The Unity Ruleset: Discussion

[Dabuz]

Blah blah blah.

What is the point of discussing together when you could do that in other threads though? Make a Brinstar thread in this forum and ***** about it, not here when all of the BRC members read this one in particular. Of course I can't say "You aren't allowed to do X here" but it is just a waste of energy and thought since it isn't going to happen. There is nothing wrong with the stage that will ban it AS A STAGE. A characters' dominance doesn't cause a stage to be banned, unless it is literally a 100% win rate of equally skilled players, which it isn't. No stage is banned due to character dominance, only due to bad stage mechanics. Brinstar has nothing wrong with it as a stage, therefore it will never be banned. EVER! I can tell you that the Committee won't ban it unless some broken technique comes out as somebody that makes them win every time easy.

@Esam: coming in here and telling everyone to STFU is not appreciated. You don't think brinstar will ever be banned, good for you, now, since you have nothing to add except acting like an enraged ****, get out of here. PS. don't ever try to argue by saying only when the win rate is 100% between two equally skilled players will the stage be banned. We are people, we make mistakes, we are inconsistent, 100% win rate is impossible because we are humans, not robots.



Now, to anyone here who doesn't wanna play on brinstar, get TOs in your area to test tourneys without brinstar and ask how people like the ruleset without brinstar. Its not like 1 stage will detract players form coming, and quite simply, it does do a lot more than a circle discussion

 

[_Kadaj_]

I'd say it's rather the CP system that caters to him.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

I'd say it's rather the CP system that caters to him.

Agreed.

The time-out rule also caters to him.

 

[Steam]

I'd say it's rather the CP system that caters to him.

not really. it's just that stages that actually help him out like a true CP stage push him over the edge. the CP system does not cater to him.

gheb- if you took away timeouts then MK would just plank all day long because you couldn't really enforce a LGL without timeouts.

 

[Tagxy]

People still talk about banning MK?

Anyone attempting to revive that conversation wont have much success unless you have a ruleset that doesnt work in favor of MK beforehand. The idea of banning MK before banning stages might garner decent support here on the boards, but once more of the tournament going community gets involved like last time itll go down the same path as every other MK ban attempt has. At best youll end up with a rift in the community between those holding tournaments with MK banned and those holding tournaments with his good stages banned (and other ruleset changes).

Or we could just leave things as they are.

 

[Steam]

the ruleset does not work in MKs favor... he doesn't get an extra ban or get to block the opponents ban or anything...

it clearly works against him... he has a lower LGL and the neutral stagelist is filled with some of his worst stages :/

 

[T-block]

Blah blah blah.

What is the point of discussing together when you could do that in other threads though? Make a Brinstar thread in this forum and ***** about it, not here when all of the BRC members read this one in particular. Of course I can't say "You aren't allowed to do X here" but it is just a waste of energy and thought since it isn't going to happen. There is nothing wrong with the stage that will ban it AS A STAGE. A characters' dominance doesn't cause a stage to be banned, unless it is literally a 100% win rate of equally skilled players, which it isn't. No stage is banned due to character dominance, only due to bad stage mechanics. Brinstar has nothing wrong with it as a stage, therefore it will never be banned. EVER! I can tell you that the Committee won't ban it unless some broken technique comes out as somebody that makes them win every time easy.

Then instead of pulling rank and saying "it's not gonna happen so stop talking about it", try explaining why it won't happen, or in this case, since convincing anyone absolutely on this matter is impossible, at the very least ignoring it and spurring discussion in other areas. No need to be disrespectful.

I think your ban criteria is a pretty naive simplification though, not to mention your terms "character dominance" and "bad stage mechanics" leave a lot of room for interpretation. Why is Distant Planet obviously banned then?

 

[[FBC] ESAM]

I honestly like Distant Planet, but the constant walk-off and strong camping spot at the bottom of the ramp are 2 very large deterrents for the level. Also...insta-dying by getting hit into the bulborb or whatever it is called is pretty bad.

I already explained why it isn't going to be banned. Nobody is listening...

 

[DRDN]

within the past few pages you didnt you just *****ed at people talking about it I would like to hear why it wont be when all the other stages have been changing around. Remember when Ps2 wasnt legal because of all the weird mechanics? that was allowed in because it has timed things or something like that. Remember when you could CP a snake to Japes....ahhh lets just remember that for a moment....Yeah that was nice... but it probably wont come back. so why is it these 2 specific stages WILL NEVER change?

