The MK Legal Ruleset Discussion

[ElDominio]

SV can let you scrooge without grabbing the ledge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0Y9pRs4zFw

I still don't get how people can look at that and tell me MK isn't broken....

I (emphasis on ME) can do what MK does in that video, and ADHD (afaik, a very top-level player, amirite) is having a horrible time just deciding what to do.

So for MK-legal ruleset... yeah....
ummm i guess MK can't go under the stage lol, or just keep stages that aren't floating.

 

[Tesh]

Diddy Kong, Snake and a few other good characters can pressure a scrooging MK into a bit of chip damage or at least a ledge grab tho. I think SV/Frigate scrooging wouldn't be an issue with a low enough ledge grab limit. Especially if its 1 stock matches. Then even a character like Olimar or Falco can snipe him to get the lead back.

 

[Conviction]

How about making a timeout without a 2 stock lead results in a tie, which is followed by a 1 stock 3 min match.

OMG the worst idea ever.

Jebus tried arguing for this

 

[Tesh]

1 stock 10 lgl?

it feels low but it definitely fits. Or I guess 15 is good enough. The dumb thing about LGL in 1 stock is that it has to be so low to be effective. Makes you wonder if a little bit of ledgeplay or edgehogging for damage would result in a bad timeout.

 

[krazyzyko]

1 stock less for MK.

Wow this guy makes so much sense I couldn't ignore his post.

 

[Judo777]

Diddy Kong, Snake and a few other good characters can pressure a scrooging MK into a bit of chip damage or at least a ledge grab tho. I think SV/Frigate scrooging wouldn't be an issue with a low enough ledge grab limit. Especially if its 1 stock matches. Then even a character like Olimar or Falco can snipe him to get the lead back.

This game doesn't have chip damage..... lol

 

[Tesh]

Same concept, I take it you get what I mean. If you have a stock lead and you get pressures by a few projectiles offstage as MK, you might get hit by a falling peanut or banana and not care, but in a 1 stock match, it matters because they won't ever have to throw their stocks at you for a chance to win.

Thats basically the reason other fighters have chip damage. So you can't just sit there avoiding combat forever and win.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

How many matches would be played in a set with one stock?

 

[John12346]

If memory serves, the 1 stock sets at Concentrate were 3 out of 5, and 4 out of 7 for Finals matches.

 

[Tesh]

I'd recomend 7-9 for regular sets if you aren't also trying to save time. Tho it looks like this MK legal ruleset is leaning towards less than 9 stages. You guys definitely would need to do something about DSR for finals matches if you go with 1 stock AND a conservative stagelist.

Another idea might be to have as little as 2 games with the an added "must win by 2 games" clause. So you can't win 5-4, it has to be 6-4. Standard in Tennis and I think it fits 1 stock matches perfectly.

[collapse=Taken from wikipedia]In standard play, scoring beyond a "deuce" score, in which both players have scored three points each, requires that one player must win two consecutive points in order to win the game. This type of tennis scoring is known as "advantage scoring" (or "ads"). In this type of scoring, the player who wins the next point after deuce is said to have the advantage. If the player with advantage loses the next point, the score is again deuce, since the score is tied. If the player with the advantage wins the next point, that player has won the game, since the player now leads by two points. When the server is the player with the advantage, the score may be stated by him before the next point as "advantage in." When the server's opponent has the advantage, the server may state the score as "advantage out." These phrases are sometimes shortened to "ad in" and "ad out." Alternatively, the server may simply use players' names; in professional tournaments the umpire announces the score in this format (e.g., "advantage McEnroe" or "advantage Borg"). [/collapse]

What I'm thinking is:
-each set must be at least 3 games, 5 for finals sets (still time to adapt and bring a set back when losing 2-0)
-you must beat your opponent on one of his CPs to win, no winning on the "neutral" and then only your CPs (defeat them when they have an advantage)
-if you stagelist winds up being too small, modify DSR to only apply to the 2 or 3 most recent CPs. (stage diversity, close sets may require skills to be tested on every stage)

Small possibility of sets lasting "forever" against 2 evenly matches opponents. It might be necessary to cap the amount of games somewhere around 13-17. This isn't as absurdly high as it sounds. 17x3= 51 Minutes and I saw a 9 game set of regular brawl doubles last longer than that just this saturday.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

how about 2 out of 3 mini sets (sets of 2 out of 3 with one stock)? Each set is played on the same stage and the loser of the set counterpicks the next stage. Finals can be 3 out of 5 mini sets (sets of 2 out of 3)

 

[Sorto]

how about 2 out of 3 mini sets (sets of 2 out of 3 with one stock)? Each set is played on the same stage and the loser of the set counterpicks the next stage. Finals can be 3 out of 5 mini sets (sets of 2 out of 3)

Doesn't this also hinder lucarios aura effect?

