Legality Tentative: MBR Official Ruleset for 2012

[Fortress | Sveet]

His wording of consistent results is based only in that ruleset, ei whoever plays "the game" better. It does not mean that the person who would win in the FC ruleset would necessarily win in the MBR ruleset. For example, the rules could be pokefloats only and the results would be consistent, meaning the "better player" (defined by the ruleset) wins consistently.


If by Bum doing good you mean him getting like 7th at a single national and not doing much else, sure. Taj got deep at FCD, but only used mewtwo in 1 set, vs chu dat, which he lost (it was an epic set tho). As the stage list got more conservative, more characters did become viable. If the CP stages followed a "some are good some are bad" pattern, maybe it would be different, but for most of the cast the top ~5 characters do significantly better on all the CPs. Add that to the fact that they are probably already at a disadvantaged match-up, and you have some seriously screwed characters.

If the stage is only included because someone can just change their character, isn't that just proof of how bad the stage is?

 

[Dark Hart]

Character option selects

 

[Strong Badam]

bum placed 4th at MLG Long Island, higher than any of us will ever place at a national with any character

 

[KishPrime]

The consistency argument is simply making the point that it is a fair ruleset where random factors play a minimal role. That stages/randomness really aren't a big factor, and remember, we had a RANDOM first stage every time. This is why I initially blew off the stage striking idea back in the day, because it seemed like an unnecessary waste of time when results were already verifiably consistent.

As for diversity of character, at FCD we had represented in the Top 10: Fox, Falco, ICs, Sheik, Marth, Peach, Falcon, Luigi. You can't get much more diverse than that.

If someone wants to show a counterexample where results got stale and characters were overrepresented due to the stage select at the time, I'd actually like to see it.

 

[Kal]

If the stage is only included because someone can just change their character, isn't that just proof of how bad the stage is?

No. If people are forced to use one character, it's pretty good proof (e.g. Hyrule). Otherwise, it just means you might have to learn a secondary. There's also not much of a good argument being put forth for why balance would be severely impacted by this ruleset.

It's also important that people get away from thinking of stages as "included." I'm pretty sure Kish thinks of it as "what stages do I have reason to exclude?" not "what stages should I include?"

I also don't think duplicity alone warrants a ban.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

As for diversity of character, at FCD we had represented in the Top 10: Fox, Falco, ICs, Sheik, Marth, Peach, Falcon, Luigi. You can't get much more diverse than that.

If someone wants to show a counterexample where results got stale and characters were overrepresented due to the stage select at the time, I'd actually like to see it.

How about Falco, Peach/Young Link, Puff, ICs, Pikachu, Marth, Fox for the top 8 of APEX 2010.

The fact of the matter is, those stages favor the already favored characters.

 

[leffen]

The diversity argument is stupid. That luigi may have won the tournament with a proper ruleset, and some other characters may have placed differently, but skill still factors in and not every match is played on MK2.

If anything, watch what characters where successful on what stages and look at what people banned

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

The problem arises when one character has a plethora of hard counter CP stages and the opponent's best stages are neutrals. When those stages are removed, half the cast goes from being completely invalidated by [pick any top tier] + [pick any CP stage] to being semi-viable. A few of them may have 1 or 2 decent CP stages, but the balance is still against them, especially with multiple bans being allowed.

 

[KishPrime]

The problem arises when one character has a plethora of hard counter CP stages and the opponent's best stages are neutrals. When those stages are removed, half the cast goes from being completely invalidated by [pick any top tier] + [pick any CP stage] to being semi-viable. .

Half the cast? Let's not be hyperbolic. Half the cast is completely inviable no matter the ruleset. A third of the rest MAYBE can make Top 5 at a national tournament if the player is elite. The rest are all actually viable. And if one character has a plethora of hard counters over another, doesn't that inherently mean that the second character is factually worse than the other character and should be treated as such?

 

[RaphaelRobo]

I'm playing Ganondorf. My opponent is Falco. I win G1. I can ban either FoD, PS2, or FD. He picks one of the other two, and that's a guaranteed loss for me.

See? The current stage list makes Ganon completely inviable against Falco, because he's already guaranteed to win at least half the games. If he wins G1, then I've already lost.

 

[Kal]

There's a Pokemon Stadium 2?

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Barlw? In a MELEE THREAD?!

KAIBA, YOUR MISTAKE IS UNFORGIVABLE!

-activates the heart of the cards.-

Smooth Criminal

 

[Kal]

Time to settle this over a children's card game.

