Legality Tentative: MBR Official Ruleset for 2012

[Kal]

"Sirlinistic" sounds so nasty. I think there is a happy middle ground, by the way, which is basically the six starters with three or five counterpicks. Though I feel that we should use a ruleset more like Kish Prime's "No Johns Ruleset," I am happy with the usual nine or eleven stage ruleset. It's the people in the pro-ban crowd who do not wish to compromise, I think.

Of course, Cactuar's idea works.

 

[Strong Badam]

If we try to compromise then no one is really happy and we get a ruleset trying to represent two different ideologies at the same time, and does so very badly. See: Unity Ruleset. Go hard or go home, I say.
That said, there were few in the MBR that objected to the current stagelist afaik.

 

[Kal]

Most people like Kish and I are happy either way. It's the people who want the bans that are unhappy with the compromise, which makes sense since they hold a more "aggressive" position.

But really, I think the MBR could make just about any ruleset and it would have no impact. If tomorrow the MBR legalized Hyrule, it would still be banned everywhere. So I don't think the MBR compromising would have any negative effect.

 

[Cactuar]

What Kal said is pretty accurate. The MBR making changes doesn't directly affect anything. Most of what we publish is just a representation of the shifts in community wide standard practices over the past year to provide a base for the upcoming year. None of it is us moving towards minority or alternative opinion. Hence why I post quite a bit of stuff independent of MBR relations.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

the tier list with heavy cp stages and the tier list without them look similar. I think if heavy CPs were legal peach would be above marth, but not otherwise. I think the top 3-4 gain more from heavy CPs than other characters, though, which makes the tier separation much wider. As a fox main this doesn't really bother me...

 

[Kal]

I agree, for the most part. Though I imagine this would be change somewhat as new strategies were developed on these stages. Most people practice on the starters only, so the metagame on the counterpicks has stagnated so much that I lean more towards not knowing how the tier list would be affected than towards Fox being powerful there.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

I don't think its that hard to learn CP stages, though. Like you learn 1 gimmick (fox's upb breaks the middle of brinstar) and then learn the timings of the hazzards (there's a pseudo-pattern on brinstar). Other than that you just have to know your opponent's gimmicks (after the side platforms are broken, peach can sideb for lots of distance). After that you just play like a ***** and let the stage work for you

 

[Kal]

I'm referring more to strategies that are less known. Obviously, this area is debatable at best (being totally speculative). I just wonder if we would see some interesting advancements in character-specific strategies on these stages if players didn't force themselves to practice on only the starter stages. Though I disagree with the idea that you can just let the stage do the work for you.

 

[Strong Badam]

always let the acid combo spacies for me

 

[Kal]

A real DK main would chase the spacey into the lava and punch him in the mouth.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Yeah I did oversimplify it. Tbh I think it would be really interesting to see, and I wouldn't mind playing the no johns ruleset, but I doubt the community would go for it.

Kal let's host a national together.

 

[Kal]

Let's do it! MBR Ruleset + Flatzone.

 

[onionchowder]

zero sum in the sense that, if BF is the "zero" then the strike should always go to battlefield unless one player strikes battlefield, which would be helping their opponent. Best in the sense that, it should go to battlefield in more match-ups than any other list.

I could prove it by doing a lot of ideal strikes in different match-ups, but in short, PS is better than FD because it fits the stage pattern better. One reason is that different platforms are more closely related to other platform stages than a stage without platforms.

