Legality Tentative: MBR Official Ruleset for 2012

[Geenareeno]

That was a good analogy, Cactuar.

And no that's not Satire at all lol. Raphael was simply arguing the other point, even though he doesn't believe it.


And holy **** live topics I just got Ninja'd like 4 times before I even posted.

 

[RaphaelRobo]

Man, you're so slow. What are you, a Ganon main?

But yeah, I use Satire a lot, both in real life and on the internet. I'm not sure that was satire, but I do use it a lot.

 

[Cactuar]

Lol. See, Raph and I know the secret. As long as we have our conversation fast as possible, it doesn't matter if we misread things.

 

[ranmaru]

Well at first it sounds like "Oh it's because [acts smart]" and then it sounds like he is just joking with the Smartphone part, where we need it.

 

[Geenareeno]

The quality of this thread just spiked by Roy's U-smash.

 

[RaphaelRobo]

Smartphones are dumb. I can't hook my GC controller up to them and play Melee on them, so they're of no use to me.

And Cactuar's right, reading is for losers. All that matters is how fast you are.

 

[Anand]

Hey man, way to be late to the party. He and I already discussed this.

Sorry, bro. Haha, yeah, that was crazy. In the time it took me to post, you guys resolved the issue. Then, I saw this and edited my post, but before I got a chance, you replied again.

Also, by the time I was about to make this post, I saw you scooped me yet again...

Lol. See, Raph and I know the secret. As long as we have our conversation fast as possible, it doesn't matter if we misread things.

 

[ranmaru]

Smartphones are dumb. I can't hook my GC controller up to them and play Melee on them, so they're of no use to me.

And Cactuar's right, reading is for losers. All that matters is how fast you are.

All I need it to do is:

1. Make calls
2. Text
3. Customize Ringtones

I haven't been able to do number 3 in a long while... I hate my phone.

 

[CloneHat]

Coaching is like using a gamecube controller; it lets you play the game better but you need to be able to press the buttons.

 

[RaphaelRobo]

So in other words, coaching should be legal as long as you're willing to spend the entire match pressing your coach's buttons? That could be interesting.

Also, my dumbphone can let me use whatever I want as my ringtone. It's pretty cool to be at school and suddenly hear the music from FD.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

LOL why are people so afraid of coaching? It's as if the advantages you have that make you better than me are so puny and shallow that they can be completely countered by a strategy that can be explained and mastered in a matter of seconds.

 

[Kal]

I'm anti-coaching, as I've said before, but that analogy is awful. Your goal in trivia is to acquire the information in the first place. To make a better analogy would be to have your coach actually play for you.

Why is it so hard to accept that any problem you have with coaching is personal? This doesn't make an anti-coaching stance a bad thing. I admit that I think singles should be one versus one, and that I put more weight in analysis over execution, particularly because Melee is more of a mental game than a physical one. This doesn't suddenly change because I acknowledge that said opinion is, in fact, an opinion.

 

[Beat!]

LOL why are people so afraid of coaching? It's as if the advantages you have that make you better than me are so puny and shallow that they can be completely countered by a strategy that can be explained and mastered in a matter of seconds.

If you're questioning the potential impact of coaching then you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

If you're questioning the potential impact of coaching then you don't know what you're talking about.

You know what I find annoying about people who are so convinced they are right that they won't consider other points of view? It's the fact that instead of actually trying to make a valid argument, they either talk in circles (e.g. "Coaching shouldn't be allowed because it is like cheating") or else they just say that anyone with a point of view other than theirs must have been repeatedly dropped on their heads as children.

 

[Beat!]

You can be pro-coaching all you want, that's fine, but good coaching does make a huge difference. Ask anyone who's good at coaching, or who has been coached by someone good at it.

But you're right, I shouldn't have been so harsh. I apologize.

 

[Kal]

I told you I didn't cheat, Beat.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

You can be pro-coaching all you want, that's fine, but good coaching does make a huge difference. Ask anyone who's good at coaching, or who has been coached by someone good at it.

But you're right, I shouldn't have been so harsh. I apologize.

Apology accepted.

I'm still with Sveet on this one, tho. I don't think a good coach can magically allow you to make a significant improvement to your play over the course of a single match or set. If they could do that, wouldn't they have already done so BEFORE the match?

If I just write down a list of all the things that could be explained in a matter of seconds, that I could completely understand and implement in a matter of seconds, and that wouldn't be useful BEFORE the match, I come up with things like, "You should start punishing because he always techs in place," which obviously doesn't work because the other guy can hear this going on.

