MBR Application Process is Closed

Smashboards Username: Salepâte
Region: France, Lyon
Primary Character(s): Marth
Secondary Character(s): Fox, Sheik


1. Q. How long have you been playing competitive melee?
A. I've started playing competitively as soon as I started Melee, and it'll be 4years in august.

2. Q. How often do you attend tournaments? How familiar are you with your local scene? Your regional scene? The national/international scene?
A. I know pretty well the french community i attend almost every tournaments that happens in here. As for the european community, i've been to many different tourneys all across the countries (norway, sweden, spain, holland, germany, switz). I do know the US community as well since i've been there for the TourneyPlay (in Portland).

3. Q. How would you classify yourself as a player relative to the current metagame? (beginner, average, high level, pro, etc.)
A. Right now I think of my self as a decent player, i don't like overesteeming myself, but i think i can manage pretty well.

4. Q. Do you think the other individuals in your region would support you being a member of the MBR? Why?
A. I think they would, because i'm not cocky, and they think of me as a robot that analyse frames data using A.R. !

5. Q. Do you consider yourself a discussion leader? Why?
A. I do not think that i'm suited for being a leader, i'd rather follow up people.

6. Q. Are you an active Tournament Organizer? If Yes, what are some recent tournaments you have hosted? If No, what are some ways you feel you contribute to your local scene despite not being a TO?
A. I'ven't been since a year. but we ran a great tournament in 2009 featuring many european players. it is known as TSL4, there were almost 200 players attending it.

7. Q. Do you feel that the current tier list is accurate? Why?
A. I can't agree with the whole tier list, my knowledge is not wide enough yet. For the most of it, I do agree since it perfectly matches the experience i had during these years.

8. Q. Do you feel that the current MBR recommended stage list is fair? Why?
A. Hmm, i do agree with most of the stages, i do think some are weirds though.

9. Q. Do you feel that the current MBR recommended rule set is fair? Why?
A. The rules seems quite fair to me. I won't complain about it!

10. Q. What is more important to you: Tech Skill or Strategy? Why?
A. In my very humble opinion, i don't think strategy defines a highly important matter in Melee. I think of strategy as something you'd plan before starting any match. It does alter your chance of winning though. Yet there is something as much important as tech skill. And i'd call that real time analysis. that

11. Q. What is more important to you: Maximizing Punishments (Combos) or Initiating Punishments (First Hits)? Why?
A. I Can't choose either. Because only being good at one of those two things isn't enough. It proves you can do something good, but doesn't prove you can finish it. I do not like neglecting. This is all about efficiency and accuracy. One can't go without the other.

12. Q. Does SSBM have a limited lifespan as a competitive community due to its age or any other factor? Why or why not?
A. Yeah i think, it dies slowly, that's a bad news, but we need to face it. But it's not due to its age. I'd say its because, fighting games keep being produced therefore splitting community each time a new game appear. I do not think its over though.

13. Q. What do you think could be done to expand our community?
A. We should keep doing the things we always did: Running tournaments, sharing videos about its gameplay, players. Letting the player convince their siblings to play along.. things that prove this game was meant to be played with fun and joy.

14. Q. What do you think the MBR could do to stimulate the community?
A. Gathering data & details about both the game and its community to show the wideness of knowledge there can exist thanks to Melee.

15. Q. How do you think the MBR would benefit from your input?
A. I can't tell for sure, but i'll do as much as I can!


OPTIONAL

1. Please provide up to 5 examples of contributions you have made to the melee community. Links to exceptional, informative posts are highly valued here.

Unfortunately i don't have contributions yet. I think i could start with the MBR.


2. List up to three players you feel demonstrate good discussion ability or have outstanding contributions to the community and explain why you think they are a good example.
1. Player: [Fr] Wii Lee
i. Reason: That dude, ain't famous, has an average level. But when its about theory, he knows his subject pretty well. He gave me many advice over the time that helped me a lot!

2. Player: [Sweden] Helios
i. Reason: I've met him only once, but when we played, he could easily tell the difference in metagame between 2011 and when he was playing. That impressed me.

3. Have you read Sirlin's theories regarding "Play to Win"? Do you agree or disagree? Why? How do you think these theories affect and apply to the Melee community?
1. Answer: I have not, i may get a look at it when i'll have some time to spare!




ADDITIONAL COMMENTS/FINAL WORDS:

I do not have anything else to say, but i'm looking forward to your judgment and if that happens i'd be glad to help along with the MBR members.