Other than platform positioning, there are 2 things that are generally accounted for when choosing a stage. One is on-stage size and the other is off-stage size. Look how neatly PS fits into the pattern:

Small stage, small blastzone

Spoiler

Yoshi's story

Small stage, large blastzone

Spoiler

Fountain of Dreams

medium stage, medium blastzone

Spoiler

Battlefield

large stage, small blastzone

Spoiler

Pokemon Stadium

large stage, large blastzone

Spoiler

Dreamland

... back to homework

I disagree with the point that irregular platform placement and stage transformations is closer to the standard platform stages than no a zero-platform static stage. Besides the stage physically changing disrupting gameplay, the individual transformations also have a ton of major alterations which significantly affect gameplay (e.g. giant permanent walls in the middle of the stage on Rock and Fire, causing stalling as well as affecting combat near them dramatically), as well as quirky, idiosyncratic nuances (e.g. the non-continuous ground on the right side of Rock, the tree in Grass, the windmill in Water, all the unevenness in transformations). Plus, it's hard to see under the stage. Individually, these aren't much, but I think when they are all combined, they alter gameplay more than a zero-platform static stage does.

If PS was only the starting set-up, I absolutely think that it is better than FD. However, we have to work within Sakurai's constraints. Maybe I don't understand gameplay at the top level enough to realize how much zero platforms affects matches, but this is my stance from my experience.


Also, this issue is completely resolved by removing FD (and FoD) from the neutrals. Is there a good justification for not having a 3-stage neutral list?

 

[Kal]

Strictly speaking, it would be up to you to show that striking from three stages is better than striking from five. You can't expect rule makers to have an explanation for not using every ruleset that is brought forward.

 

[onionchowder]

Burden of proof blah blah blah. what is this, debate club?

It's a simple enough case. FD skews a lot of MUs way more than other neutrals, so we should cut it. To maintain an odd number of neutrals, we've got to strike another stage. Examining the stage pattern Sveet mentioned.

Yoshi's: Small Stage, Small Blastzones
Battlefield: Mid Stage, Mid Blastzones
Dreamland: Large Stage, Large Blastzones
Fountain: Small Stage, Large Blastzones

Since DL is the only Large Stage, we can't strike that. Since Yoshi's is the only Small Blastzones, we can't strike that. Battlefield is the median, we can't strike that. It has to be FoD.

 

[stelzig]

Why does it matter that it skews alot of MUs when it won't be played in those matchups? I think it would be more interesting to question why it is allowed to counterpick the stage when there is no bans then.

 

[Kal]

I'm just pointing out that if I came in and asked "is there a good justification for not having Falco banned?", I would receive exactly the same response. Burden of proof is relevant here, because you're asking why we don't do something. We would need to have an answer for every possible question that arises in this case.

Anyway, Cactuar seems to agree with you, and I believe he has said that FD remains a starter only because of popular opinion.

 

[KrIsP!]

If you really don't want to go to FD because the MU sucks, strike it. what's the worst that could happen? Your opponent strikes FoD and you have to go to BF?
Edit: Before I get yelled at, I'm joking. I hate FD but don't honestly would just strike it myself if the other didn't.

 

[onionchowder]

@Kal,
naw, no resentment or anything, it's just that whenever I argue with debate kids, they always push the burden on proof onto someone. I just thought it was funny that the same thing showed up on an internet forum about video games.

@stelzig,
skewing matchups causes sets to have matches that heavily favor one player. This increases set volatility, since if one match automatically goes to a particular player, there are effectively fewer significant matches to be played, and fewer matches means greater volatility in the outcome of the set. As a competitive game designer, we want to minimize the set outcome volatility (that is, the better player ought to win).

Also, FD just doesn't look like the other neutrals in terms of layout at all.

 

[Kal]

@Kal,
naw, no resentment or anything, it's just that whenever I argue with debate kids, they always push the burden on proof onto someone. I just thought it was funny that the same thing showed up on an internet forum about video games.

I won't mention burden of proof most of the time. But in a situation where I'm basically expected to provide a counter-argument for every suggestion, I don't have a choice but to mention burden of proof.

And we are, sort of, having a debate, so it's not that strange that debate-related topics come up. Earlier Sveet tried explaining what an appeal to authority was. >_>

If you really don't want to go to FD because the MU sucks, strike it. what's the worst that could happen? Your opponent strikes FoD and you have to go to BF?

