The Unity Ruleset: Discussion

[Alex Strife]

I'll let you guys debate it.

For me I understand what you are saying but there is a difference in what Falco can do vs what D3 can do in regards to doing CGs vs doing something that takes the control out of the players hand.

Is it a double standard for Icz players...YES...but there is so much more to creating rules than just what is being done now.

 

[Deleted member]

Doesn't DK have zero-death on Ness/Lucas?

Yes, he does. That's actually what I had in mind in my previous post, lol.

 

[clowsui]

i have to go to class, so i'll respond later...but i'm still not convinced

 

[Orion*]

Well, I say it is important?

People that want to argue will argue anyway

Firstly, this means that I cannot be called "wrong"

You're wrong....

This is easy. The fact that the people that matter really don't care about your opinion LOL

you can't be serious, the difference is so clear, if you argue against it your just stubborn and addicted to argue. Your comparison is bad and you should feel bad for saying that (BPCs former favorite sentence <3)

Taking 1/3 of your stocks by one touch is not comparable with doing damage with an ordinary attack.

I'm Con-Ban for infinites though but your argument was just bad.

This

comparison[/I] means that I am saying two different things are exactly the same.

Nobody said they where EXACTLY the same actually.. however you did make a direct comparison, so having people assume that they are similar is well. the point lmao

I made a perfectly legitimate statement (Banning Up Tilt against Puff would increase her viability) to help further my argument (I used the Puff comparison to show that the only distinction that can be made is how much they effect the game depth-wise. Which is subjective, so I cannot be called objectively wrong for not agreeing with a LGL or an infinite ban).

Heres why its not so "subjective" and why you look ********

Banning utilt against puff literally
A. Does nothing, as puff will still suck LMAO
B. You are banning a move, not a tactic so its not as easily comparable
C. The tactic drastically changes a matchup, making it go from potentially near even and at worst definitely winnable to a near impossible matchup.
Banning uptilt won't save jigglypuff from losing to snake lol

Again I stress the increasingly obvious (by now) point that the amount of viability gained when you make a direct comparison between two things, and people are talking about viability (since you know that matters) has EVERYTHING to with whatever point you want to make.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I'm getting to that, but I'd like BPC to address my current point first, which is: "Why should we differentiate between these two depth-increasing rules?"

If his answer is the same as yours, John, I'll move on from there. Otherwise I'll refute both the point you brought up (about how much the rule affects the match-up) and whatever BPC comes up with.

Savvy?

Practicality and effect. You know, the two biggest things to consider when making a rule?

On one hand you have a move. You cannot effectively demonstrate its use, you would end up DQing quite a few people for forgetting the rule (because it's really out there), there would be the issue of how to punish whiffs... It would also not really help that much because Jigglypuff would still suck. The character would still be unviable, would still have hilariously bad matchups (G&W 90-10s her, doesn't he?), and would still suck *** against snake (Oh wow, now it's a 70-30 instead of an 80-20! Doesn't change that much at all).
On the other hand you have a long series of moves. You cannot effectively demonstrate its use, but you can prevent it from happening by calling a judge over–it's a fairly long process to infinite someone to death. It would seriously help the viability of DK, a character who is borderline viable but shown to be strong again and again by people like Will, Ook, and NeK (he's super turbo legit) by moving the matchup from the 90-10 to the 60-40 (around there, I think...) range.

you can't be serious, the difference is so clear, if you argue against it your just stubborn and addicted to argue. Your comparison is bad and you should feel bad for saying that (BPCs former favorite sentence <3)

Taking 1/3 of your stocks by one touch is not comparable with doing damage with an ordinary attack.

I'm Con-Ban for infinites though but your argument was just bad.

"Former"?

Why do I need to find a better comparison when the one that I made works just fine?

Unless you are trying to tell me that you believe that banning Snake's up tilt against Jigglypuff won't make her slightly more viable?

That argument was bad and you should feel bad.

I will be using the typical EC rules with D3 and Marth Standing chain-grabs banned.

I try to look at things in a more GREATER GOOD whole as opposed to what is truly "fair".

We can all argue and theorize what is legal and fair but we are not a community that have the game created for tournaments as SF or MVC is. We made the rules and with that we have to live with the fact that we have to balance what is great for the community and the casuals.

Many TOs are about the numbers and not about improving the event itself. Very few realize how many tools we have as a community to get things better. That is something we need to focus on more and not the rules. We can have people who run events everyday in the back room but that does not mean they do not improve the community and help to change things.

