Legality Tentative: MBR Official Ruleset for 2012

[Beat!]

75.4% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

 

[Kal]

I don't know what my exact definition would be, but it just sounds like you use random when you are referring to something the game using a random function for...

whereas i sorta have a limit of what i think is reasonable for someone to have to keep track of, like... the shyguys... or lets say brinstar IS on a set timer, and marth is going for a ken combo vs fox, its unreasonable for him to know whether the ACID (not lava) is just starting to rise, when determining whether to end with a dair vs a reverse up-b

of course you can argue that adds depth or whatever, but it just comes down to opinion... my point is that its a valid opinion and not just "BRINSTAR ISNT FLAT" and these are the arguments ive heard.

With the exception of cases where randomness is really severe, banning something because it is random or "effectively random" is scrubby. Even those cases where it is extreme (like items on) I find somewhat questionable.

But really, it doesn't read to you as scrubby when you're banning things "because it's too hard to account for?" In some instances, it's probably true. But looking at a timer?

And, with regards to Brinstar, the lava is more or less choreographed so that you know it is coming. Your Ken Combo example brings up a point: players don't want to adjust their strategies appropriately. If there is a good chance of the lava coming up, rather than adjusting their strategy (e.g. not going for the Ken Combo), players go for the Ken Combo and then blame their "bad luck" when they get punished for it!

In other words, if I'm stupid enough to try and combo you on the floor of Mute City, and the cars hit me, I shouldn't be blaming randomness. I should be blaming myself for trying a combo where there is so much potential for being interrupted.

In some instances, the above argument doesn't hold (if, for example, the lava on Brinstar always rose to the top, or rose too rapidly to be accounted for). But Brinstar, Rainbow Cruise, Pokéfloats, and Mute City are all reasonably accounted for.

Normally my posts have conclusions or something, but I'm not feeling up to it. Think I'll be moving beer-O-clock forward about five hours today.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Nah I'm going to 2 csci classes with an advisor meeting between


Swf while driving johns

Edit oh yeah my math double major is pretty much in stone now

 

[Kal]

Sweet. Now just drop that silly non-math major and you'll be good to go.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Sweet. Now just drop that silly non-math major and you'll be good to go.

**** math.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Bones0]

I can't help but think people who hate math have been taught it horribly wrong. Even people who struggle with the subject should be able to appreciate it. Its beauty and amazement is only exceeded by its limitless potential (cue mathematical infinite jokes).

Spoiler

A mathematician and an engineer are sitting at a table drinking when a very beautiful woman walks in and sits down at the bar.

The mathematician sighs. "I'd like to talk to her, but first I have to cover half the distance between where we are and where she is, then half of the distance that remains, then half of that distance, and so on. The series is infinite. There'll always be some finite distance between us."

The engineer gets up and starts walking. "Ah, well, I figure I can get close enough for all practical purposes."

My description of math sounds like Melee... hmmmm...

 

[Mahone]

With the exception of cases where randomness is really severe, banning something because it is random or "effectively random" is scrubby. Even those cases where it is extreme (like items on) I find somewhat questionable.

But really, it doesn't read to you as scrubby when you're banning things "because it's too hard to account for?" In some instances, it's probably true. But looking at a timer?

And, with regards to Brinstar, the lava is more or less choreographed so that you know it is coming. Your Ken Combo example brings up a point: players don't want to adjust their strategies appropriately. If there is a good chance of the lava coming up, rather than adjusting their strategy (e.g. not going for the Ken Combo), players go for the Ken Combo and then blame their "bad luck" when they get punished for it!

In other words, if I'm stupid enough to try and combo you on the floor of Mute City, and the cars hit me, I shouldn't be blaming randomness. I should be blaming myself for trying a combo where there is so much potential for being interrupted.

In some instances, the above argument doesn't hold (if, for example, the lava on Brinstar always rose to the top, or rose too rapidly to be accounted for). But Brinstar, Rainbow Cruise, Pokéfloats, and Mute City are all reasonably accounted for.

Normally my posts have conclusions or something, but I'm not feeling up to it. Think I'll be moving beer-O-clock forward about five hours today.

Calling something scrubby over and over again doesn't make it scrubby.

