at pokefloats compared to FD. We choose to favor the neutral stages because they are the largest group of stages that share common traits. If there was only battlefield and the other neutrals were replaced by static circular moving stages, we would probably play all the matches on them.

TBH I have no problem playing a Mute/Brinstar only tournament or a Cruise/Floats tournament, but to include all of them in the same tournament is too inconsistent IMO.

For the record, I have more fun playing on Pokefloats than I do on FD, even though I think FD is better for competition. Pokefloats and Mute are, in my opinion, the two most fun stages in the game.

Also, Icicle mountain should be legal. If I take someone there they'll be really irritated. If It then play as Kirby and taunt them, they'll be so irritated they ragequit. It's a guaranteed win.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Its not so much the chaingrabs that are the problem on FD but how the stage is played. The flow of the match is very different since there are no platforms, and many match-ups change drastically because of it. Platforms are an intimate part of the game that add layers of depth to both the positioning and comboing game.

 

[Geenareeno]

Yeah sometimes I get to Final Destination and I feel like I have no where to go. I feel lost.