We need to step up and work on that as this is so insignificant to the bigger picture.

Hello. For once I agree with Alex. Now if only he wasn't such a derphead when it comes to stages.

 

[[FBC] ESAM]

Alex, who benefits from not having the infinites?

Ness, Lucas, DK, Bowser players (Mario, luigi, and Samus can mash out since D3's pummel is slow as ****).

Who doesn't benefit?

Marth, Pokemon Trainer, Dedede, DK

Damn so...4/4 OBVIOUSLY MEANS ITS BETTER

Hell, there are more D3s and Marths than all of the other characters in those lists combined...and you are really scared that you are hurting those characters' chances more than D3/Marth? Hell yeah thats fair as hell. And by that I mean mad subjective.

There is also a hell of a big difference between people ledgecamping (Which affects multiple characters per planker) to warrant an LGL than the amount of infinites in this game. MK can plank EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER IN THE GAME, INCLUDING HIMSELF! D3 can infinite 5 people (Assuming nobody can actually do the buffer pivot grab), Marath infinites 2, DK infinites 2, and that's it. So...11 vs 38 or however many characters there are, plus people like Pikachu, DK, Pit, and G&W who can plank a good 9 characters each. There is a big difference in the amount of people that are affected by ledge-camping as opposed to infinites.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

ESAM, what you're missing is how big the benefit is. Sure, Marth, PT, DDD, and DK get a slight nerf... But is it really a huge deal? Really? Remember, we're talking about a tactic that turns a matchup from "kinda bad but still winnable" into "OH DEAR GOD WHY" for the most part.

 

[Seagull Joe]

Dk's buff is negated by the nerf that D3 infiniting is then given to him.

 

[[FBC] ESAM]

And you know what also exists? Counterpicks. Stage and Character.

 

[John12346]

Oh gee willeckers I hope the stage randomly intrudes on my opponent while I'm being infinited to 300%. Especially on the starter stage and my opponent's counterpick, which will likely both be flat, non-intrusive stages.

Also we have Yoshi:Wario and Dedede:Dedede if we're talking infinites.

 

[T-block]

Pokemon Trainer doesn't infinite anyone unless there's a wall -_- Why do people keep insisting he does?

Dedede on Wolf as well. ZSS on Wario. Diddy on cast.

Also, Dedede's buffered reverse dash action or w/e isn't infinite because of tripping.

 

[John12346]

Pokemon Trainer doesn't infinite anyone unless there's a wall -_- Why do people keep insisting he does?

Dedede on Wolf as well. ZSS on Wario. Diddy on cast.

And on that note, we can remodulate ESAM's benefit/nerf list.

Who benefits: Ness, Lucas, Dedede, Wario, Wolf, Bowser, DK
Who gets 'nerfed': Dedede, Marth, Zamus, Yoshi, DK

7 chars benefit, 5 get nerfed. Okay.

 

[T-block]

I already had a list compiled...I'll see if I can dig it up:

Infinites:

• Dedede d-throw on Luigi/Mario/Samus/DK (only works on first three if you can get one pummel in)
• Dedede d-throw by the edge on Dedede/Wolf
• Diddy Kong PSNL, SNL with turnaround
• Cast PSNL on Diddy Kong
• Donkey Kong cargo infinite on Ness
• Donkey Kong cargo infinite on Lucas
• Ice Climbers chain grabs
• Bowser/Ganondorf/Yoshi/ZSS standing grab release on Wario; pivot grabs are excluded due to tripping
• ZSS d-smash footstool d-air on ROB

Requires a wall:

• Cast grab release on Ness/Lucas
• Jab locks (including Laser and Ice Block)
• Fox shine infinite
• Dedede d-throw on majority of cast
• Yoshi standing grab release on Captain Falcon

Not infinite, but often discussed anyways:

• Dedede small-step chain grab
• Marth grab release on Ness/Lucas
• Squirtle grab release on Ness
• Charizard grab release on Ness

 

[[FBC] ESAM]

Ok sorry, you have a super small step on lucas/ness as squirtle/charizard, don't you?

Also, infinites are very difficult to determine which get banned and which don't.

So...D3 infiniting those characters is bannable, but Pikachu 0-deathing Wolf, Fox, Falcon, and Sheik isn't And its fair to let diddy infinite everybody/have a lot of characters infinite diddy? It's unfair to have Yoshi/ZSS/Ike infinite wario but it is fine to let Ice Climbers CG literally every character?