 

[[FBC] ESAM]

1. The stages have been legal for pretty much all of Brawl here in the U.S.. There hasn't been any "new" glitch or strategy on the stage in at least 9 months. The stages themselves have nothing wrong with them. It is different, and that is about it. PS2 was people's ignorance about the stage claiming stuff that wasn't true/scrubby things that didn't actually happen once you learned the stage (Like how you can't move after a pivot on the ice part...this is true, but you can just jump out of it and so you aren't stuck turning for like 3 seconds). The stages have been thoroughly broken down and studied. Nothing is wrong with the stage. Yes, MK is great on them, but nothing is wrong with the stage so that is no reason to ban a stage.

2.When discussing stage legality we never really say "This one tactic with this one character is too powerful, ban" even if there is an extremely powerful tactic there. That isn't how stage legality works in the BRC and we all understand that.

3. The members of the BRC understand the game better than most, and we aren't going to ban something just because we don't particularly like it. I love pictochat, but I banned it because it wasn't right. We may not like MK on Brinstar/RC, but we know that there isn't anything wrong with it. Also, we understand the amount of outrage that would come from the quiet portion now (The more liberal posters) if we ban Brinstar because we would seem super conservative...which this list would move towards if we banned Brinstar or Rainbow. We can't just make the people who are talking now happy, because there a **** ton more people out there that are content now, but if we changed something like that they would get suuuper pissed. We need everybody to follow the ruleset to actually make what we are doing viable (Trying to unify the country's rulesets), and we aren't going to split the community on an issue that isn't actually an issue.

 

[Metakill]

ontopic.. and nothing about MK.

What about Luigi's Mansion?
what have that stage that can't be used as counter?

 

[Maharba the Mystic]

hold on, i call bs on stages not being banned based on character dominance. the only reason stages like eldin, pipes, and other stages with walk offs are banned is because DDD who can just cg people for free wins. if there are other actual reasons that walk off stages are banned (again, eldin, pipes, distant planet, and other great stages) please list them. and don't even say the argument is people camping the sides for back throw kills, because that's so laughably beatable.

in fact, typing this, i'd like to know what the hell the criteria for making a stage legal or not is. because tbh there are banned stages that make more since than some of the current ones and others that have nothing truly wrong except for walk offs and such.
seriously what is the criteria for banned stage or not banned stage? because even looking at the current list you guys don't seem to have any real rhyme and reason to it. so what is the criteria seriously?

 

[DRDN]

1. The stages have been legal for pretty much all of Brawl here in the U.S.. There hasn't been any "new" glitch or strategy on the stage in at least 9 months

Just because its been there before isn't an argument, otherwise we would still be at the original ruleset.

The stages themselves have nothing wrong with them. It is different, and that is about it. PS2 was people's ignorance about the stage claiming stuff that wasn't true/scrubby things that didn't actually happen once you learned the stage (Like how you can't move after a pivot on the ice part...this is true, but you can just jump out of it and so you aren't stuck turning for like 3 seconds). The stages have been thoroughly broken down and studied. Nothing is wrong with the stage. Yes, MK is great on them, but nothing is wrong with the stage so that is no reason to ban a stage.

This is a decent argument though

2.When discussing stage legality we never really say "This one tactic with this one character is too powerful, ban" even if there is an extremely powerful tactic there. That isn't how stage legality works in the BRC and we all understand that.

isn't this exactly how a stage gets banned? BoE, Shadow Moses corneria arent they all banned because D3 would be unstopable on those stages...easily

3. The members of the BRC understand the game better than most, and we aren't going to ban something just because we don't particularly like it. I love pictochat, but I banned it because it wasn't right. We may not like MK on Brinstar/RC, but we know that there isn't anything wrong with it. Also, we understand the amount of outrage that would come from the quiet portion now (The more liberal posters) if we ban Brinstar because we would seem super conservative...which this list would move towards if we banned Brinstar or Rainbow. We can't just make the people who are talking now happy, because there a **** ton more people out there that are content now, but if we changed something like that they would get suuuper pissed. We need everybody to follow the ruleset to actually make what we are doing viable (Trying to unify the country's rulesets), and we aren't going to split the community on an issue that isn't actually an issue.

