Legality Tentative: MBR Official Ruleset for 2012

[Kal]

You can still make decent money off of home games. You just need to tone down how badly you destroy your friends.

Do you have AIM or google chat or something Shai? We should discuss more Poker. I also think it's wonderful how lame our country is. Give us back our brothels already. Damn.

Edit: I should clarify that "decent money" is like $40 a week on average or something. Nothing to get worked up over. And toning down how badly you beat your friends just encourages them to keep playing. I should avoid making any definitive statements about the game in your presence, for fear of getting my nose rubbed in how little I actually know about the game.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Shai's actually a pretty cool guy.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Hylian]

You can still make decent money off of home games. You just need to tone down how badly you destroy your friends.

Do you have AIM or google chat or something Shai? We should discuss more Poker. I also think it's wonderful how lame our country is. Give us back our brothels already. Damn.

Edit: I should clarify that "decent money" is like $40 a week on average or something. Nothing to get worked up over. And toning down how badly you beat your friends just encourages them to keep playing. I should avoid making any definitive statements about the game in your presence, for fear of getting my nose rubbed in how little I actually know about the game.

I made close to $200 every week when I would play at ronnies lol.

 

[Kal]

Making $200 most of the time isn't the same as averaging $200 a week. Though it would be ****ing awesome if that's what you averaged over a year. $800 a month for playing Poker 4 hours a week is awesome.

 

[Hylian]

Making $200 most of the time isn't the same as averaging $200 a week. Though it would be ****ing awesome if that's what you averaged over a year. $800 a month for playing Poker 4 hours a week is awesome.

To clarify, I won over $200 pretty much every time I went there for over a year, I won less maybe one or two times with a $20 buy in and never lost money once I actually knew what I was doing somewhat lol.

Edit: And I don't think I'm that good a poker lol I just recognized their betting patters after awhile and no one else there seemed to do that.

 

[Kal]

Those players were all fish. I'm pretty sure you could turn a profit just pushing all in preflop with only AA, KK, and QQ. I actually used this strategy once and left with around $100.

 

[Tee ay eye]

http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=math

 

[Smooth Criminal]

http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=math

Lmao

I can definitely appreciate the sentiment behind that.

...I still dislike math, though.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Bones0]

"Why should you learn math? Because **** you, that's why."

 

[FerrishTheFish]

"Why should you learn math? Because **** you, that's why."

CACTUAR LOGIC!

 

[Cactuar]

I wish I could pull off the "**** you, that's why" reasoning. I have too many people poring over my posts for any reason to complain.



@Shai: I'm sorry I called you a nobody. My meaning wasn't "you are a nobody to me", and I said "I treat you like a nobody because you are hostile towards me," when I should have just said "I often don't pay attention to your posts because you are hostile towards me for reasons that I don't really get." I have nothing against you. I get that you feel ignored, but I honestly don't read every post in this thread. The peak of discussion here occurred a long while back, so I just pop in and skim once in a while. When something develops that has a concrete alternative suggestion rather than just a bunch of bickering over why its wrong, it will make its way to me. I'll be more than happy to respond to you in depth, but please drop the attitude.

 

[Kal]

Maddox has been an influence in my argument style for a long time now. Here are a couple favorites

I, Robot

Trippin'

Star Wars Episode III

PCs vs. Macs

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Going back to some old posts I've been brooding over.

I was never hiding behind a status quo. I agree with your arguments on a personal level, and I think, if I were to build a fighting game from the ground up, it would largely satisfy these conditions you've deemed worthy of banning some stages. The point isn't that your argument is bad, or devoid of logic and theory. Far from it. The point is that your argument fundamentally falls to preference: whether or not we ban these stages hinges on whether you consider the resultant decrease in variance justification for the ban. This is a matter of opinion.

And yes, I'm saying we should avoid bans in the cases where we're not basing it on fact. I don't think bans that fall to "we think this makes a better game" are justifiable or fair.

The creator of a ruleset is on the same level as a game creator, or maybe perhaps the level of a person creating a game mod. We are making a new game based on the original. In our case, we can call this game "Competitive Melee" or whatever, thats not important. There are no limitations to the decisions we can make, though the players determine whether the changes are good or not. We are allowed to build the game from the bottom up if we choose, as long as it satisfies the will of the players.

