Link to original post: [drupal=3649]The BBR Ruleset, its flaws and its consequences[/drupal]
The recent publications of the BBR Rule Sets 3.0 and 3.1 have caused a lot of arguments, especially in regards to stages. Issues like Meta Knight's domination in the North American Metagame, "broken" tactics like planking or scrooging as well as the recommendation to use unbalanced stages in competitive play have arosen shortly after. Usually I don't like to type down my own thoughts on this issue and argue with people whom I know to be bad at this game / not actually playing it competitive. Thus, I'm writing this blog where I'm trying to point out the flaws of the ruleset - which I don't believe to be numerous but all the more devastating - as well as consequences, counter-arguments and their solutions.
Before I start to analyse the ruleset I'd like to add that I've only attended european tournaments, which means that I have never been exposed to the BBR Rulesets as tournament hosts outside of the USA tend to largely ignore it. I also have extensively concerned myself with the japanese metagame and their rulesets as well as the one used at mexican tournaments (which I consider to be the best published ruleset) to see things from a different angle.
The main issue of american tournaments is without a doubt Meta Knight's dominance and there's a lot of talk about rules that arbitrarily "buff" or "nerve" him and their viability. My opinion is that a ruleset should never aim to strengthen or weaken an individual character and none of my arguments in the coming sections - as well as the solution I consider most effective - will aim to deal with one specific character and in most cases - if not all of them - I will not mention characters in direct relation to the rules at all.
Keep in mind that Meta Knight is still the most played and most popular character in Japan and Europe and measured by his tourney placings by far the most successful - but he's by no means as dominant as in the USA and I blame the BBR rulesets for the most of it - I believe that up to now all the officially recommended ruleset have catered for Meta Knight and further more I believe that the new ruleset of the BBR intentionally caters for Meta Knight in order to get him banned.
This is a big mistake and I advice all fellow TOs to not use the BBR Ruleset as it - as I think, purposfully - promotes uncompetitive play, caters for individual characters and as a result [unintentionally because unaware imo] manipulates the metagame in an unhealthy manner.
With that said, let's go into detail on the ruleset and its problems:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaya
General Rules
This is where we already run into the first problem - the timer. Brawl generally tends to be a defensive game, where a single match can require about as much time as a whole tournament set in another competitive fighting game. Sometimes it can go as far as to exceed the 8 minute timer, without any intentions of stalling or letting the game time out by either player. Of course timing the opponent out is a legitimate tactic to win and there's nothing inherently wrong with ending a match after 8 minutes. But it's not reasonable if neither player has the intention to actually end a match that way. If a match could've ended "regularly" after 8:30 minutes with both players best intentions it's not very sensible to take away that option from them.
Keep in mind that we assume that neither player has the intention to actually go for the time-out [this has happened many times in Europe and our metagame is considered a lot less defensive than the USA where timeouts happen a lot] so since it evidently has come this far I think it's obvious that the timer should be increased. As a general rule of thumb it has become apparent that it's reasonable to have 3 minutes for each stock - since we generally use 3 stocks, 9 minutes should be the minimum.
*Counter Argument:
"An increased timer means longer tournaments, which is not only harder to scedule but we also might risk to exceed the time for which we have the venue. Events will take too long."
*Solution:
There is no evidence whatsoever to back up this statement. The japanese have a ten minute timer and still manage to comfortably run a 60+ people tournament over a normal weekend - including massive amounts of time for free play. During these tournaments a single, double as well as a low tier event is run without any time constraints and their matches actually take longer than the average US game [most of the games run over 6 minutes, some of them over 8]. The key point is that an increased timer doesn't mean that a match takes longer - on the contrary: With a better solution to time outs [will be covered below] and a higher timer, timing out the opponent becomes unattractive and many people who regularily time people out [including Mew2King] will prefer to deal with the opponent "regularily" and either beat or lose to him - in 5 minutes on average, which means that 3 minutes are saved from the assumed 8 minute time-out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaya
This is quite possibly the most overlooked mistake but it may actually be the most fatal one. This is one of the rules as I mentioned above blatantly favours characters that have the ability to make themselves unattackable [or hardly attackable] for a certain amount of time. The game itself never consideres this rule an option and it's not only completely arbitrary but also overcentralizing and breaks the game in favour of characters that can plank [Meta Knight, Pit, Marth, Pikachu, ROB or even Bowser if you like], scrooge [Pit, Meta Knight] or camp in the air [Meta Knight, Wario]. As you see this rule clearly favours mainly Meta Knight as well as a few other characters. The question is: What logical reason does the BBR have to keep on insisting on this rule ever since the release of the first official ruleset? They have yet to explain why this rule is in place because logically there's no reason to use it.