Yeah, from a pragmatic point of view I don't think FD skewing matchups would matter very much anyway.

Though honestly, I've never understood this idea of removing stages from the strike list because they are not good for you. Isn't the whole point of striking to remove those stages yourself?

I suppose you could mention balance issues, but presumably the number of good stages a character has is a measure of his strength. Peach is good (in older rulesets) in part because she has both Mute City and Brinstar to fall back on.

I guess what should be done, if people care this much about balance, is make sure that the logical choice in any matchup will be to strike to a "neutral" stage. I donno. It all seems so contrived to me.

 

[stelzig]

skewing matchups causes sets to have matches that heavily favor one player. This increases set volatility, since if one match automatically goes to a particular player, there are effectively fewer significant matches to be played, and fewer matches means greater volatility in the outcome of the set. As a competitive game designer, we want to minimize the set outcome volatility (that is, the better player ought to win).

Also, FD just doesn't look like the other neutrals in terms of layout at all.

Admittedly, I have absolutely no idea what volatility means, but isn't stage striking just about getting the first stage to be the most neutral for every matchup? Why is it important how much a stage, that will be striked anyway, skews the matchup?

Edit: I also still think I kinda answered your question way back when I told you that people (including me) probably find a 1-2-2-1 stage striking system less advantageous for one player than a 1-2 stage striking system, as striking isn't always *that* obvious. Especially for those three stages I have seen people counterpick them on both ends of many matchups.

Edit2: Ok... Think I got an idea of what it means now. And I don't see what you mean. I just said that the stage won't be played. Why do you think one match is given to a single player? If we are talking about counterpicks, then the spacies (the ones having a problem with FD, right) also get stadium... But I was the one who even said that questioning counterpicks would be more interesting.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

volatility is basically the opposite of consistency. If something is volatile, the results fluctuate.

FD is bad in the strike for matchups where one character wants bigger stages but the opponent has chain grabs. Fox example: fox vs marth. Marth is able to strike the absolute largest stage (DL) and he doesn't have to worry about striking the 2nd largest stage (FD) because he has chaingrabs. Essentially any match-up with chaingrabs has a potentially skewed strike because of FD.

PS is marginally better from a strike standpoint. For one there are no chaingrabs, so for example the marth vs fox strike can always go to battlefield. PS itself isn't that bad of a stage, especially when there is no spacy on the field. In the neutral form, PS is one of the absolute best stages in the game. The transformations are all manageable from either a stalling or a fighting standpoint, and you are given 10 seconds notice on what the transformation will be to plan accordingly.

Its been a while since I did mass sample strikes on this issue, but I don't seem to remember any match-ups [that matter] that previously lead to battlefield that are lopsided with PS. Maybe fox vs peach.

 

[stelzig]

Don't alot of people think that stadium skews matchups just as much though? And is more universally skewing matchups in fox/falco advantage too? I don't really think you can bring down stage preference into those sizes anyway, and as mentioned in my edit, the neutrality of the stage you end up on should be relative to how much the counterpicks will skew the matchup. Do you find that bad in marth vs. fox?

Actually, this very example works just fine for me as to why the 5 stages is better because I would hate being left with both yoshi's and dreamland as marth. I would know to strike dreamland if I was against fox because he is likely to strike yoshi's for me (unless he knows me), but I can't really know for sure.

But yeah, I wouldn't really mind wether the 5th stage was stadium or FD. I do think FD is better though.

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

Fox/Peach
Peach strikes Stadium and Yoshis
Fox strikes Battlefield or Dreamland and FoD
Starts on Battlefield or Dreamland

Peach strikes Yoshis and Battlefield or Dreamland
Fox strikes FD and FoD
Starts on Battlefield or Dreamland

Fox/Marth
Marth strikes Dreamland and Stadium
Fox strikes FoD and Yoshis or Battlefield
Starts on Yoshis or Battlefield

Marth strikes Dreamland and Yoshis or Battlefield
Fox strikes FoD and FD
Starts on Yoshis or Battlefield

All making Stadium the neutral over FD does is give Fox the power to choose which of the 2 most neutral stages (Battlefield/Dreamland v. Peach and Yoshis/Battlefield v. Marth) game 1 will go on...