 

[Geenareeno]

Raphael FoD is not bad at all vs Falco, and PS isn't horrible. As for FD, yeah it's pretty bad, but keep in mind you might get more than 1 ban. Linguini beat Shiz on FD if that counts for anything.

 

[RaphaelRobo]

How is FoD not bad? I was talking to a pretty good Falco main the other day, and he said both PS and FoD are in Falco's favor.

Personally, I'd ban PS and hope he picks FD, because I play better vs. Falco there than I do on PS. They're still in Falco's favor, though.

And sorry about the PS2 thing. I was thinking about P:M when I wrote that, not that other "game". Anyway, let's settle this using a children's card game. With my Catapult Turtle I can launch my Dragon Champion toward your castle thereby shattering its floatation ring and causing it to collapse on top of your monsters. Then my Ganobelisk the Tormentor will attack your life points directly, ending in your miserable defeat.

Screw the rules, I have green hair.

 

[Kal]

That show was so crazy in its first season. Yugi would just murder the **** out of people for no reason.

And then the real show was all "this spinning blade is going to cut you in half if you lose this children's card game." The American dub prettied it up with some bull **** about the shadow realm.

No need to apologize about the PS2 thing. I was just poking fun. <3

 

[Bing]

Would FoD be bad For Ganon simply because of the platforms and all that Jazz. I mean Falcon's hate FoD because of the moving platforms so would it be the same for Ganon?

Personally I love FoD vs anyone because I just like size of the stage. blastline locations. And I dont find the moving platforms to be an issue.

 

[Kal]

Ganon is slow enough for the moving platforms to be less of an issue, I think. More important is that Fountain of Dreams gives Falco really powerful zoning control over Ganon.

I think. >_>

 

[RaphaelRobo]

The platforms still screw around with Ganon a lot. I feel like it wouldn't be as bad for him if they were timed (like how you can account for Randall in YS), but with the way they currently are they're essentially a stage with hazards. The only difference is, instead of the hazard hurting you, it moves you into your opponents attack.

It's worse for Falcon, though, which is why Falcons often ban FoD against Ganon. If they were smart, they'd be banning Brinstar (assuming it's legal at the tournament), because even though FoD is in Ganon's favor v Falcon, Brinstar is even more in his favor. People just forget it exists because they don't play vs. Ganon often, so don't realize it's just as good as BF/YS for him, and even better vs. Fast Fallers.

That show was so crazy in its first season. Yugi would just murder the **** out of people for no reason.

And then the real show was all "this spinning blade is going to cut you in half if you lose this children's card game." The American dub prettied it up with some bull **** about the shadow realm.

No need to apologize about the PS2 thing. I was just poking fun. <3

When you think about it, though, the shadow realm is actually worse. Instead of dying, you're being imprisoned and tortured for eternity.

 

[Kal]

Except, **** no, getting your legs cut off by a spinning blade because you lost a children's card game is worse.

 

[Bing]

When you think about it. Parts of Yugioh were a bit twisted lol.

Lose a game, we slice you in two.
Lose a game, trap you in an hour glass for eternity.
lose a game, drown. Win the game, your best friend drowns.

And how many times did they kidnap Mokuba? Honestly They kidnapped him probably more times then we saw Kiaba duel.

 

[Kal]

Big Brother, is it time for my cameo yet?

 

[RaphaelRobo]

KAIBA: Mokuba… You have to listen to me. Remember all the good times we had!

MOKUBA: I don’t really remember any…

KAIBA: No, Mokuba… You have to understand. Whenever I told you to shut up, what I was trying to say is that I lo… I luuuh… I luh… Ugh… Sorry, threw up in my mouth a little. What I’m trying to say is: I love you.

MOKUBA: Seto… You really mean that?

KAIBA: Yes, Mokuba.

JOEY: Hey Yugi, do Kaiba’s fingers look like they’re crossed behind his back?

 

[Shai Hulud]

I haven't been arguing that the technique in question being difficult to define or hard to enforce a ban around is a better argument than it not being broken. I would personally leave it at that; being "warranted" is the most important criterion, since it won't matter how a ban is defined or how it is enforced if it is unwarranted in the first place.

To clarify, I wasn't making any judgment about which argument you considered the most important. I suppose one could make the "unenforceable" argument in tandem with other arguments (if you put any weight in it, which I don't).