You guys see the problem?

Also, and I know this hasn't been discused in a while, but the suicide rule is a lot of common sense. If you say "the initiator of a suicide move wins," you are including a lot of things...

A Jigglypuff rests somebody off-stage and dies, but their opponent is dying in the background. It was suicide move so Jiggs wins.

(Tournament example) A wario uses a full waft to hit Snake, but wario dies off the top as well and goes into the front of the screen as snake dies in the back. Wario should win?

So yeah...there are a lot of ambiguities with that statement, and specifically buffing one or 2 characters isn't worth it, and it is a bad rule by design anyway.



T-Block, you forgot Pikachu's 0-death on Fox, Wolf, Falcon, and Sheik, as well as Sheik's tilt lock on Fox.

 

[T-block]

Those aren't infinite so I didn't include them.

Charizard moves forward quite a bit when regrabbing Ness. Squirtle moves forward very slightly. Neither pokemon can standing regrab Lucas, so it actually shouldn't even get explicit mention on that list. I'll remove it.

I think enforceabilty is a huge problem with banning infinites, so from a practical side there is still argument against their banning, if you don't agree with the ideals that lead to the ban.

 

[John12346]

Hey, when are we gonna open up separate topics for each of the controversial issues in the Unity Ruleset? Keeping everything cluttered in this thread may serve as a problem as time passes by.

NO-IDea had the right idea when he made his thread...

For example, you could divide the Unity Ruleset (and Brawl rules in general) into:

1. Time Limit
2. Number of Starter Stages
3. Legality of Stages
4. Legality of Infinites
5. Legality of Characters (give the MK argument a place to discuss, I'm sure there are people out there that are passionate about the topic still)

Etc. etc. I'm sure those more participatory and informed in these matters (the proper authorities... the BBR-RC?) can think of better topics to divide the ruleset into.

We should probably consider doing this sometime sooner than later just so we can actually discuss a topic without it being lost forever after about 3 days.

 

[Nidtendofreak]

Ike's Fthrow isn't an infinity. It just goes to like, 100% depending on the character.

D3's Dthrow against a wall on the other hand...

 

[T-block]

Thanks for the correction. Don't know how I missed Dedede's wall d-throw lol

There was talk of that, John... I'll follow up.

 

[Seagull Joe]

And on that note, we can remodulate ESAM's benefit/nerf list.

Who benefits: Ness, Lucas, Dedede, Wario, Wolf, Bowser, DK
Who gets 'nerfed': Dedede, Marth, Zamus, Yoshi, DK

7 chars benefit, 5 get nerfed. Okay.

Wrong for Wolf. Ledge infinites have always been legal so he is unaffected by the banning of regular infinites. He gets buffed if it's banned only barely since D3 vs Wolf is already still a horrid matchup, but I've never been to a tourney on the Ec where ledge infinites were banned.

 

[Supreme Dirt]

I'm of the opinion that either ban all infinites or none of them. It's not my fault if infinites banned makes Ice Climbers non-viable any more than it would be with infinites allowed make DK nonviable.

 

[san.]

Ike's Fthrow isn't an infinity. It just goes to like, 100% depending on the character.

D3's Dthrow against a wall on the other hand...

Depends when you start the throw. If started at low percents, it can work up through 140-180%+.


Ike has the advantage of being able to get the wall CG off anywhere near a wall due to both bthrow and fthrow leading to another grab.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

ZSS has an easy banana infinite on Diddy Kong too. Dakpo was doing it to Gnes and ADHD at WHOBO lol

 

[T-block]

I think everyone can infinite Diddy on FD. Fewer characters can do it when there are platforms in the way IIRC.

Everyone benefits from infinites legal, everyone nerfed by infinites legal =o

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

I think everyone can infinite Diddy on FD. Fewer characters can do it when there are platforms in the way IIRC.

Everyone benefits from infinites legal, everyone nerfed by infinites legal =o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OFhV1IC3Fw no this. It can be done with platforms if they're high enough (like the center of BF) but is more difficult I think.

 

[Deleted member]

Also, and I know this hasn't been discused in a while, but the suicide rule is a lot of common sense. If you say "the initiator of a suicide move wins," you are including a lot of things...

A Jigglypuff rests somebody off-stage and dies, but their opponent is dying in the background. It was suicide move so Jiggs wins.

(Tournament example) A wario uses a full waft to hit Snake, but wario dies off the top as well and goes into the front of the screen as snake dies in the back. Wario should win?