Really severe is an opinion... everyone will draw the line somewhere different and you just think your line is the right one... just like everyone else lol

Actually i don't find it scrubby at all to ban something because it is too hard to account for, because you can use that brainpower towards other aspects of the game which are much more interesting than watching a timer IMO

The point of my Brinstar analogy isn't just dair vs up-b, it brings up the point that Brinstar is sorta random, because on any other stage (OR on brinstar at a different timing) his combo ends in guaranteed death, but he has to settle for a reverse up-b that might not kill now... just because he happened to start the combo at a particular time... of course this can add depth, since you could say, for example, he should have used different moves and perhaps ended with a fsmash prematurely, since he knew the ACID would be a factor, but this doesn't change the fact that it adds a "random" element to games played on brinstar, since planning 10 moves ahead to adjust for the ACID is not reasonable and in smash... one mistake will result (lets say fox vs marth, with marth getting a hit) in several moves and a certain amount of time passing, so its not always as simple as "oh the lava is up let me reverse upb"...

those examples are trivial and not "random" (in the example i used, i specifically stated the ACID was just starting to rise, since i thought that was "random", since you would sorta need to know the exact time the ACID hitbox is active and calculate in your head how fast the dair would send them down to make the correct decision)

Hopefully you understand what i'm saying lol, i know i'm not the best at expressing my thoughts, but basically it has to do with the fact that planning ahead a long period of time is unreasonably hard in smash and thats what leads into these sometimes trivial decisions... so the whole situation is random, not the last decision

 

[Kal]

Sure thing Mahone. I just don't feel like arguing this anymore.

Bones, you should read A Mathematician's Lament. It's a short read, but is pretty scathingly critical of the way mathematics is taught.

 

[Mahone]

Sure thing Mahone. I just don't feel like arguing this anymore.

Bones, you should read A Mathematician's Lament. It's a short read, but is pretty scathingly critical of the way mathematics is taught.

ggs man... no re

also, i saw u made a poker analogy in some random thread... i was surprised you used doyle brunson as your example seeing as how he sucks and is boring to watch rofl

 

[Bones0]

To actually be on topic about the randomness/scrubby thing, I think a huge issue is people need to realize that players ARE limited in ability. If you have 100 different things to be considering during a game, it might be more random (i.e. less consistent results) than a game where you only have 50 things to consider.

You could put a bunch of traps all over the stage and have them consistently go off at the same time each game. This game could be played competitively, but past a certain point it begins to revolve around playing to avoid failure. Players wouldn't be concerned with certain threats, but rather they'd develop a strategy that avoids as many as the traps as possible and hope that luck is in their favor.

For a more specific example, I had a similar explanation for the DS game Metroid: Prime Hunters. It's an arena-style FPS somewhat similar to Quake. You run around getting weapons and health while simultaneously trying to eliminate all of your opponent's health. Unfortunately, the DS uses Nintendo Wi-Fi which means everything you see is a consistent half-second behind what is actually happening. That means in order to shoot someone, you have to predict where they will be in half a second. This mechanic on its own is not uncompetitive, but problems arise because the players have too much control over their movement. Players can strafe left and right in the air several times in a single jump. When you go to shoot someone, you have to guess if they will go left or right as they fall and lead your shot. The game would probably be more competitive if players could not strafe as well because shooting would be less about guessing their strafe and more about leading your shot based on how their momentum was before you shoot.

This is hardly the only game to involve this sort of compensation for factors that are impossible to compensate for every time. Every time a football team picks a type of defense they are bargaining one type of coverage for another. They can't be expected to consistently pick a good defense, which is why games aren't 1 play long. They play a large number of downs until it reaches the point where the team that picks the best plays more often is winning. Poker is another great example. 10 hands of poker doesn't mean much. 100 means more, but any of the top few players could win. Only after playing thousands of hands like they do at major tournaments can players be expected to overcompensate the inherent randomness of their bad hands or their opponents' good hands.

So to relate that back to Melee, the Marth doing the Ken combo on Brinstar can't be reasonably be prepared for it. As a result, good players will just up-B any time they are in this situation. The problem is some players will gamble, and it might pay off. Maybe someone knows they're the worse player so they go for the spike. If they get lucky they've completely avoided having to edgeguard from the up-B. If we were playing 100 stock matches where this situation would occur multiple times, the reckless player would lose more often than not. Unfortunately, we only play 4 stocks, so for a player to get lucky and eliminate 1/4th of their opponents stocks based on the flip of a coin is ridiculous.

 

[Bones0]

Sure thing Mahone. I just don't feel like arguing this anymore.