Let's assume a common scenario - Snake vs Meta Knight, last stock; Snake has 110% - MK has 109%. Without any doubt this scenario would be clearly in Snake's favour if it wasn't for the time-out rule that gives Meta Knight an arbitrary and unjustified advantage because he can safely time him out - is it really a wonder that Meta Knight looks so overpowered when you serve him the wins on a silver platter with such awful rules?
The problem of the rule is that the amount of percent a player has does not directly correspond to how close he is to victory. Therefore this rule has to be changed more than than any other has to as it directly determines between a win and a loss - without a logic basis that fits competitive play.
I believe the ground time rule to be the best when it comes to time-outs. Why? Because timing the opponent still remains a legitimate, easily accessable tactic but it requires a skill gap that is big enough that the same opponent could easily be beaten "regularily". If you manage to time the opponent out while staying on the ground over 9 minutes longer than him then nobody can deny that the win is deserved. Additionally - despite what critics of this rule claim - it does not favour any character, which I will explain below.
*Counter argument:
"Timing out is a legitimate tactic in any other fighting game, why do you discourage it? Also, it favours ground based characters more."
*Solution:
Timing out is no more or less legitimate with a ground time rule than with any other rule. The requirements are merely changed but they are neither uncontrollable nor abusable by either player. Timing the opponent is still a viable tactic.
It doesn't favour any character because even ground based opponents spend time in the air - these two things are not to be confused. During a 9 or 10 minute match Snake spends massive time in the air due to his extreme survivability and the long animation of his recovery. Falco spends a lot of time in the air because of his SHDL, Olimar has a very slow fall which means he'll stay in the air for a while - all characters have variables that increase their air time by quite an ammount. At the same time it's easy for an airborne opponent to catch up to an opponent who remains solely on the ground. If you get timed out by a Snake / Olimar / Falco / Diddy Kong who stayed on the ground longer than you for the whole match, then you AS A PLAYER did it wrong and YOU DESERVE TO LOSE.
As you see, this rule is viable in competitive play and doesn't cater for any character or any character's attribute.
Modifying these two rules would fix a lot of the problems that the North American metagame has with Meta Knight. However: Neither does actually weaken him - it only takes away the massive buff he is given by the BBR ruleset. None of these rule cater for or purposfully neglect a character or a certain attribute.
Other countries such as Japan and Mexico have used the same [or similar] adjustments to the ruleset. As a result they do not only have a flourishing tournament scene but they have also produced enormous talent, that matches or surpasses that of the vast majority of players from USA because they don't have a ruleset that gives away easy wins for a small selection of characters. A common complaint is the selection of stages and I'd like to have a few words on that as well. Before I critisize it I'd like to add that I'm well aware that this is the part where competitive becomes a question of personal definition. Furthermore, no stage should ever be banned because of an individual character in my opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaya
Counter Pick Group One
I don't think that Brinstar should be recommended for competitive play. Unlike Frigate Orpheon [which I'm completely OK with] the stage itself poses a constant threat to both players to an extent that it becomes more important to deal with the stage than your actual opponent. This not a good nutrient for competitive play. The stage can hurt you - sometimes out of your own control - which nets 14% damage as well as free opportunity for the opponent to hit you. By my personal definition the stage does not meet the conditions for competitive play.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaya
Counter Pick Group Two
Pictochat is not acceptable for competitive play. Uncontrollable, randomly appearing hazards that heavily influence the battle make this stage unviable for tournament use. Norfair has the same issues as Brinstar, except that the occurances are even more influental but still uncontrollable. Rainbow Cruise's inconsistent composition and uncontrollably [dis-]appearing platforms and hazard make this stage hardly usable for tournament ouside of freeplay. Jungle Japes has to be banned because of visual problems - on some TVs and for some players the luminance is too low to make it a viable stage for tournaments.
I have yet to see a problem with Pokémon Stadium 2 and I don't understand why the BBR would consider Brinstar before this stage.
Finally, I'd like to add that these aren't the only rules that need to be fixed - the suicide rule still remains problematic [to say the least] for example - but these are the most fundamental changes that the current ruleset needs [if you want a healthy metagame without unneeded bans, that is]. The BBR will never approve of this changes because they are unable to change or open up their minds. They would rather follow their flawed path and expose the community to a sick, broken metagame - with or without Meta Knight.
It's good to know though that most TOs don't follow the BBR's "advice" at least. Here's hoping that you'll follow mine - a fellow TO and regular tournament attendant.
Budget Player Cadet, don't post in this thread please.