So yeah...there are a lot of ambiguities with that statement, and specifically buffing one or 2 characters isn't worth it, and it is a bad rule by design anyway.

It all comes down to what people consider suicide moves, and I think it's a general consensus that both Ganon and Bowser's side-b specials are considered as such. Therefore, the initiator of those should have the victory.

You can't say a move like Jigglypuff's rest would be debateable as a suicide move. If they were foolhardy enough to try that offstage and they die, then that's that. It isn't like Jigglypuff is trying to take her opponent with her like Bowser and Ganon's moves obviously do.

A better example you could have given would be Kirby and D3's "swallowcide" moves.

 

[Nidtendofreak]

Depends when you start the throw. If started at low percents, it can work up through 140-180%+.


Ike has the advantage of being able to get the wall CG off anywhere near a wall due to both bthrow and fthrow leading to another grab.

I've only ever had it work to about 110%. *shrugs* Maybe the PS1 wall is a bit odd? That's where they all were...

Anyhow: either ban all infinties (including ICs), or allow all infinties (including D3's). No cherry picking "Well, these characters really need infinities to do well, so we'll allow them, and these characters really hurt with infinties allows, so we'll ban these ones." I don't care which one of those two options, but pick one, not both.

 

[Alphicans]

Just in regards to the suicide rule, people tend to forget that players can purposely go into a suicide move as a type of strategy. This would be a good idea vs ganon, because at this point everyone should know that ganon can either lose are we get a 1 stock rematch.

Consider the following:

(somehow lol...) it's last stock falco vs ganon, and ganon is leading my a solid 60%, but then the falco dsmashes him, the ganon has bad DI and decides to sideB recover quickly because upB would be easily ledgehogged. However, the falco reads this and purposely jumps into the sideB, so he could either win or have an easy campfest 1 stock rematch.

The argument that it's the players fault for getting sucked into a suicide move, making the initiator the clear victor isn't actually that clear. It could be for strategic purposes.

 

[Orion*]

T-Block, you forgot Pikachu's 0-death on Fox, Wolf, Falcon, and Sheik, as well as Sheik's tilt lock on Fox.

0-death =/= infinite

camp for a few minutes on a platform lol

It all comes down to what people consider suicide moves, and I think it's a general consensus that both Ganon and Bowser's side-b specials are considered as such. Therefore, the initiator of those should have the victory.

You can't say a move like Jigglypuff's rest would be debateable as a suicide move. If they were foolhardy enough to try that offstage and they die, then that's that. It isn't like Jigglypuff is trying to take her opponent with her like Bowser and Ganon's moves obviously do.

A better example you could have given would be Kirby and D3's "swallowcide" moves.

This was my opinion lol

I've only ever had it work to about 110%. *shrugs* Maybe the PS1 wall is a bit odd? That's where they all were...

Anyhow: either ban all infinties (including ICs), or allow all infinties (including D3's). No cherry picking "Well, these characters really need infinities to do well, so we'll allow them, and these characters really hurt with infinties allows, so we'll ban these ones." I don't care which one of those two options, but pick one, not both.

ICs will still 0-death you though so theres no point lol

 

[theunabletable]

First of all: what T-block said. Second of all: it's completely reasonable to exclude stages that are broken in every matchup from the procedure, as well as any banned stage. (That is, most of the stages banned in BBR 3.0 other than maybe Skyworld and Onett are broken in almost every matchup)
The reasoning behind cutting the banned stages... Well, we're looking for the median of bias from the legal stages, AFAIK. So to remove the strawman aspect... I would personally advocate 13 (or 15, or 17-depends on how large the existing stage list is) stage starter lists, if it wasn't for those pesky time constraints.

Of course there are some stages that are broken in every matchup. You can strike those if your character loses on that stage in that matchup.

Sounds like it's closer to staying true to the ACTUAL game. And if in a matchup, one character still gets the **** on his opponent's 21st best stage in that matchup, sounds like that's a ****ty character haha

Time constraints is a subjective reason therefore you are automatically wrong. ggcp?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

let me get this straight

it's acceptable to ban infinites and reduce potential character diversity because banning infinites won't increase character diversity at all, it will just create more MK mains because he's the best CP vs DDD/other bad MUs?

is that the big picture we're referring to? i'm just making sure we're very clear on this. my statement sounds biased but that's because i don't know a different way to word it >__>

edit: like when you don't ban infinites theoretically it SHOULD increase character diversity because people will pick up characters that do better vs D3...but this is obviously a problem if there's a best option that covers many characters, not just d3 lol

I was going to bring this up as well.