Now, I know that coaches can make a difference. What I'm trying to say is that although a coach can ensure that you stay at the top of your game, a coach can't help you make instant significant improvement on the spot. Yes, a coach can help you keep your cool, remind you if you fall into some bad habits, prevent little mistakes, etc. But I don't think a coach can keep you from making a big mistake unless they have the psychic powers to see it coming. I doubt I'll ever find a single coach who would remind me to not dodge off the edge every time I get near it, but I also doubt I'll completely stop accidentally dodging off the edge just because my coach is sitting next to me.

 

[Kal]

The issue from anti-coaching people isn't really about the significance of coaching. No one against coaching argues that it will allow Red Shirt #4 to beat M2K. The issue we have with it is that it impacts the match at all with something that isn't a part of the individual's skill. What we believe should be a one versus one event becomes, in some sense, a doubles event. What especially drives this home for us is that all of the skills in coaching are effectively just spread out among two people, rather than adding additional depth (as in doubles, for example). There are other issues as well (e.g. some people feel it's rude to discuss the opponent's strategy right in front of them during a set).

Again, these are just opinions, but pro-coaching from the stance of "it's not going to change anything," is sort of pointless. Coaching will, the overwhelming majority of the time, only impact close matches anyway.

 

[ShroudedOne]

Again, if you can't figure out how to beat someone on your own, then you don't deserve to beat them. It is up to YOUR mind to work through the problem, not the mind of someone else. Is it my fault if I can't find a skilled enough person to coach me, but my opponent can? It's fine if between sets, someone says things like "Stay calm" or "Don't let the pressure get to you," but tournament sets are TESTS of SKILL. Once we introduce someone else who is spoon-feeding you counters to your opponent, then it's just like cheating on a test. Sure, we'd prefer that people didn't cheat (and quite frankly, everything comes down to preference in some form or another), but is there anyone who would think that someone who got an A on a test through cheating actually deserves that score? Would tournament sets be true tests of skill (whatever skill means) if you were just told of all the ways to beat your opponent?

Sure, you still have to apply it, but it's up to you to come to the solution. That is the entire point.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Kal i feel like we are arguing opposite sides yet arguing the same thing at the same time. I think we should just stonewall with "thats an opinion" until the discussion goes on to something more interesting...

 

[Kal]

Again, if you can't figure out how to beat someone on your own, then you don't deserve to beat them. It is up to YOUR mind to work through the problem, not the mind of someone else.

This is opinion.

Is it my fault if I can't find a skilled enough person to coach me, but my opponent can?

Is it my fault if I can't find a skilled enough person to team with me, but my opponent can?

It's fine if between sets, someone says things like "Stay calm" or "Don't let the pressure get to you," but tournament sets are TESTS of SKILL. Once we introduce someone else who is spoon-feeding you counters to your opponent, then it's just like cheating on a test.

Except skills are still tested, even with coaching. With an exam, your goal is to acquire the answers by finding them (preferably in your memory, however that works), or acquiring them via logic (if your test is something more like mathematics). In other words, spoon-feeding information to you is obviously cheating, because of what an exam is: it is nothing more than the information you are being spoon-fed. Coaching is providing information, but the game in this case is not strictly about accessing the information. It is more than that.

These analogies are getting ridiculous. It's like watching Mormons try to explain to the Pope that they "really are Christians."

Kal i feel like we are arguing opposite sides yet arguing the same thing at the same time.

I think our justifications are different is all.

 

[ShroudedOne]

This is opinion.

So why can't I have someone else pick up the controller for me, play matches for me, and claim them as my own?

Is it my fault if I can't find a skilled enough person to team with me, but my opponent can?

There is a large difference between "teams" and "singles," Kal. In one, you have two people playing against two people. Tests team synchrony. The other, named singles, tests one person versus another. One person...versus another one person.

Except skills are still tested, even with coaching. With an exam, your goal is to acquire the answers by finding them (preferably in your memory, however that works), or acquiring them via logic (if your test is something more like mathematics). In other words, spoon-feeding information to you is obviously cheating, because of what an exam is: it is nothing more than the information you are being spoon-fed. Coaching is providing information, but the game in this case is not strictly about accessing the information. It is more than that.

If you take one component of being able to play a game well (lets say the ability to adapt, because none of us will disagree that being able to adapt is very key to being a good player), and take the responsibility off of the one with the controller, the two players are no longer on equal grounds. Because now, instead of it being, "Who can figure out their opponent the quickest?", it becomes, "Who's coach is better at noticing habits?" The player with the controller no longer has the responsibility of keeping his mind in the game as much as he would if he were alone.

You say that it's all preference, and that we have no justification for either one, but I say that you should think about what a tournament is, and what it is supposed to achieve. I really do think it's quite clear.