Yours truly, Salepâte. :D

JPOBS said:

See i think thats a total cop out.

The obvious answer to the question is "both." Its such a loaded question. "Derp, should you know how to do something but not be able too, or should you be able to do anything and not know which?, derrrp"

I think theres more value to be had n reading people's responses who actually sacked up and chose a side an defended. Im pretty sure everyone knows "both" is the politically correct answer.

Click to expand...

Lol. Both are important to gameplay in general. The question is "which one is more important to you".

Yes, answering "both" is a super copout.


Edit: Also, sorry I haven't been updating the submissions list the past few days, been busy. Also, now that smashboards' keyword search functionality is like broken, I have nothing to keep me coming back lololol.

cactuar, not sure if you noticed or not but i think you ran out of space (SWF limit) in your 2nd post.

lol cactuar can't namesearch

i can edit the second post in a bit.

Smashboards Username: Bones0
Region: Atlantic North - Northern MD
Primary Character(s): Falco
Secondary Character(s): Fox, Marth, Mario

REQUIRED

1. Q. How long have you been playing competitive melee?
A. Since Fall of '09. I've been following competitive Melee on and off since I joined in '05. I played a lot of MLG Halo and played Melee with friends, but I wasn't old enough to travel to tournaments. I started college in Fall '09 and my new-found access to players renewed my interest so I started playing and attending tournaments.

2. Q. How often do you attend tournaments? How familiar are you with your local scene? Your regional scene? The national/international scene?
A. Biweekly/almost weekly. Whenever possible, really. Aside from myself, there's only 3 Smashers in my county who could be considered part of the scene. Two are inactive, and I play with the other almost every day for multiple hours, so I would say I know my local scene pretty well. I consider myself pretty familiar with my regional scene (i.e. the rest of MD/VA) considering how long I've been playing, but there are a few players that are only semi-active that I haven't met/played yet. My first and only national tourney was Pound 5, so my national ties are limited.

3. Q. How would you classify yourself as a player relative to the current metagame? (beginner, average, high level, pro, etc.)
A. Average. I am confident I will be able to break into the high level and pro statuses in the future, but it will take some time.

4. Q. Do you think the other individuals in your region would support you being a member of the MBR? Why?
A. It would really depend on the criteria the MBR is looking for. In terms of game knowledge, most people would say I lack understanding of some of the deeper aspects of the game that come with experience (I would agree), but I think a good portion would support me as far as ideas to improve the community and overall competitive experience. I'm a bit of an efficiency junkie, so even when something works 99% correctly, I have to fine tune it to get it to that 100%.

5. Q. Do you consider yourself a discussion leader? Why?
A. Not in particular. I tend to give my views and formulate points based on discussions brought up by other people rather than bring up discussions myself. I would attribute this to a slight distrust I have for my own sense of what is or isn't important. If someone asks me about a topic I will write an essay, but I'm not so confident posting that same essay when no one seems interested in the discussion yet.

6. Q. Are you an active Tournament Organizer? If Yes, what are some recent tournaments you have hosted? If No, what are some ways you feel you contribute to your local scene despite not being a TO?
A. Yes. I've hosted 7 tournaments so far. All 7 are of the Graphix Gaming series at a LAN center I work at. Aside from actually hosting, I support TOs as much as I can. Whether it's bringing extra TVs or even as small as making sure I report my match right as it's finished, I do my best to treat every tournament like it were my own.

7. Q. Do you feel that the current tier list is accurate? Why?
A. No. The main reason is because there is no clear criteria. I don't see how it CAN be accurate considering it seems to be a average of a myriad of different ranking systems. I'd like to see the MBR make tier lists for explicit issues, even if it means making more than one. For instance, the main two ideas behind tiers are character potential and tournament placings. People try to mold the two into one tier list, but it's clear to me it doesn't work. Have one tier list that is based purely on speculation. As an example, a lot of players believe Fox to have the greatest potential of any character, but we almost never see Fox players in GFs. The Character Potential Tier would rank Fox higher, and the Tournament Placing Tier would rank him lower (based on statistical data from actual tournament placings).