The recent publications of the BBR Rule Sets 3.0 and 3.1 have caused a lot of arguments, especially in regards to stages. Issues like Meta Knight's domination in the North American Metagame, "broken" tactics like planking or scrooging as well as the recommendation to use unbalanced stages in competitive play have arosen shortly after. Usually I don't like to type down my own thoughts on this issue and argue with people whom I know to be bad at this game / not actually playing it competitive. Thus, I'm writing this blog where I'm trying to point out the flaws of the ruleset - which I don't believe to be numerous but all the more devastating - as well as consequences, counter-arguments and their solutions.
Before I start to analyse the ruleset I'd like to add that I've only attended european tournaments, which means that I have never been exposed to the BBR Rulesets as tournament hosts outside of the USA tend to largely ignore it. I also have extensively concerned myself with the japanese metagame and their rulesets as well as the one used at mexican tournaments (which I consider to be the best published ruleset) to see things from a different angle.
The main issue of american tournaments is without a doubt Meta Knight's dominance and there's a lot of talk about rules that arbitrarily "buff" or "nerve" him and their viability. My opinion is that a ruleset should never aim to strengthen or weaken an individual character and none of my arguments in the coming sections - as well as the solution I consider most effective - will aim to deal with one specific character and in most cases - if not all of them - I will not mention characters in direct relation to the rules at all.
Keep in mind that Meta Knight is still the most played and most popular character in Japan and Europe and measured by his tourney placings by far the most successful - but he's by no means as dominant as in the USA and I blame the BBR rulesets for the most of it - I believe that up to now all the officially recommended ruleset have catered for Meta Knight and further more I believe that the new ruleset of the BBR intentionally caters for Meta Knight in order to get him banned.
This is a big mistake and I advice all fellow TOs to not use the BBR Ruleset as it - as I think, purposfully - promotes uncompetitive play, caters for individual characters and as a result [unintentionally because unaware imo] manipulates the metagame in an unhealthy manner.
---
With that said, let's go into detail on the ruleset and its problems:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaya
General Rules
3 Stock
8 minute timer
Items are set to "off" and "none"
8 minute timer
Items are set to "off" and "none"
This is where we already run into the first problem - the timer. Brawl generally tends to be a defensive game, where a single match can require about as much time as a whole tournament set in another competitive fighting game. Sometimes it can go as far as to exceed the 8 minute timer, without any intentions of stalling or letting the game time out by either player. Of course timing the opponent out is a legitimate tactic to win and there's nothing inherently wrong with ending a match after 8 minutes. But it's not reasonable if neither player has the intention to actually end a match that way. If a match could've ended "regularly" after 8:30 minutes with both players best intentions it's not very sensible to take away that option from them.
Keep in mind that we assume that neither player has the intention to actually go for the time-out [this has happened many times in Europe and our metagame is considered a lot less defensive than the USA where timeouts happen a lot] so since it evidently has come this far I think it's obvious that the timer should be increased. As a general rule of thumb it has become apparent that it's reasonable to have 3 minutes for each stock - since we generally use 3 stocks, 9 minutes should be the minimum.
*Counter Argument:
"An increased timer means longer tournaments, which is not only harder to scedule but we also might risk to exceed the time for which we have the venue. Events will take too long."
*Solution:
There is no evidence whatsoever to back up this statement. The japanese have a ten minute timer and still manage to comfortably run a 60+ people tournament over a normal weekend - including massive amounts of time for free play. During these tournaments a single, double as well as a low tier event is run without any time constraints and their matches actually take longer than the average US game [most of the games run over 6 minutes, some of them over 8]. The key point is that an increased timer doesn't mean that a match takes longer - on the contrary: With a better solution to time outs [will be covered below] and a higher timer, timing out the opponent becomes unattractive and many people who regularily time people out [including Mew2King] will prefer to deal with the opponent "regularily" and either beat or lose to him - in 5 minutes on average, which means that 3 minutes are saved from the assumed 8 minute time-out.
---
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaya
- If the timer runs out, the victor is determined first by stock and then by percentage.
This is quite possibly the most overlooked mistake but it may actually be the most fatal one. This is one of the rules as I mentioned above blatantly favours characters that have the ability to make themselves unattackable [or hardly attackable] for a certain amount of time. The game itself never consideres this rule an option and it's not only completely arbitrary but also overcentralizing and breaks the game in favour of characters that can plank [Meta Knight, Pit, Marth, Pikachu, ROB or even Bowser if you like], scrooge [Pit, Meta Knight] or camp in the air [Meta Knight, Wario]. As you see this rule clearly favours mainly Meta Knight as well as a few other characters. The question is: What logical reason does the BBR have to keep on insisting on this rule ever since the release of the first official ruleset? They have yet to explain why this rule is in place because logically there's no reason to use it.