Are you saying that if banning something makes the metagame deeper (whatever this means), then it should be banned? As far as we know, removing the top 1/3 of characters would make the metagame deeper. Also, it's hard to imagine how continual removal of various game aspects could make it "deeper." Bans are generally cumulative, and ever-increasing, so it's likely that more stages will be banned later, and it's at least somewhat possible we could end up with 1, maybe 2 stages. If you really think this makes the game "deeper" it is a strange definition.

Removing infinite stalls and stages that promoted them made the metagame deeper. Why is it so strange that removing things that decrease player vs player interaction increases depth of play?

Also I would really love if you could back up that statement about removing the top 1/3 characters increasing depth. Like I told Kal when he was making analogies to banning Falco, if you could back up this statement, maybe someone would actually listen. Until then, this analogy is completely false.

 

[KishPrime]

Also I would really love if you could back up that statement about removing the top 1/3 characters increasing depth.

I would really love it if someone could concretely prove that banning stages increases depth, but the criteria representing "depth" is so ill-defined that neither exercise is useful.

The analogy posits a suggestion that "if removing the top 1/3rd increased depth," then under your reasoning such a decision would have to be made. That is a fair, independent point under a logically coherent ruleset.

The biggest contradiction, though, from the anti-randomness folk is still that no one is trying to ban Peach. That one still baffles me.

 

[Strong Badam]

Are we banning the top 9 characters?
Sounds good to me

 

[Kal]

The creator of a ruleset is on the same level as a game creator, or maybe perhaps the level of a person creating a game mod. We are making a new game based on the original. In our case, we can call this game "Competitive Melee" or whatever, thats not important. There are no limitations to the decisions we can make, though the players determine whether the changes are good or not. We are allowed to build the game from the bottom up if we choose, as long as it satisfies the will of the players.

In this case, you don't need to justify anything, the same way a game creator doesn't need to justify a design choice. There is some backwards logic if you feel the need to justify a rule you're imparting on a game you you did not make, but identify yourself as some sort of "game creator." I'm arguing for fairness because we are getting together to play Super Smash Brothers: Melee, which suggests there is a full game we are playing. Removing from that full game is necessary in many instances. A majority of players sharing subjective preference is not such an instance.

If you really don't see the Falco analogy after you've made this point, then there's no need to continue the discussion.

Kish, with regards to trying to ban Peach, the usual response is that character require different justification for being banned. Because apparently variance in results due to character randomness is ok, but variance in results due to stages is not. Deeper inspection leads me to believe the real justification is "we don't like these stages."

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

KishPrime, I think i've done a pretty good job of explaining how certain stages have features that are bad for competition. I won't go so far as saying "proof" since that would imply that something in a video game can be determined precisely. Nothing can. Go ahead and look the discussion on the last page (maybe some on the page before that too). I mostly posted that to continue the discussion Kal and I were having, but I wouldn't mind hearing your input.

In this case, you don't need to justify anything, the same way a game creator doesn't need to justify a design choice. There is some backwards logic if you feel the need to justify a rule you're imparting on a game you you did not make, but identify yourself as some sort of "game creator." I'm arguing for fairness because we are getting together to play Super Smash Brothers: Melee.

I'm justifying a change in the way I would justify it from one designer to another. It doesn't have to be factual and can be arbitrary, just as making the length of FD is arbitrary. The stages that exist are arbitrary; for all purposes "banned" stages are simply stages that don't exist in "Competitive Melee". I have posted details on why I believe the changes make competition better, and for me that means it is a better set of rules. Naturalistic arguments in regards to the game have no sway over me.

 

[Kal]

You've ignored my point altogether that the length of FD is arbitrary, but a choice must be made. There is no FD sans "length of the stage." Melee makes perfect sense without banning Brinstar. There is no "choice that must be made." So please, stop comparing these instances. They aren't the same.

In a perfect world, every time anyone came up with an alternative ruleset, the game would split, and both communities would flourish and enjoy a long life.