(I haven't typed this much this seriously on SWF in a while. Feels nice, I guess.)

 

[Kal]

So why can't I have someone else pick up the controller for me, play matches for me, and claim them as my own?

You really don't see the difference between handing your controller off to someone else and having someone else provide analysis for you?

There is a large difference between "teams" and "singles," Kal. In one, you have two people playing against two people. Tests team synchrony. The other, named singles, tests one person versus another. One person...versus another one person.

Again, opinion. There is no higher order that mandates that singles can't include a coaching element. I share this opinion with you that singles should be one versus one, but that is strictly an opinion. You're getting caught up on the word "singles," as though you think coaching would be ok if we called "singles" by a different name.

If you take one component of being able to play a game well (lets say the ability to adapt, because none of us will disagree that being able to adapt is very key to being a good player), and take the responsibility off of the one with the controller, the two players are no longer on equal grounds. Because now, instead of it being, "Who can figure out their opponent the quickest?", it becomes, "Who's coach is better at noticing habits?" The player with the controller no longer has the responsibility of keeping his mind in the game as much as he would if he were alone.

Who cares? Again, it's just your preference that the player holding the controller should be the one fully analyzing gameplay. You have literally provided nothing objective to convince someone who likes coaching that it should not be allowed. There's nothing wrong with your criteria being subjective, but stop acting like it's the "correct" stance.

You say that it's all preference, and that we have no justification for either one, but I say that you should think about what a tournament is, and what it is supposed to achieve. I really do think it's quite clear.

Asking me to "think about what a tournament is" is more condescending than insightful; in reality, a "tournament" is nothing more than a means to compete in a game. When we allow or forbid coaching, the game changes. This logic that we should allow or forbid coaching because a tournament must fall under some less encompassing definition is nonsense; you can just as easily say "a tournament is meant to test skill, and Brood War is clearly deeper than Smash. Why are we playing Smash at Smash tournaments when we can play Brood War?"

We don't do this because the TO tests the skills he wants to test. In particular, he prefers testing Smash over Brood War, for whatever reason. He might, similarly, prefer testing Smash with coaching over Smash without.

It's silly how fanatically the anti-coaching crowd defends its stance. This debate is like arguing if Iron Man is better than The Dark Knight.

Spoiler

Except Iron Man is clearly better.

 

[Cactuar]

I thought I typed up something on this the other day, but basically, the rule set is only for things strictly related to playing the game. We have a general knowledge guideline, but we try to withhold from taking a stance on something like this because it is a tournament environment rule rather than a game rule.

It is really not within the scope of the MBR to take a stance on this.

I, on the other hand, as an individual representing a large number of the high/top level players, can say that coaching should not be in singles.

But again, this entire thing about coaching is very off topic to the ruleset, as this is about how to play matches, not tournament behavior/scenarios.

 

[Kal]

Screw topicality, let's go back to trolling New Strife. Taylor Swift sucks.

 

[ShroudedOne]

I just haven't seen any really good arguments for coaching. Why shouldn't two players begin on equal grounds, nothing in the way of deciding the winner besides their individual minds? I've seen no good arguments for it.

You're tiring, Kal.

Taylor Swift is ok. I won't seek her out, but I can tolerate her.

 

[Kal]

I just haven't seen any really good arguments for coaching. Why shouldn't two players begin on equal grounds, nothing in the way of deciding the winner besides their individual minds? I've seen no good arguments for it.

Does there need to be good arguments for it? Regardless, I'm sure you can come up with some: it allows one player to focus more on execution, while the other focuses on analysis. It allows for weaker players to observe their mistakes as they happen by acquiring strong coaches. It's fun playing singles with a friend on your side. Having a girl coach me makes me appear less socially awkward.

I mean, you're not going to find more justification for allowing coaching than you are for playing Smash over Brood War.

You're tiring, Kal.

So I hear.

Taylor Swift is ok. I won't seek her out, but I can tolerate her.

False. She is objectively bad.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

Again, these are just opinions, but pro-coaching from the stance of "it's not going to change anything," is sort of pointless. Coaching will, the overwhelming majority of the time, only impact close matches anyway.

I already said that coaching makes a difference. I just think that A) the difference it would make is tiny relative to how badly people on this thread are overreacting to it, and B) the difference it would make WOULD be more toward player vs. player.