Let's assume a common scenario - Snake vs Meta Knight, last stock; Snake has 110% - MK has 109%. Without any doubt this scenario would be clearly in Snake's favour if it wasn't for the time-out rule that gives Meta Knight an arbitrary and unjustified advantage because he can safely time him out - is it really a wonder that Meta Knight looks so overpowered when you serve him the wins on a silver platter with such awful rules?
The problem of the rule is that the amount of percent a player has does not directly correspond to how close he is to victory. Therefore this rule has to be changed more than than any other has to as it directly determines between a win and a loss - without a logic basis that fits competitive play.
I believe the ground time rule to be the best when it comes to time-outs. Why? Because timing the opponent still remains a legitimate, easily accessable tactic but it requires a skill gap that is big enough that the same opponent could easily be beaten "regularily". If you manage to time the opponent out while staying on the ground over 9 minutes longer than him then nobody can deny that the win is deserved. Additionally - despite what critics of this rule claim - it does not favour any character, which I will explain below.
*Counter argument:
"Timing out is a legitimate tactic in any other fighting game, why do you discourage it? Also, it favours ground based characters more."
*Solution:
Timing out is no more or less legitimate with a ground time rule than with any other rule. The requirements are merely changed but they are neither uncontrollable nor abusable by either player. Timing the opponent is still a viable tactic.
It doesn't favour any character because even ground based opponents spend time in the air - these two things are not to be confused. During a 9 or 10 minute match Snake spends massive time in the air due to his extreme survivability and the long animation of his recovery. Falco spends a lot of time in the air because of his SHDL, Olimar has a very slow fall which means he'll stay in the air for a while - all characters have variables that increase their air time by quite an ammount. At the same time it's easy for an airborne opponent to catch up to an opponent who remains solely on the ground. If you get timed out by a Snake / Olimar / Falco / Diddy Kong who stayed on the ground longer than you for the whole match, then you AS A PLAYER did it wrong and YOU DESERVE TO LOSE.
As you see, this rule is viable in competitive play and doesn't cater for any character or any character's attribute.
---
Modifying these two rules would fix a lot of the problems that the North American metagame has with Meta Knight. However: Neither does actually weaken him - it only takes away the massive buff he is given by the BBR ruleset. None of these rule cater for or purposfully neglect a character or a certain attribute.
Other countries such as Japan and Mexico have used the same [or similar] adjustments to the ruleset. As a result they do not only have a flourishing tournament scene but they have also produced enormous talent, that matches or surpasses that of the vast majority of players from USA because they don't have a ruleset that gives away easy wins for a small selection of characters. A common complaint is the selection of stages and I'd like to have a few words on that as well. Before I critisize it I'd like to add that I'm well aware that this is the part where competitive becomes a question of personal definition. Furthermore, no stage should ever be banned because of an individual character in my opinion.
---
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaya
Counter Pick Group One
- Frigate Orpheon
- Brinstar
I don't think that Brinstar should be recommended for competitive play. Unlike Frigate Orpheon [which I'm completely OK with] the stage itself poses a constant threat to both players to an extent that it becomes more important to deal with the stage than your actual opponent. This not a good nutrient for competitive play. The stage can hurt you - sometimes out of your own control - which nets 14% damage as well as free opportunity for the opponent to hit you. By my personal definition the stage does not meet the conditions for competitive play.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaya
Counter Pick Group Two
- Pictochat
- Rainbow Cruise
- Pokémon Stadium 2
- Jungle Japes
- Norfair
Pictochat is not acceptable for competitive play. Uncontrollable, randomly appearing hazards that heavily influence the battle make this stage unviable for tournament use. Norfair has the same issues as Brinstar, except that the occurances are even more influental but still uncontrollable. Rainbow Cruise's inconsistent composition and uncontrollably [dis-]appearing platforms and hazard make this stage hardly usable for tournament ouside of freeplay. Jungle Japes has to be banned because of visual problems - on some TVs and for some players the luminance is too low to make it a viable stage for tournaments.
I have yet to see a problem with Pokémon Stadium 2 and I don't understand why the BBR would consider Brinstar before this stage.
Finally, I'd like to add that these aren't the only rules that need to be fixed - the suicide rule still remains problematic [to say the least] for example - but these are the most fundamental changes that the current ruleset needs [if you want a healthy metagame without unneeded bans, that is]. The BBR will never approve of this changes because they are unable to change or open up their minds. They would rather follow their flawed path and expose the community to a sick, broken metagame - with or without Meta Knight.
It's good to know though that most TOs don't follow the BBR's "advice" at least. Here's hoping that you'll follow mine - a fellow TO and regular tournament attendant.
Budget Player Cadet, don't post in this thread please.