It's not a perfect world. In real life, you create a new ruleset, and usually the old one dies. You don't usually get "two versions" of a game, as evidenced by "items-off" becoming the standard, despite there being a rather large proportion of the community who initially wanted items on. When a large part of the community starts banning stages for subjective preference, they are effectively forcing the rest of the community to play this version of the game.

So, in response to this, in the interest of fairness (not "fairness" in the sense of game balance, "fairness" in the sense of not shafting a minority of players just for not sharing the opinions of everyone else), bans should be "warranted" in the sense Sirlin puts it: we need to ban broken things, because broken things break the game. They necessarily remove depth. Nothing else is agreeable by everyone.

In this specific instance, you have some 15% - 25% of the community being told "sorry, the rest of us don't like those stages. Go play them in friendlies." It's overtly unfair.

And, quite frankly, all of these "features that are bad for competition" have been addressed. You don't like them. We get it. But there is nothing inherently worse about them, especially with regards to depth.

 

[Cactuar]

The MBR ruleset is basically the "player vs player" ruleset. It is the minimalist view of what should be used in the current national scene and also caters towards an even playing field when we are playing internationally.

TO's at a regional level are encouraged to play around with the ruleset at local and regional tournaments. I actually like the concept of it because it could give playing in any specific region a certain "flavor", but everyone seems to take this stuff like "oh I have to use the official ruleset as an absolute standard". Nonsense. Do whatever you want. I've said all this before. This is the recommended ruleset for tournaments on a national level because the desire for players going to nationals is usually for "even" matches in the sense that it will primarily feature them vs the opponent without outside influences. Build on this ruleset for your local community. Add whatever stages you want. Cater to your locals, because keeping them happy keeps the community alive. If the desire on a national scale changes to wanting some of the stuff that is popular on a local/regional scale, then it will change to reflect that.

Don't feel like formatting.

 

[Kal]

My complaints aren't with regards to the MBR in particular. Yeah, I think their ruleset is bull ****. But you can consider my complaints as directed to the general TO, answering the question "what is a fair way to create a ruleset?"

 

[Cactuar]

TOs in general should be more experimental. Running the same tournament over and over and over is just laziness. You can nearly ALWAYS improve your approach for repeat performances. And who knows, you might find the next national standard by accident.

 

[Kal]

Well, with regards to the MBR ruleset, I do think it's strange that you guys take such a liberal stance on creating a ruleset. It would seem much more reasonable to me to make a "bare bones" ruleset in the more traditional sense: "this is what we all agree should be banned" not "this is what we all agree nobody minds."

 

[Cactuar]

Hmm. Maybe that's a good mid point.

Minimum Stages
Neutrals
YS
DL
BF
FoD
FD
Counterpicks
PS

Optional
Counterpicks
Brinstar
Mute City
Corneria
Green Greens
etc

Would that be preferred? It would still display what we view should be used nationally (Minimum), while still presenting all of the stages used in various regions as counterpicks so that it is clear which are acceptable for play and which are not.

This would create a separation of the current "banned" stage list into a "Soft Ban" and "Hard Ban" split, and it would further outline TO responsibility in selection of legal stages for their own tournament.

 

[Kal]

That's a good idea, I think. Something like a "TO's choice" section being prefaced with "these stages are sometimes banned. The choice is up to the TO" or something.

Though I think "legal" and "banned" should still be the only "true" distinction. Pokémon Stadium is only a counterpick because we need an odd number of stages to strike from. Rather than distinguishing between the two, just have something like:

Legal - These stages are typically legal at every tournament
YS
DL
BF
FoD
FD
PS

Optional - These stages are sometimes banned at events.
Brinstar
Mute City
Corneria
etc.

Banned - These stages are typically banned at every tournament
Hyrule
Brinstar Depths
etc.

It should be up to the TO, in my opinion, to decide how the first match is played. Though you can certainly state something along the lines of "typically, a 1-2-1 strike system is used to decide the first stage from five of the six neutrals. Typically, Pokémon Stadium is not available for the first match."