Why is player + coach vs. player + coach any worse that player vs. player + crowd? Or player vs. player + jetlag? Or player vs. player + (insert stressful circumstance)? No reason, other than the fact that we are used to those sorts of situations. What we have right now is a system that compares your "average day" with your opponent's "average day" with a slight advantage to those who live near or have friends/family near the tournament (more likely to be having a better day). With coaches, we would have a system that compares your "best day" with your opponent's "best day" with a slight advantage to those who put in the effort to seek out a good coach and practiced a ton to work well with their coaches in game. "Working well with a coach" skill because

I feel like I'm the only one who sees that having a coach can be a double-edged sword. Teaming up with a coach can increase your net knowledge capita but decrease your knowledge exchange rate. Coaches are not big, ominous bags of unfailing wisdom, the answer keys to all things Smash. They are human beings, they can be read like human beings, they can crack under pressure like human beings, they can make mistakes like human beings, they can get into fights with their players like human beings, and they can be exploited like human beings.

If I were up against the sort of coach who would say something like, "Hey, he likes to tech in place, you should punish him for that," I would purposely provoke him into saying it by teching in place twice (thrice, if I'm feeling lucky) in a row. If I fool both, I get a free read. If I fool one, I've forced them to have some sort of communication (which will take the player's mind away from the game) and I might still get a free read on top of that. If I don't fool either, then I will be punished no more horribly than if my opponent were by himself.

Not phrasing things too well right now on account of lack of sleep, but I have a pretty clear argument in my head. For now, tho, I'll just stick with calling it "survival" instead of "singles." I hear it's more socially acceptable to "survive" with somebody's indirect help than to be "single" with somebody's indirect help.

 

[Varist]

so i was gonna say "hey so i read the last two pages of this thread really fast like what cactuar said"

and then i was gonna read it all fast and i was gonna have had read like a string of words making a sentence, and put them in quotes and sorts.

like quote beat!: huge
quote kal: members
quote cac: in
quote face: my
quote wario: butt

and say that was what i gathered from the conversation and they would laugh but then i got lazy.

so laugh at that i guess. that's what might happened if you read fast.

 

[lordvaati]

after seeing this list, I fel the only 2 courses left are 1. make PS a Neutal again or 2. remove counter pick(s) altogether. seriously...only 1 stage? this is ridiculous.

 

[Kal]

My friend, you're about 57 pages late to that discussion.

 

[RaphaelRobo]

So I was screwing around on Kirby today, and at the end of the game instead of getting an easy KO, I decided to suicide with my friend instead (because isn't it more fun?), meaning we both died at the exact same time and the game went to sudden death. If this happened in tournament, would the match need to be replayed? I assume it would, but looking at the ruleset it doesn't say anything about what happens if both players lose their last stock at the same time.

 

[Varist]

Logically, it should fall under the same criteria that tying percents at time-out does. Replay the match at half time and half stock on the same stage with the same characters.

And everyone always wants to ask, "well what if we tie AGAIN". Then play again. Half stock (half of half is 1/4th, so 1 stock) and half time (half of half is 1/4th, so 2min).

"wut if we tye agon" do 1 stock 1 min fox ditto fd. like tradition dictates.

if that is not already the rule because it is logical it is the rule now.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Raph I asked the MBR the same question 6 months ago and I didnt get a straight response. I think some people suggested a full replay, others suggested 1 stock. It was generally considered a bad idea to go by percent since people wouldn't generally be looking at percent in that scenario (unlike when time was running out). My opinion is that if its a suicide kill (kirby/dk) then the person who is suiciding for the kill should be declared winner, but that doesn't handle situations where one person is dumb and suicides at the same frame their opponent dies off the top or if both players happen to hit each other and die at the same time (perhaps one off the top and the other recovering but doesnt make it).

Honestly it should be addressed, however due to the complexity, infrequency and lack of consensus it has yet to be done.

 

[RaphaelRobo]

I have to admit, I didn't even realize it was possible for two people to die at the same time until I did it today. It's interesting that it hasn't been addressed, given that while it might be rare, it seems like a pretty important rule to have for when it does occur. I personally like awarding a kill if it's a suicide kill, but otherwise doing a 1 stock replay (Given that they were both down to one stock, it's essentially just replaying the end of that match).

 

[FerrishTheFish]

Just ban Kirby. Seriously, dat **** is BUH-ROKEN.

 

[RaphaelRobo]

You're absolutely right. Kirby's the Melee version of Meta Knight.

 

[CloneHat]

Fact: you can jump off of the stage and die at exactly the same time as your opponent; Kirby is not necessary.

I propose it be decided by percent, like with timeouts.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

The problem is that when both players die at the same time, the percent is removed from the screen so you can't just look down right away to know; you have to know before it happens. People aren't aware of the percents like they are as its going to a time out so its very likely that neither player knew who was winning by percent when the time comes.

 

[CloneHat]

Is there anything in the results screen that could help with this issue? Total style points?