However, it's a little silly to pretend this a much better argument here. When we have a community of scrubs getting together and banning most of the stage list because of stupid bull **** that has nothing to do with brokenness, it seems "but Wobbling is not broken!" would not do much in convincing them not to go through with the ban. Which is actually quite the case, with Wobbling still frequently banned at many tournaments.

You make a valid point, but I think just as many players, if not more, would not be convinced by "Banning wobbling is unenforceable." If they think it's ban-worthy then they must believe it's enforceable, right? I just don't see many people buying this argument.

Really, there is a dual argument that needs to be made regarding brokenness. "Wobbling is not broken" and "Don't ban things if they aren't broken."

In my opinion, there is a clear difference between a player explicitly lying about the results of a set (something very discrete) and a player simply pushing the boundaries of what defines "Wobbling." It's not much different than banning chain grabs; if I were at a tournament where "chain grabs are banned" was a rule, I would not equate someone lying about the results of his set with someone performing three consecutive grabs. I would not consider the rule which declares one player the winner of the set "unenforceable" in the same way I would consider a rule banning chain grabs unenforceable, or a rule banning Wobbling unenforceable.

They aren't quite the same, I agree, but both rely on player honesty. And you ignored the better example about rising pound stalling. This rule is equally unenforceable, by your criteria. Should there be no ban of such stalling?

Someone doing 20% damage wobbling is not that significant. Given the small number of players who would "push the boundaries" like this it makes it even less significant. Maybe a TO can't ban wobbling completely, but if a TO can reduce the frequency of wobbling by 99%, I think most players would not care about the difference.

I do think this thread does a decent job of addressing how difficult it is to define a Wobbling ban, anyway. In the end, we both agree that Wobbling is unbroken and therefore unworthy of the ban-hammer.

I didn't read the entire thread but it's clear from the first couple of pages most players rejected this argument. To paraphrase a couple of the posters, it doesn't really matter if wobbling is definable in a precise sense that could be enforced by, say, a computer, in a fair manner. Humans are capable of deciding what wobbling is using common sense. The vast majority of the time there will be no issues when banning wobbling, so it's kind of irrelevant that some theoretical player could push the boundaries and piss people off, even if it's possible.

 

[Kal]

You make a valid point, but I think just as many players, if not more, would not be convinced by "Banning wobbling is unenforceable." If they think it's ban-worthy then they must believe it's enforceable, right? I just don't see many people buying this argument.

Of course they don't buy the argument; they ban Wobbling anyway.

They aren't quite the same, I agree, but both rely on player honesty. And you ignored the better example about rising pound stalling. This rule is equally unenforceable, by your criteria. Should there be no ban of such stalling?

There should be no ban of such stalling. At least, it doesn't matter, because it's not an enforceable rule. With referees watching, it might be enforceable, but then you have to ask what constitutes stalling. Anyway, this isn't a rule I run at my tournaments.

Someone doing 20% damage wobbling is not that significant. Given the small number of players who would "push the boundaries" like this it makes it even less significant. Maybe a TO can't ban wobbling completely, but if a TO can reduce the frequency of wobbling by 99%, I think most players would not care about the difference.

I mean, I don't really know how to address this. There are like 4.5 Ice Climbers players in total. Wobbling is a non-issue in the first place, so dismissing my point because there won't be enough players pushing boundaries seems irrelevant. If we want to be so pragmatic, we can just leave it alone and say "you probably won't encounter an Ice Climbers player anyway."

I didn't read the entire thread but it's clear from the first couple of pages most players rejected this argument. To paraphrase a couple of the posters, it doesn't really matter if wobbling is definable in a precise sense that could be enforced by, say, a computer, in a fair manner. Humans are capable of deciding what wobbling is using common sense. The vast majority of the time there will be no issues when banning wobbling, so it's kind of irrelevant that some theoretical player could push the boundaries and piss people off, even if it's possible.

The issue is that this abstraction is too vague. If you're speaking strictly pragmatically, then I agree there is no issue, simply because the number of Ice Climbers players is small, and frankly it's a single move unique to a single character that requires a pretty precise setup.

I'm arguing for the Ice Climbers player who wants to know exactly what options he has available. It's plain and simply unfair that he doesn't even get to actually know what is within the rules with regards to his character. Imagine, instead of Wobbling, if we banned chain grabbing. How would Sheik players feel, not ever being explicitly told what constitutes chain grabbing? In the end, the Sheik player's only solution is to either push the boundaries and ask what constitutes a chain grab, or only grab once per stock to avoid getting into trouble.