Obviously, I don't want anything too difficult to read or understand. I merely think it would be better to really emphasize that Pokémon Stadium isn't some last remnant of our conservative mindset, as though "it's just neutral enough to not be banned, but still too counterpicky to be neutral." Rather, it, along with the remaining five stages, is not worth banning. We merely dub it a "counterpick" stage because we need an odd number of stages to strike from for the first match.

And, while the above is certainly preferred to what we currently have, what I want, of course, is for a fair ruleset that simply acknowledges what stages are unanimously banned, and for the rest to be left alone. This is mostly just me being idealistic, and can be safely ignored.

 

[Cactuar]

I would play around with the wording for a while, but the idea itself is sound. This isn't a "fair" ruleset. It is a ruleset catered to the national competitive scene, so the bits on being unbiased against soft ban stages is a little out of place. I would certainly use an approach that suggests the usage of those other stages by local/regional tournaments, but I would make the purpose of the minimum state very clear.

 

[Kal]

mmmmmmmmmk

 

[KishPrime]

That format is what I pushed back when everyone decided we were going to do an MBR ruleset to begin with, and we used it that way for awhile. No idea when/why it changed.

Also MK2 is definitely optional.

 

[Strong Badam]

mk2 should be a starter

 

[Bones0]

At the end of the day, the MBR Recommended Rule Set is really just a rule set for new/inexperienced TOs who don't know what the average player expects. Experienced TOs who have been in the community a long time are going to use whatever stage list they want because they know how it will run and how the community attending will take it. I think listing a bunch of counterpicks as optional just makes it confusing for newbie TOs. No one plays on Green Greens anymore, so if a new TO looks at the rule set and thinks it should be included, people at his tournament may not be happy with the fact that it's legal.

 

[Cactuar]

MK2 should be every stage.

 

[Beat!]

I keep reading MK2 as M2K.

 

[Kal]

Bones, your worry seems exaggerated. Surely, if a TO gives a **** about whether or not people will be happy with his ruleset, he'll think to either:

1) Copy the ruleset from a popular tournament like APEX, or
2) Stick to the stages listed as "legal at every tournament"

Or, better yet, he might ask what people want in the thread for his tournament. I also disagree with the idea that the MBR ruleset exists for new and inexperienced TOs. When has that ever been the goal of the MBR? If that were the case, it wouldn't need a committee and a secret back room to discuss what should be the ruleset. It would only require a poll.

At the end of the day, a TO who is worried about attendance and appeasing his fans is much more likely to use a ruleset that consists only of the starter stages, and instead ask within his thread "do people want to see any optional stages added?" I don't foresee a new TO who is worried about attendance saying "HOLY ****, LOOK AT ALL THESE OPTIONS. IT'S LIKE BURGER KING" and proceeding to just turn on every stage.

 

[Cactuar]

My vision of the MBR is that it is an active group contributing projects and reading materials to the smash community, not that it is a group that just pushes out an absolute tier list/rule set. The reality is that we are all busy with our own lives and don't have nearly enough time to actually accomplish a lot of those project ideas, so it takes very dedicated individuals to actually get a project done. (Very special thanks to nintendude and the entire ssbpd group.)

One of my favorite ideas was just regular blogs from MBR/high level players who are actively working on their game to help give insight to lower level players on how to improve, stay motivated, etc. Its something that shouldn't be "I'm in the MBR and Cactuar is telling me to do this." It should be "I can really help out the community by posting my thoughts."

 

[KishPrime]

At the end of the day, a TO who is worried about attendance and appeasing his fans

Wait what TO has fans?

I've been doing something wrong...

 

[Kal]

You don't have fans?

 

[Tee ay eye]

The biggest contradiction, though, from the anti-randomness folk is still that no one is trying to ban Peach. That one still baffles me.

I would be so down LOLLLL

 

[KishPrime]

You don't have fans?

Do I?

<_<

 

[Kal]

I am your fan, Kish. My fans are yours by proxy.

Note, however, that this gives you a following of like four people. Don't start any protests expecting to make a point. >_>

 

[KishPrime]

All the better, since I don't really care what my fans think when I make rulesets.

 

[Cactuar]

Kish, you have more fans than any other TO. FC da bess.