This sounds like your worried about opinions of people who arent talking and if they dont feel like voicing them selves then they shouldn't count there are people talking here for both sides and the problem is looking 1 sided in the side that your against and saying have no chance. And if there are so many people so against brinstar being banned wouldnt they be voicing their opinions when the ruleset comes out and they no longer see it? Ive been saying just try one of these things out for a period of time. Its not like the rules are set in stone were already on 1.3 and this hasnt even been out that long. Hell when you came out with 1.0 you guys already knew you were going to make changes and Picto was gonig to be gone as soon as it had enough time. I thought this groups Ideal was to find what best works but what your saying is "Use our rules or dont get advertised" and "modify our rules to test how everything works" well anyone who wants in your group but isnt yet HAS to use your rules in order to get in and probably will until you let them in. Anyone with the balls to not use your rules probably dont give a **** about your group and dont want to help you do your research.

so again my question is with all the changes going around anyway why cant for 1 rotation cant you try 1 of these suggestions and see how it goes.

Maybe if brinstars gone tourney results will differ and top 1-4 of almost every tourney wont have an MK next to the name.

Maybe if you ban MK we will see a rise in people playing mid-low tiers and discover new things about those chars that make the game more enjoyable to watch. Hell maybe people will actually care to watch finals again because it wont be MK dittos after MK dittos

Maybe with 2 bans people will have to play more of the stages that get no screen time and will have to think more about how they play their char

those are just my thoughts on the subject if your going to try and take over as supreme leaders maybe you should experiment in the early stages. Then when you go back to from everything we've suggested you can say we tried that it didnt work/make a difference

 

[Tin Man]

Mother ****er.

I like how you guys are wasting your opportunity to talk to us on a matter that you will never see turn the way you want it. Brinstar will NEVER be banned. Rainbow Cruise will NEVER be banned.

Seriously guys, shut the **** up about it. It is irritating to read you idiots go on and on about the same thing that I've already addressed.

Craig, we aren't banning Brinstar. It doesn't force you to always get hit. Hell, you are Marth, you could just counter the acid. It doesn't force you to get hit, no stage ever does that except for Pictochat, which is why it is banned. Seriously, stop *****ing, QQ less on this thread, and move on with ****ing life. Holy ****, I'm a Pikachu main and I don't even ***** about Brinstar, and that **** it absolutely terrible for me. God damn...

I'm going to ignore posts that even contain banning either stage. And, as I have said before, 2 stage bans will probably not happen until the stage list is expanded, which might not happen in the first place.

Cmon man, don't lose it on us

2 bans will hurt the other characters more than it will hurt Meta Knight.

Banning Brinstar or RC just because of MK is a blatant surgical nerf and there's nothing wrong with the stages outside of one winged ****** gaying it up.

2 stage bans leaves MK with Delfino, Frigate, and, to a lesser extent YI, and it will leave a lot of characters without a solid CP to go to, although it is a far better solution than banning Brinstar or RC.

Banning MK may result in a lot of *****ing, but it's probably the best solution out of the 3.

yeah even banning two stages still gives MK pretty strong CPs... especially compared to what everyone else would be left with.

as lucario against MK I'd have... I actually don't know. maybe PS1 or something. : (

Yes guys, yes!

 

[[FBC] ESAM]

@metakill: Luigi's mansion has ridiculously huge blastzones, and a cave of life. Gameplay degenerates to house control more than fighting your opponent

@maharba: Aww look at you thinking you know so much about how rulesets are made. It's adorable :3

On a less sarcastic note, you are wrong. Walk-offs themselves are the problem, not the fact that D3 has a chaingrab and can abuse them. You know what is almost as bad as walk-off CGs? Blastzone camping. The blastzones themselves degenerate play to "Focus on the walk-off" and "Abuse the walk-off". On Pipes, D3 can only CG like 6 characters up the hill. Characters like Pikachu and Falco are worse for that, but still. The walk-off itself degenerates play, as does the SUPER small blastzones on the left side, as well as the pseudo cave-of-life that the blocks give. Bridge of Eldin has the perma walk-offs, and when there is a gap it is pretty much impossible to approach. DP has positional advantages as well as the walk-off. I know you said don't bring up that argument because it is easily beatable, because it still centers game-play around the blastzones.

All of us in the BRC have slightly different views on stages. I believe that a stage shouldn't affect the match with it's obstacles differently from character to character. IE Pictochat line killing Falco but doing nothing when people are on the right. Also, layout shouldn't degenerate play, such as japes side camping.