Thats not particularly damning or anything, but I don't see how that warrants a change.

 

[Kal]

I love Crimson's posts. <3

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

umm i disagree with those strikes, Blur

Fox/Peach (F/P) w/FD
F: FD
P: DL, YS
F: FoD
thus BF. It balances out because fox has advantage on peach for reasons other than stage size.

Fox/Peach (F/P) w/PS
F: FoD
P: DL, PS
F: BF
thus YS. This is better for fox, though I wouldn't say its terrible for peach. She actually doesn't really have a decent stage against fox except FD and maybe FoD.

Fox/Marth (F/M) w/FD
M: DL
F: FD, YS
M: BF
thus FoD (depending on the fox player, he may choose FD, FoD or YS as the last one). This is because, even though the match-up is fairly even, marth has can strike his worst stage and leaves fox to choose between marth's best 4 counterpicks.

Fox/Marth (F/M) w/PS
M: DL
F: FoD, YS
M: PS
thus BF



To go into other match-ups:
Sheik/Peach (S/P) w/FD
S: DL
P: YS, BF
S: FD
thus FoD.

Sheik/Peach (S/P) w/PS
S: DL
P: PS, YS
S: FoD
thus BF.


I could keep going, but i have other things to do.

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

I mean, I don't agree with your strikes (Fox/Marth with FD on almost always goes to either Yoshis or Battlefield nowadays; Yoshis most commonly. not FoD. The only Foxes I see who don't strike FoD are the canadians lol), but what point are you trying to make? I don't see how Yoshis g1 for Peach is better than BF. Or how FoD is worse than BF g1 v. Marth...I think FoD is really even in that matchup.

Not to mention Sheik/Peach is tough to evaluate because most of the striking in that matchup is personal preference; its very tough to strike Sheik cause shes good on every stage. Sheik/Peach just as often starts on Dreamland as it does FoD in the current ruleset..

I love Crimson's posts. <3

<3

You've been making some damn good posts lately too.

 

[Kal]

SANK YUU

I never strike FoD with Fox. It's not that I think Fox is great there. I just don't see it as disadvantageous for him.

I dislike the stage, however. I rely on my ability to play there correctly, but trust that my opponent will waste one of his strikes on it, since everyone seems to hate it so much. So it's kind of a win-neutral to me (instead of win-win or lose-lose >_>). If my opponent strikes it, yay for me. If not, oh well, I know what I'm doing.

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

Yeah, it really depends on the Fox for me. If I know they're campy, I take them to FoD all day. But I usually need more room against the aggro ones so I generally go BF.

I agree about striking FoD last tho. I always strike the obvious choice first (usually Dreamland since I'm Marth) and see if they'll take it off for me. I'm not a fan of FoD v. floaties in particular so when they take it off I'm really happy lol.

 

[Kal]

I try to switch between camping and aggression depending on how appropriate it is. Against Marth, FoD is not a bad stage because Marth has even less mobility than usual there. But you certainly have less room to play a laser-happy, defensive Fox on FoD.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

FoD isn't that bad of a stage once you get over the johns, especially for fox. FD and YS are much worse, and if marth isn't dumb he knows that while BF is a good stage for him its obviously his second worst and strikes it. No matter what, fox is left with a non-BF choice if FD is on the list.

Not to mention Sheik/Peach is tough to evaluate because most of the striking in that matchup is personal preference; its very tough to strike Sheik cause shes good on every stage. Sheik/Peach just as often starts on Dreamland as it does FoD in the current ruleset..