It just seems nonsensical to me. Rules need to be discrete. This isn't some ****ty judged sport where referees get to make calls as to what constitutes a strike.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Half the cast? Let's not be hyperbolic. Half the cast is completely inviable no matter the ruleset. A third of the rest MAYBE can make Top 5 at a national tournament if the player is elite. The rest are all actually viable. And if one character has a plethora of hard counters over another, doesn't that inherently mean that the second character is factually worse than the other character and should be treated as such?

How far should the ruleset punish that though? it hardly reorders the tier list, it simply makes the gap between the top 5 and the rest of the cast that much bigger.

In a pure play to win environment where CP stages are picked and abused to their maximum winning potential, I do not see any character past the A tier being viable. On the other hand, purely on the neutrals, the viability goes down to at least D tier and maybe a bit further. D tier and above is 15/26 characters while A tier and above is 7/26 characters. I apologize if my phrasing of "half the cast" was misleading in my previous post.

Stages that, in a vacuum, force a character to move instantly favor characters that are good at moving. Characters that aren't good at moving can simply be put in a bad position by the stage and punished by the opponent, and there is no way around it.

[collapse=Reference: Tier List]S: Fox, Falco, Jigglypuff, Sheik
A: Marth, Peach, Captain Falcon
B: Ice Climbers
C: Dr. Mario, Ganondorf, Samus
D: Pikachu, Mario, Luigi, Donkey Kong
E: Link, Young Link
F: Zelda, Roy, Mewtwo, Yoshi, Mr. Game & Watch
G: Ness, Bowser, Kirby, Pichu[/collapse]

 

[FerrishTheFish]

Is Master Hand a legal character? You don't need to hack the game to play as him, just make sure you get that 3rd player port. Not that he wouldn't be the worst character in the game by far, but just a thought.

 

[Strong Badam]

unwritten MBR rule "don't be ********"

 

[Kal]

**** that, I want to know too. Being ******** is half the fun of tournaments.

 

[RaphaelRobo]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but MH can't die in Stock, right?

I'm using him next tournament.

 

[Beat!]

Have fun getting projectile camped.

 

[RaphaelRobo]

But as long as I take out one of their stocks, I win by timeout.

 

[Kal]

All they have to do is damage you and run to the edge. >_>

 

[FerrishTheFish]

Odds of you doing that against any tournament player worth their salt is extremely, extremely low. (<Responding to Raphael)
Think about it. First of all, Master Hand functions horribly on any stage with platforms, which is pretty much all of them. Second, Master Hand telegraphs his (mostly fixed-trajectory) attacks an hour in advance, and is then forced to just sit still for some number of seconds before he can do another one. Thirdly, Master Hand has a huge hurtbox and probably pretty small hitboxes. Playing Master Hand is like playing giant Ganondorf and attempting to win by: Walk stealthily up to opponent -> attempt to utilt opponent -> if miss, stand still for a few seconds until they forget you're there again -> walk stealthily up to opponent, etc.

 

[Kal]

That's why you take a roll of dollar bills and ask your opponent to start stripping. Before he knows it, he's lost a stock, and you even got a lap dance out of it.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

That is messed up. I wouldn't even do that to a Peach player (although if hypothetically I did, I would be sure to yell something along the lines of, "As damage accumulates, the opponent goes higher! You can charge the dsmash to make it even more damaging!").

 

[RaphaelRobo]

Yeah, I know it would be insanely difficult, but I'm going to find a way to pull it off anyway.

Also, I don't think it'd be messed up if your opponent was female. Then again, she'd probably get annoyed at you for trying to pay her to do that, and/or beating her with Master Hand, and would never want to see you again. Not really worth it.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

In terms of a competitive code of ethics, it's pretty messed up. Remember when the Black Sox were paid to throw the World Series? Super Lapdance Bros. is basically the same thing. Smaller scale, same thing.

If I were to try to win with Master Hand, I would stay away from pretty much everything except the drill-finger thing and the full-stage swat thing. Maybe the finger-walking thing. These three attacks are probably the hardest to avoid/counter out of all of Master Hand's moves.

 

[Geenareeno]

The grab man, the ****ing grab.

 

[Fregadero]

If I were to try to win with Master Hand, I would stay away from pretty much everything except the drill-finger thing and the full-stage swat thing. Maybe the finger-walking thing. These three attacks are probably the hardest to avoid/counter out of all of Master Hand's moves.

...there is no reason to be getting hit by master hand