You can ignore my post without me harassing you. lol I don't feel like arguing this either. There's really just too much opinion muddying both positions to properly debate.

 

[Cactuar]

You guys should just do the reasonable thing and accept all of my opinions as the definite truth in all matters.

 

[Mahone]

@bones... well i think kal's (and my) point is that with the strafing, its not that its less or more competitive, it just tests a different skill set... one version is more testings MINDGAMES SON whereas the other is testing SPACING AND TECHSKILL... well you get my point...

same with the trap analogy, now its more like "super meat boy", but still competitive, either way

i do agree with the 100 things to think about vs 50 things... and i think thats the main reason paying attention to the yoshi's timer seems sorta stupid to me

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

@bones' joke: if you do an infinite sequence, you do actually move distance. If you stop part way you don't. Just did that in class haha

@this argument: u guys all forfiet, which means I win! I was kicking *** this time around. Also lol@mahone's no re

 

[Kal]

Doyle Brunson is a legend. Stop hating.

Sveet, I would be careful about what you just said. That's more philosophical than it is mathematical. Though Bones' joke that it's what a mathematician would say is somewhat off, since it's more likely what Zeno would say.

 

[Mahone]

Doyle would lose his net worth in like 1 hour vs dwan or ivey heads up lolol
Dat power poker aint cuttin it nowadays

 

[Bones0]

@Mahone
Yeah, that's a much better way to put it. I didn't really like saying it was "more competitive" because that's completely subjective. I don't have the YS timer memorized, but I think people could easily pay more attention to it and not have it detract from their game play. Just the other day I was playing DJ in Marth dittos. He was respawning so I checked Randall's location, and saw he was going into the stage from the left. Knowing this, I went to the right ledge to ledge stall. I got off the ledge doing something and ended up getting knocked off. As I drifted back down, I knew in the back of my head that Randall was coming out soon. He countered or did something I don't remember assuming I would up-B, but I just airdodged and landed on Randall right as he came out. It was pretty pro. Not gonna lie. lol Moral of the story is I think even if it's too hard to compensate for Randall mid-game, we don't know yet because so few people even take the time to learn the bare minimum, let alone the exact timings (I think Wobbles said he memorized it and can use it, so who knows better than him, really). I also do it when I am edge guarding on YS. I always wait to make sure Randall didn't pop out at the last second. This doesn't eliminate that "randomness" feeling, but it diminishes it to the point that it is of little consequence in who wins and loses. I can't say the same for other stages/hazards which often have much larger implications and much higher frequencies.


From now on, whenever I get merked by a PS transformation, I am going to shout "Poker Stadium." What a horrible sport, I'm sorry. XD

 

[Mahone]

Ya, everyday when i play falco vs marth, there is at least one time i see randall leaving the left side... Get comboed to the right offstage and shinestall sideb/airdodge onto randall, it feels pretty pro... I dont think looking at the clock would be much harder... Just stupid (cuz im lazy lol)...

My favorite thing about playing poker on pokerstars is that anytime someone got really unlucky they would type "more like jokerstars" in the chat hahah

 

[Kal]

Bones, you need to have a good understanding of Poker in order to really appreciate it. Yeah, randomness is a factor (and the World Series of Poker has become so large that it is a total crap shoot). But it's a very deep game. If you read some Poker strategy, you will really appreciate the large amount of nuanced strategy in the game. You would probably appreciate the huge level of player vs. player that goes into reading players and making predictions based on betting patterns.

I would suggest Doyle Brunson's "Super System" or "Harrington on Hold 'Em."

Also, I think you and I are actually largely in agreement about what makes a game better. I think a fighting game should have as little randomness as possible, and I think that stage interference causing players damage is bad (though I have no problem with non-stationary stages like Pokéfloats or Rainbow Cruise). But we have a game (we are not creating one) and I think it's nonsense for us to start banning because of subjective preference. I don't see a distinction between the majority getting together and saying "we don't like Brinstar because of its randomness" and "we don't like Falco because of his lasers." So I try to advocate a minimalist banning philosophy. Ban stuff that needs to go maintain the game's depth (e.g. Hyrule). But don't start pandering to players. It's a disservice to everyone.