That is my major gripe with lowering stocks

 

[Ussi]

I would say, not really, because if you have a stock deficiency, you're still losing :\ despite being more powerful, then you are brought back to your original unbuffed by stock power for the last stock.


I have to say from what I've noticed is that A LOT of MUs are dependent on who got the first kill.

 

[ElDominio]

Why not use the Items Standard Play ruleset with MK legal?

MK is perfectly fine with items on, and, really, Brawl has been much more thought out in the sense of items than Melee even....

Why are items off again?

 

[Ussi]

Same reason we started with 4 stock 8 minutes.

 

[Ghostbone]

Why are items off again?

Because many are over-powered and provide massive advantages.

Think about how good Diddy is just because of bananas, which is one of the more mellow items.
Then there's Peach, who has broken pressure if she pulls out a Mr.Saturn.

Now remember that if we turn items on, these rewards will be given out randomly to either player.
I mean at least with Peach, it's more of a controlled thing, and part of the character, rather than being randomly biased towards either player.


Food would be ok though.

 

[Ussi]

Have you read the allowed items in ISP?

Edit: well if you think mr. Saturn is too good go make a case about it in the ISP

 

[Ghostbone]

Have you read the allowed items in ISP?

Edit: well if you think mr. Saturn is too good go make a case about it in the ISP

I've argued against it before, and the argument that I got back was "There's nothing bad about randomness"

Which is silly but whatever.

 

[ElDominio]

Items (especially ones like Mr. Saturn) can be easily caught anywhere in the air/ground//anything lol

 

[rathy Aro]

Oh hi there Sorto. I didn't know you play brawl.

I'd say we should play with very conservative stages like what we now call neutrals[/B]. I know that knowledge of a stage adds another layer of depth, but its not a skill that most people actually want to test so why should they have to. I've found most players that aren't in the tournament scene aren't even used to the "weird" stages we play and most people that do play in the tournament scene force themselves to practice on these stages because they know they can be cp'ed there. And to be specific battlefield, final destination, yoshi's island, smashville, and either lylat, pokemon stadium, or delphino or simply leave yoshi's out.

Two stocks 8 minute timer. I honestly think 3 stocks is optimal, but its not necessary. There are some weak arguments against this, but the biggest one is that 2 stocks gives the weaker player a better chance of getting lucky to win. The response to that is that we play a 2 out of 3 for exactly that reason. And the response to that is that we don't have a true 2 out of 3 because of the counter pick system, which leads to....

Stage striking for every game of the set. I think the counter pick system has always been a bad idea. The idea is to give the loser a better chance (which is anti-competitive anyway) but that fails because the winner of the first match just gets the same advantage in third match if it goes to that. Essentially the first game gets weighted more so than the other games especially with characters that do very well or very badly on certain stages. I don't know how I feel about the counter pick system when it comes to picking characters. On the one hand it has all the aforementioned problems on the other hand it allows the use of more characters in tournaments and then on the other hand it hurts the characters that have really one sided match ups to the point where they aren't viable (DK, lucas, ness, fox, etc).

 

[Ghostbone]

Items (especially ones like Mr. Saturn) can be easily caught anywhere in the air/ground//anything lol

Sure if you have a 7 frame reaction time.

 

[Ussi]

I've seen some crazy item plays with bananas. Diddys catching bananas thrown at them and such.

Mr. Saturn requires someone to shield against you while you have no A attacks, so unless your specials are good enough to pressure without A moves, you probably can't force someone into a shield.

 

[Ghostbone]

I've seen some crazy item plays with bananas. Diddys catching bananas thrown at them and such.

That's prediction (if the opponent's being predictable) or luck (trying to do something else and it grabs it)

Mr. Saturn requires someone to shield against you while you have no A attacks, so unless your specials are good enough to pressure without A moves, you probably can't force someone into a shield.

...They still get ***** by Mr. Saturn if they don't shield though.

 

[Ussi]

I'd say an aerial to catch the Saturn and counterattack does well.

Can Mr. Saturn lead to combos on a hit?

 

[Ghostbone]

Can Mr. Saturn lead to combos on a hit?

Definitely.

 

[krazyzyko]

Oh, here's simple idea.
Metaknights starts the matches with 2 stocks. (obviously by suiciding ASAP)
And other characters remain with 3 stocks.
vs

If all players use MK then the stocks will be the standard 3.
What do you guys think?

 

[Ghostbone]

Oh, here's simple idea.
Metaknights starts the matches with 2 stocks. (obviously by suiciding ASAP)
And other characters remain with 3 stocks.
vs

If all players use MK then the stocks will be the standard 3.
What do you guys think?

Main problem is it opens the door to a whole bunch of nerfs to other characters.

Like lets give IC only 1 stock against Ganon, D3 1 stock against DK, limiting of specific moves in certain match-ups, etc.