 

[Maharba the Mystic]

yo dude, i didn't claim i know how rules are made. i asked what the reasoning behind not having stages with walk offs are, and the criteria on how stages are decided legal or not. so don't try to make fun of me for asking a question, instead chill the **** out. however, even though you were kinda di ck about it, thx for answering.

2, you didn't address the main question i asked, what is the criteria for stage legality?

 

[[FBC] ESAM]

Read my last paragraph...there is no set criteria.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Just like to come in and say two things:
1. Dedede's wall infinites are incredibly overrated.
2. I've yet to see a reason that walk-off camping is actually broken. It's high-risk/high-reward for both players...

 

[[FBC] ESAM]

It isn't broken, the gameplay just revolves around it, thus degenerating the play into blastzone games.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Why would gameplay degenerate into high-risk/high-reward any more than it would degenerate into mid-risk/mid-reward?

 

[T-block]

Oh my GOD these words are driving me crazy.

• OVER-CENTRALIZING
• DEGENERATE
• COMPETITIVE

They have their place, but I see these words thrown around not only here, but also in the rest of Tactical, so often that they are very close to losing their original meaning.

People will no doubt have different definitions for the above terms. This thread is an effort to discover what is common among those definitions, and where they begin to differ. At the very least we should make it very clear what they mean on a basic level and how they relate to objectivity/subjectivity, and strive for a world where everyone who uses these words knows what they actually want to say.

I propose the following basic definitions:

• Some aspect of the game is over-centralizing if it causes gameplay to revolve around a skill or subset of skills such that all skills outside this subset, which we do wish to test, become irrelevant.
• Some aspect of the game is degenerate if it causes gameplay to focus on a skill that is trivial to perform which we do not care to test.
• A game is competitive if it tests players for some set of skills, and declares a victor based on who is more adept at said skills with some degree of consistency.

Some caveats with these definitions:

• There is a difference between "centralizing" and "overcentralizing". Walkoff camping is not obviously over-centralizing. To say walkoff play becomes centralized on getting a grab and throwing your opponent into the blastzone may be accurate, but this is not obviously overcentralizing because getting the grab in itself involves exercising many of the skills we wish to test.
• This definition of competitive makes no mention of what skills we wish to test.

Gameplay doesn't degenerate into house control on Luigi's Mansion. It focuses heavily on it. Some may say it focuses too heavily, but the basic elements (spacing, zoning, etc.) are still present. A shift in focus does not equate to being degenerate. Likewise, the problem with walkoff camping is not that play is degenerate. It's that it leads to situations that some deem too high-risk-high-reward to be acceptable. Basic elements are, again, still present.

Degenerate is running away on Temple. Degenerate is camping under the rudder on Pirate Ship. Please stop throwing these words out everywhere T.T

 

[Alphicans]

kk

Pictochat turns gameplay degenerative because all you do is wait for the stage to kill your opponent.

 

[T-block]

Reported for trolling

 

[Alphicans]

I thought that's why they banned it.

Am I missing something?

 

[John12346]

T-Block, I think ESAM is trying to argue that blastzone camping is degenerate like running away on Temple

 

[T-block]

There's nothing degenerate about it though. It's not that some characters can just sit by the blastzone and have even the worst players be unbeatable. The potential issue is that there's too much risk, and too much reward, which could lead to inconsistent results.

Employing reductio ad absurdum, saying "blastzone play degenerates to landing one attack for a stock" is along the same lines as saying "this whole game degenerates to removing your opponent's stocks". Both situations are testing the skills we wish to test, but one has a skewed risk-reward ratio. That's why the term degenerate doesn't apply - because gameplay isn't degenerate... it's still very much in tact.

I'm just nitpicking at the use of the word really =P

 

[John12346]

Well, if it provides inconsistent results, would we really want to test these "skills" required to win on a blastzone campable stage?

I guess the arguments become "how inconsistent do the results become?", "what is the skill barrier required to do this?", "how much risk/reward is TOO much?", and stuff.

And that's where I'll leave other people to argue. Go nuts. ;p

 

[T-block]

It's comparable to why we don't play one-stock bo1 I guess. The skills are all there, but due to the nature of the game that doesn't guarantee consistency in results. In the same way that one-stock match still tests the skills we wish to test, blastzone play still does as well (except for offstage play, but I doubt the use of degenerate refers to lack of offstage play).