I suppose you could make some claim that TOs are "building" the game they want. But, if you imagine a reverse scenario, where most TOs hate stationary stages like Final Destination because they aren't dynamic enough, and wind up banning them, you realize how unfair it is to ban things on preference alone. Banning only things that are broken prevents one group from forcing their preferences on everyone who plays the game.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

I agree with Kal about this whole issue being about people not wanting to adjust their strategies. You people are pretty much labeling anything that must be accounted for as "random," but you then fail to admit that everything in this game on any given stage must be accounted for. The small blast zones and lower platforms on YS, the changing height of the platforms on FoD, the funky ledge on BF, the large blast zones and high platforms on DL, the lack of platforms on FD, the lengths of these stages, the presence/absence of surfaces to tech/walljump off of--all of these things and more must be accounted for. Whereas a Marth might feasibly combo a Fox from the center of YS or FoD into a Ken combo off the edge for the KO, he must account for the fact that such a strategy is flawed on FD or DL because of the greater distance between the center of the stage and the edge and adjust his strategy, such as choosing to end his almost-Ken combo with a less laggy move than a dair. In fact, he must also account for Randall on YS because if Randall is out on the side where the Ken combo would take place, there is the potential that the Fox will be able to land on Randall (via poor aim on Marth's part or amazing DI on Fox's part) and thus it might be wise to end with reverse-upB instead of dair. Why does the rising acid on Brinstar (which is even easier to see coming because the screen shakes and you don't have to look at a timer) have to be compared to your personal definition of acceptable vs. unacceptable randomness when the characteristics of neutral stages do not?

I agree that Cactuar's logic is pretty consistent, since he's the only pro-ban player here who's even considered the fact that players must account for and adjust their strategies according to features on neutral stages as well as on CP stages, as evidenced by the fact that he considered the lack of platforms on FD and compared it to his personal definition of acceptable and unacceptable "randomness." Draw your line between acceptable randomness and unacceptable randomness wherever you want: it's arbitrary, it's your opinion, and we all know that. Just don't arbitrarily fail to compare certain stages and certain types of randomness to your line in the sand because you don't want to extrapolate your own logic and end up banning a stage you like--that is when it becomes, "Let's just ban stages I don't like."

 

[Bones0]

I was mostly joking. lol I don't know enough about it for me to be able to confidently say how competitive it is. I just know it can just be really dumb sometimes. **** like people winning with a 1% shot on the river just makes it feel so unfair and kills a lot of the spirit of the player interaction. I am amazed at some of the reads people are able to make just like in Melee, but Melee never randomly ****s you over because of long-shot odds. I just wish the game could somehow be based less on chance and more on the skills that allow people to do stuff like this.

 

[Hylian]

I was mostly joking. lol I don't know enough about it for me to be able to confidently say how competitive it is. I just know it can just be really dumb sometimes. **** like people winning with a 1% shot on the flop just makes it feel so unfair and kills a lot of the spirit of the player interaction. I am amazed at some of the reads people are able to make just like in Melee, but Melee never randomly ****s you over because of long-shot odds. I just wish the game could somehow be based less on chance and more on the skills that allow people to do stuff like this.

The games are played very differently so you need a completely different mindset when it comes to poker. In a melee match/tournament you are looking for short term results you don't have to worry about a luck factor for the most part. Poker you look at your results over a large period of time rather than just one tournament, and play in a way that maximizes your odds. You may get a bad beat in a huge tournament(or several) but put in that same situation 100 other times and you will most likely come out positive if you played the hand correctly. This isn't even getting into player reading and all that jazz.

 

[Bones0]

That's just my personal preference. I hate games that don't immediately display who the better player is. I prefer games with more direct consequences for what you do.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

I think the long-shot odds are part of the appeal of poker, honestly. Part of the game is playing with those odds.

I think I'm starting to understand Kal's viewpoint more when I think of those proposed banned stages as part of the whole, not as separate entities to be weighed.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Bones0]

Well yeah, the long-shot odds are also the reason people find slot machines entertaining. They're ****ty competition though.

OMG, Kal... I died a little inside when I read this: "'I like painting,' one of them remarked, 'they tell me what to do and I do it. It’s easy!'"

 

[Mahone]

That's just my personal preference. I hate games that don't immediately display who the better player is. I prefer games with more direct consequences for what you do.

play shooters

i know you do, and thats why i love them, instant gratification

also poker is the best game i've ever played... EVER... DO NOT read the books KAL recommended

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Well yeah, the long-shot odds are also the reason people find slot machines entertaining. They're ****ty competition though.