 

[krazyzyko]

Not really. Those characters were never considered to be broken, overpowered nor banned.
MK is the only character that breaks the counterpick system, so that will only apply to him.

And it sounds simpler than changing the timer, stage list, LGL, etc.

 

[WindMajor]

Adding rules to characters to keep them legal is a sign that the character shouldn't be legal in the first place.

 

[krazyzyko]

Well then, what's the point of this thread?

 

[Juushichi]

He got you there Twinkie.

 

[Judo777]

That's prediction (if the opponent's being predictable) or luck (trying to do something else and it grabs it)

...They still get ***** by Mr. Saturn if they don't shield though.

No its not its option selecting which is why instant tossing is so good. Execute an instant toss anytime you think one might be thrown, if you succeed you will have a shot and reversing momentum (usually successful) if you are wrong you airdodge and no harm done (unless they punish it but thats not the point)

 

[ElDominio]

He got you there Twinkie.

loololololol QFT

btw my sig is pretty weird

 

[WindMajor]

Well then, what's the point of this thread?

There is none.

 

[Ghostbone]

No its not its option selecting which is why instant tossing is so good. Execute an instant toss anytime you think one might be thrown, if you succeed you will have a shot and reversing momentum (usually successful) if you are wrong you airdodge and no harm done (unless they punish it but thats not the point)

How is punishing the air-dodge not relevant? If you just spam air-dodges trying to instant throw items back to me you're going to get punished hard...

 

[Sorto]

Adding rules to characters to keep them legal is a sign that the character shouldn't be legal in the first place.

Yea, so I guess you believe that jiggs should be banned in melee because of the rising pound stall.

Ice climbers because of the freeze glitch.

It is an argument of stalling and running a timer is banned.

The rules are not mk specific, they are mk stall specific, which is allowed. Or else jiggly should be banned in melee by the same logic.

The problem is, is to define stalling.

Is planking stalling? Framewise, mks planking is very arguably stalling if done frame perfectly.

Thus because of previous smash stalling regulation/ precendence rules, if the character specific stalling could be banned, it should be banned before the character is.

Planking can't be straight out banned but it can definetly be toned down to a point of being impossible to run the clock with. And it is really simple, increase the timer and lower the lgl.

 

[WindMajor]

I know nothing of Melee, so I can't answer that.

==

Planking can't be banned because it can't be defined. Planking can be limited, but it can't be done fairly, which is why I don't agree with putting on an LGL of any kind. If you want to make a ruleset with MK legal that makes sense, you'd have to run it without an LGL.

 

[Cassio]

Planking can't be banned because it can't be defined. Planking can be limited, but it can't be done fairly, which is why I don't agree with putting on an LGL of any kind. If you want to make a ruleset with MK legal that makes sense, you'd have to run it without an LGL.

The ruleset as it exists is already built to be fair to some and unfair to others. The fact that planking even exists in a game where it shouldnt is evidence of this. Its a product of the ideology, so such side effects mean nothing at all. Theres no 'degrees of fairness' on this matter, an lgl wont make the game any more or less fair than it already was, but it will help balance the game.


You can't push your ideology when it was already ignored to begin in making the existing ruleset , youre just creating a bigger mess as you force a combination of two viewpoints that cant coexist.

 

[Katakiri]

Yea, so I guess you believe that jiggs should be banned in melee because of the rising pound stall.

Ice climbers because of the freeze glitch.

Hmm...

Adding rules to characters to keep them legal is a sign that the character shouldn't be legal in the first place.

Adding rules to characters

Adding rules

rules

s

Plural.

IDCG, LGL, ANOTHER LGL for MK & MK only, Scrooging (Charizard & Pit are so broken), and that's not even mentioning all the ideas that were proposed & rejected for various reasons.

To turn that into Pokemon terms to show how silly it is:
You can use Rayquaza in standard, but he's not allowed to use Dragon Dance, Swords Dance, Agility, or Extremespeed.

It's the exact same thing.

 

[Raziek]

The ruleset as it exists is already built to be fair to some and unfair to others. The fact that planking even exists in a game where it shouldnt is evidence of this. Its a product of the ideology, so such side effects mean nothing at all. Theres no 'degrees of fairness' on this matter, an lgl wont make the game any more or less fair than it already was, but it will help balance the game.


You can't push your ideology when it was already ignored to begin in making the existing ruleset , youre just creating a bigger mess as you force a combination of two viewpoints that cant coexist.

This is so unbelievably bad. So, SO bad.

Where to even start.

First off, planking exists because of FRAME DATA, not the ruleset.

Second, obviously the ruleset is fair to some and not others. That's INEVITABLE.

Third, a LGL WILL make the game more fair if you believe that activities that the LGL restricts (ie planking) are inherently UNFAIR.

Finally, of COURSE he can present his own viewpoint, that's the whole damn point of challenging the current view.