Practicality and effect. You know, the two biggest things to consider when making a rule?

On one hand you have a move. You cannot effectively demonstrate its use

What do you mean? If they hit you with an Up Tilt it's pretty obvious. Let's have a hypothetical situation: Jigglypuff vs. Snake in tournament, there are no spectators. The Snake up tilts the Puff and the Puff calls a ref over, who can't do anything as he didn't see it (The Snake is of course denying it). Though the ref will stay there and ensure that the rule isn't broken again.

Hypothetical situation 2: DK vs. D3. The DK gets infinited and he pauses the game to call a ref over. The D3 says that he had just grabbed the DK, as there is no proof he was performing an infinite on him. Again, the ref stays around to make sure it happens again.

you would end up DQing quite a few people for forgetting the rule (because it's really out there)

It isn't difficult to remember one extra rule, and it's the players fault if they don't remember it. If it became the standard (it never will obviously, just hypothetically) people would remember it just as much as the MK dimensional cape rule and the infinite rule.

there would be the issue of how to punish whiffs...

Err... why should whiffs be punished? They don't affect Puff's viability at all...

It would also not really help that much because Jigglypuff would still suck. The character would still be unviable, would still have hilariously bad matchups (G&W 90-10s her, doesn't he?), and would still suck *** against snake (Oh wow, now it's a 70-30 instead of an 80-20! Doesn't change that much at all).

There you go, so it is about the amount of depth gained. I cannot be called "wrong" or "illogical" for believing that infinites should stay legal any more than you can be called "wrong"/"illogical" for not banning obscure things like Meta Knight's tornado.

On the other hand you have a long series of moves. You cannot effectively demonstrate its use, but you can prevent it from happening by calling a judge over–it's a fairly long process to infinite someone to death. It would seriously help the viability of DK, a character who is borderline viable but shown to be strong again and again by people like Will, Ook, and NeK (he's super turbo legit) by moving the matchup from the 90-10 to the 60-40 (around there, I think...) range.

I think this would be a good time to bring up that banning the infinite changes nothing, as Donkey Kong will still get 0 > death'd, the D3 will just take a single step in-between each down throw.

That argument was bad and you should feel bad.

That argument got you to say exactly what I wanted you to say, so check and mate.

 

[John12346]

What do you mean? If they hit you with an Up Tilt it's pretty obvious. Let's have a hypothetical situation: Jigglypuff vs. Snake in tournament, there are no spectators. The Snake up tilts the Puff and the Puff calls a ref over, who can't do anything as he didn't see it (The Snake is of course denying it). Though the ref will stay there and ensure that the rule isn't broken again.

Hypothetical situation 2: DK vs. D3. The DK gets infinited and he pauses the game to call a ref over. The D3 says that he had just grabbed the DK, as there is no proof he was performing an infinite on him. Again, the ref stays around to make sure it happens again.

Uh okay. Banning a move that does 17%, can be done on accident, and pretty much makes the character unviable without that move

can definitely be put on equal footing with

banning a technique that does 300% AND kills the opponent, cannot be done on accident, and does not invalidate the character when removed.

 

[MK26]

*wonders whether characters can infinite ness and lucas with perfect reverse pivot grabs*

 

[fkacyan]

All this infinite banning reeks of stupidity.

 

[BSP]

This was probably brought up, but it's odd how infinites have no restriction, but planking does

 

[Alphicans]

Probably because planking can affect every match-up.

 

[Tin Man]

ICs chain grabs can affect every matchup yet They are allowed. Probably because of Rich Brown at Whobo 3.

 

[Orion*]

There you go, so it is about the amount of depth gained. I cannot be called "wrong" or "illogical" for believing that infinites should stay legal any more than you can be called "wrong"/"illogical" for not banning obscure things like Meta Knight's tornado.

I dont care if you ignore me or not since you didnt respond to my post but you really dont understand the difference between banning a move and a tactic lmao

 

[Alphicans]

ICs chain grabs can affect every matchup yet They are allowed. Probably because of Rich Brown at Whobo 3.

Yeah but all infinites are allowed. But yes, Will vs Richbrown was probably a factor.

 

[-Googs]

PoundV had all infinites legal and nobody said a word


get off the bandwagon people

 

[BSP]

So what's up with Rule #5? Can we define "intentional forfeiting"?