Well, I don't think there's an element of strategy inherent in playing slot machines. It's a lottery; you pull the lever (or press a button), and blammo! Automated results calculated by the machine. The only thing you dictate is whether or not you wanna try again.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Kal]

Mahone sounds like kind of a *******. Both of those books are highly recommended. Brunson has 10 WSoP bracelets and has placed in the money 35 times, and Harrington has 2 bracelets with 11 money finishes. No, these books will not turn you into a pro. They will teach you fundamentals (Harrington's book is a little more conservative, which I think is better for a new player, so that he doesn't turn into one of those idiots who thinks he has a read on everyone and limps in preflop every hand).

And for most competitive players, it's not the long-shot odds that make Poker worthwhile. For worse players it might be (which is actually a good thing; if bad players always lost at Poker, I know I wouldn't make nearly as much money from them as I actually do). But for better players, it's the aspects of depth that keep things interesting.

There is also quite a bit of thrill to chasing down odds. Of course, good players will do this intelligently (trying to ensure that their pot odds or implied odds are better than their odds of winning), but lots of bad players find this an enticing aspect of Poker.

Mahone, what Poker games do you play?

 

[Mahone]

Both those books are trash, because they are outdated... sorry man, i know you wanna believe doyle is still the best but its not the case

just play a lot if you wanna be good... you can use this thing called the internet that Doyle might have just figured out to play 1000x more hands than he has in his lifetime

 

[Kal]

I don't think Doyle is the best. You're still missing the fact that these books teach you about position, pot odds, card odds, and betting patterns, which are extremely useful. Sklansky makes it clear that playing Poker alone will not necessarily make you better, because luck is a *****:

When you play Tennis, you correct your game and the results are immediate. Good things are rewarded, and bad things are punished. But in Poker, it's quite the opposite. Sometimes terrible plays are rewarded and exactly correct plays are punished.

If you don't know how to actually assess your own gameplay, then playing a billion hands won't do you any good. And no, those books aren't outdated. Their explanations of pot odds, card odds, position, betting patterns, etc., aren't worse just because the books are older.

 

[Mahone]

Well there are better sources to learn from than Super System... i learned by playing a lot and watching a lot of poker on tv and online

You will learn about all those things (pot odds, card odds, position, etc.) in any book... the metagame has shifted in poker... its silly to pick SS over a newer book by a more recently sucessful player

 

[Smooth Criminal]

I made a generalization, Kal. I was trying to imply that there was depth to the game in my blanket statement of "playing those odds"---as in, manipulation.

I need to learn how to write.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Kal]

It's ok Smooth Criminal. I still love you.

Mahone, give me the name of some of these books and I'll give them a read. I doubt that they're better than either Super System or Harrington, since these aren't books intended to go into extreme depth anyway. Personally, I'm fond of Sklansky just because he has a mathematics background.

 

[Mahone]

Ya i think for a mathematical person Harrington is fine... i just know bones0 irl so i doubt he would gain a lot from it compared to newer books...

I think super system 2 is a good book

 

[Kal]

You don't need to be a mathematical person. Like it or not, you're going to need to know the odds and how to calculate them (luckily, it's not that hard) if you want to be a good player.

I haven't read Super System 2. I heard there was a lot of shameless plugging for Brunson's website and that it consists of a lot of needless bragging about his accomplishments. I also hear the section on online Poker is useless.

Harrington's books are for tournament play (other than "Harrington on Cash Games" >_>), which I suppose is important to consider. I just think learning Poker from the tight-conservative point of view is good for starters. You see very rapid initial improvements by simply learning what cards are valuable in what positions. Too much discussion about the metagame (in the Poker sense, not in the sense commonly used in fighting games) can obfuscate the issue for a new player.

 

[Bing]

I wish there were more CP stages... I hate only having 1 option -_-

 

[Vash the Stampede]

^ agreed the choice is quite minimal

 

[Bones0]

You have 6 CP options (not counting DSR).

Can you even still play online poker in the US? My dad used to play all the time, but then he said the site he used got shut down for US citizens...

 

[Mahone]

Ya you can't play now

we'll play irl next time im in nova

 

[Vash the Stampede]

Some people would say six is not very many, others might disagree, questionable in a sense. It's almost as though 6 is only 5 away from the starting place of the basic numerical sequence.

As for poker, tons of american people play it. Especially texans, with big hats and incredible steaks.