Dreamland is probably sheik's dumbest choice against peach. Beyond that its a bit based on personal preference. For example, PS is actually pretty good for sheik in the MU but not many sheiks CP there. Peach is really good on FoD, and many peach players dislike BF for various reasons (recovery is one and having the highest top platform of any neutral is another), so i find myself quite justified with the strikes I have given without taking into account player style bias.

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

FoD isn't that bad of a stage once you get over the johns, especially for fox. FD and YS are much worse, and if marth isn't dumb he knows that while BF is a good stage for him its obviously his second worst and strikes it. No matter what, fox is left with a non-BF choice if FD is on the list.

That sounds great and all but thats never what happens in practice. The vast, vast majority of Marth/Fox sets nowadays start on Yoshis. And the ones that don't usually start on Battlefield. Theres a very small minority of sets that go to FoD, but frankly, its not a significant enough amount to base an entire argument around.

I also don't understand why you view Marth going to his "second worst" neutral by default as a good or desirable thing lol.

Dreamland is probably sheik's dumbest choice against peach. Beyond that its a bit based on personal preference. For example, PS is actually pretty good for sheik in the MU but not many sheiks CP there. Peach is really good on FoD, and many peach players dislike BF for various reasons (recovery is one and having the highest top platform of any neutral is another), so i find myself quite justified with the strikes I have given without taking into account player style bias.

The point I was trying to make is that Sheik matchups in general aren't particularly good examples because you tend to see a lot of differences between the top Sheiks on where they strike to.

But if I was forced to choose the most common starter stage for Sheik/Peach, it'd be FD not FoD. Sheik would strike DL & FoD and Peach would strike Yoshis & BF. With PS on, I'd expect BF as you said. But...I'd say FD is actually more balanced than BF in that matchup, so once again, I don't see the benefit of PS as a neutral.

 

[Kal]

Why would Sheik strike Fountain of Dreams against Peach? I thought Sheik loved that stage.

 

[Divinokage]

Because Peach owns even more on that stage?

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Crimson I don't think you understand. The point is for every match up to strike to battlefield. It doesn't matter if you think more people would choose fod over ys or fd over fod. You're not agruing against my argument at all.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

If you want every set/MU to start on BF, you could just suggest a rule that says, "The first match of every set is to be played on BF." I don't see the logic behind altering the stagelist to somehow try to manipulate people into striking only to BF. Putting PS in the list of starter stages just introduces the possibility of match 1 being played on PS and removes the possibility of match 1 being played on FD.

 

[Bones0]

This obsessive delusion that BF is somehow the "most neutral" and should be the only legal stage or only stage for game 1 is getting annoying. PS shouldn't even be legal, but as long as it is, it's almost unanimously agreed upon as being the most random of the stages, which is why it isn't in the striking process. You shouldn't be trying to artificially balance stage strikes. FD makes chain grabs viable, but platform stages make other tactics viable. Having just ONE platformless stage really seems perfectly appropriate, at least for striking purposes. If anyone is worried about chain grabs being OP on FD, then they should be advocating bans in bo5s instead of worrying about striking.

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

Crimson I don't think you understand. The point is for every match up to strike to battlefield. It doesn't matter if you think more people would choose fod over ys or fd over fod. You're not agruing against my argument at all.

....but why is that the goal? If a matchup is more balanced on FD than BF, isn't it preferable that it go to FD? If BF is Marths 2nd worst stage, then how is making BF game 1 a "zero sum" scenario for that matchup?

I thought we were trying to make a fair ruleset, not just one that forces BF game 1. If we wanted that, we could just make that the rule instead..

 

[Kal]

Pokemon Stadium shouldn't even be legal.

I think Sveet is trying to suggest that, ideally, if you strike Battlefield, you will end up on a stage that slightly favors your opponent, except in a ditto. I could be wrong, though, because I'm not really paying attention. I'm trying to learn C, and apparently I have to compile stuff.

 

[Bones0]

That's completely subjective though. Maybe I hate BF because I suck at recovering without walls. I shouldn't have to play a specific stage game 1 just because someone else believes it is the most neutral...