 

[sunshade]

I would say that one stock Bo1 simply puts larger focus on consistency since you have no choice but to be consistent. The same as how in MvC2 you have to be good at blocking or else you will lose your character and if your opponent has meter your second character ala guard break on entrance. Unlike say SSF4 where messing up your blocking wont cost you the entire round from a single mistake.

Both games have consistent showings among their tournament players, so I don't see why a stage causing slightly higher risk reward is enough to qualify a ban.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

T-Block, Ice Climbers are high-risk high-reward, your argument is invalid.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

@metakill: Rainbow Cruise has ridiculously short blastzones, and allows for massive circle camping and stalling. Gameplay degenerates to running away and movement control more than fighting your opponent

@metakill: Brinstar has ridiculously short blastzones, and allows for circle camping and stalling. Gameplay degenerates to shattering the stage and avoiding causalities from the acid more than fighting your opponent

Ban RC / Brinstar

 

[sunshade]

Ban RC / Brinstar

Do you even know what circle camping is?

What is done on rainbow cruise/brinstar is leagues away from what is done on Temple/new pork. If you actually think circle camping is possible on either stage you should support banning Battlefield for circle camping.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

I know what it means. There are plenty parts on RC that allow for circle camping.

 

[Metakill]

Ban FD... ICs is so broken there
Ban Lylat... Marth is so broken there
Ban EVERY F***ING STAGE... Meta Knight is so broken EVERYWHERE
Except Rainbow...

now serious...
Or i'm a n00b mk mainer.. (most posibly) or i think Brinstar isn't SOOOOOOOOOO good for meta??
i'm thinking that a really SMART snake cofcofALLYcofcof can have a NICE stage control with C4 in the platform of top, a mine in the left platform and some jab>ftilt or Utilts on the ground... lava ups... nades time!
so.. brinstar.. in my opinion isn't broken for mk... (or i just hate that stage and I don't CP with it)


PS: Ban Wolf... ANTi's one is 2 good

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Meta, you're a noob MK.

Brinstar is AMAZING for Meta Knight and AWFUL for Snake.

 

[sunshade]

I know what it means. There are plenty parts on RC that allow for circle camping.

It is not circle camping if you are intersectable after 30 seconds because the stage changed and the circle no longer exists.

Its just camping.

 

[John12346]

Maybe it's circle camping because the whole stage moves in a circle?

 

[Dabuz]

MK cannot be touched on a good part of RC. GGs ban RC

 

[metalmonstar]

I will probably use the unity ruleset, but I am not a huge fan of it.

My main problem is the whole banning players. Yes, i understand that breaking the rules should result in a punishment, and that we shouldn't allow bracket manipulation. However, banning a player hurts more than just the players. It hurts the winner of the next big tournament who can't enjoy their victory because the best weren't there. It hurts the TO because they lose attendance and streamers due to the big names not being there. It hurts the players who look forward to their chance to play big names and get better.

If only there was a way were we could withhold the money from people who split the pot or disqualify them when they goof off during finals and give the money to the next places.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Mother ****er.

I like how you guys are wasting your opportunity to talk to us on a matter that you will never see turn the way you want it. Brinstar will NEVER be banned. Rainbow Cruise will NEVER be banned.

Seriously guys, shut the **** up about it. It is irritating to read you idiots go on and on about the same thing that I've already addressed.

Craig, we aren't banning Brinstar. It doesn't force you to always get hit. Hell, you are Marth, you could just counter the acid. It doesn't force you to get hit, no stage ever does that except for Pictochat, which is why it is banned. Seriously, stop *****ing, QQ less on this thread, and move on with ****ing life. Holy ****, I'm a Pikachu main and I don't even ***** about Brinstar, and that **** it absolutely terrible for me. God damn...

I'm going to ignore posts that even contain banning either stage. And, as I have said before, 2 stage bans will probably not happen until the stage list is expanded, which might not happen in the first place.

...Holy **** sugar queen. Epic post. Love you soooo much.

ontopic.. and nothing about MK.

What about Luigi's Mansion?
what have that stage that can't be used as counter?

It is pretty powerful... It has no real testing data, but everyone calls it broken. >.>

Also, it is time to stop paying attention to Gheb. Even if he was right (he isn't >.>) he would be talking from a european perspective that simply is about as relevant to the USA as "hey, let's play on FD/BF/SV only, **** all other stages", also known as the "herp derp japan is ********" line of thought.