8. Q. Do you feel that the current MBR recommended stage list is fair? Why?
A. No. Counterpicking is an inherently flawed system that promotes gimmicky game play. From an ideal standpoint, players should play on the 3 (or 5) most fair stages for that matchup. Players having to waste bans on counterpicks is preventing this from ever becoming possible.
[collapse=My Stage List]Singles:
- Battlefield
- Dream Land
- Final Destination
- Fountain of Dreams
- Yoshi's Story
- Pokemon Stadium (counter-pick)

Doubles:
- Battlefield
- Dream Land
- Final Destination
- Pokemon Stadium
- Yoshi's Story
- Kongo Jungle (counter-pick)[/collapse]

9. Q. Do you feel that the current MBR recommended rule set is fair? Why?
A. No. The order of character and stage selections is completely illogical. The character you play has a much more vast effect on how you will play than compared to the effect different stages have (especially when they are neutrals). For the first match, players double blind and then strike for the ideal stage for that matchup; this makes sense because things are chosen in order of priority. For games following that, it becomes skewed. The winner must essentially guess whether or not the opponent will change characters, and then the loser must select a character leaving them open to get blindsided by a counterpick against their character. Overall just doesn't make much sense, and there are a lot of other tiny things I feel could be improved upon (best of 5 sets for as many sets as time permits, neutral port starting positions, etc.). I've spent a lot of time thinking about stage striking, banning, and character selection. I hope to eventually come up with a system that allows players to strike for a stage each match. The main issue is incorporating DSR so that there is stage variety without affecting the numbers of stages being struck from.
[collapse=My Rule Set]- 4 stocks
- ALL sets are a Best of 5
- No items
- 8 minute timer
- Time limit tie breakers are as follows: most stocks; least %; 1-stock, 4-min rematch; play out Sudden Death (lol Bob-ombs)
- Pause is disabled (if you forget to turn it off, I promise to pause-unpause right before your ledge tech)
- Stalling and game-freezing glitches are banned
- Wobbling is legal
- At either player's request, neutral ports (for starting positions) may be enforced.
- Stages are struck in 1221 fashion (lowest port chooses striking order; port conflicts decided by RPS).
- Each player gets 1 ban after a win. Bans are temporary, and do not last the entire set (Ex. You win Game 1 and ban FD. I counterpick DL and lose Game 2 as well. You can reban FD or switch your ban to DL (or any other stage).
- Modified DSR: Players cannot counterpick the stage they last won on.
- Characters are chosen PRIOR to stage bans and counterpicks (Ex. I win Game 1 on BF. I choose my character. You choose your character. I ban a stage. You choose a counterpick from the remaining stages.).[/collapse]

10. Q. What is more important to you: Tech Skill or Strategy? Why?
A. Neither because you need both to win. The question is one of value, and each concept has more or less value depending on the situation. I typically view the two ideas as one: my game play. I play the game by integrating tech skill and strategy so to place one above the other in importance would be naive. Many people get to the point where they are comfortable enough with tech skill that they say "I no longer consider tech skill important," but that's a bit misleading. Just because someone has mastered a technique does not reduce the importance of the technique. I feel like most people say this sort of thing when speaking in terms of what they need to improve on. Most people, myself included, consider improving their strategies more important than improving their tech skill, but that's completely different than comparing their inherent values in important matches where you are focused on winning more than improving.

11. Q. What is more important to you: Maximizing Punishments (Combos) or Initiating Punishments (First Hits)? Why?
A. Pretty much the same opinion as above. Importance varies too much from matchup to stage to say, and my game play integrates both aspects so valuing one over the other will only lead to an inevitable hole in my game play.

12. Q. Does SSBM have a limited lifespan as a competitive community due to its age or any other factor? Why or why not?
A. Not really. The only way I would consider its lifespan limited is in the sense that the community could potentially dissipate if no action is taken to introduce new players. At the moment, there are more than enough players to spread the game to new people, but if everyone waits until the average age in the community is 30 or some odd years, it will be much more difficult to induct new players. College campuses are one of the most potentially useful forms of introducing new players, and if something "official" can be sent out by players to get new members into the community, I have a feeling the response would exceed anyone's expectations. Something as simple as getting a Smash Bros. club in every college would be great, and sending out flyers for promotional events (like a charity donation featuring Melee) could get people interested who might never have stumbled upon the game.

13. Q. What do you think could be done to expand our community?
A. Kind of already mentioned that above, but aside from garnering attention on college campuses, I think basically "kidnapping" people from other competitive games could be really effective. Simply looking at all the MLG games, I would imagine that if they sent a PM to everyone on the site about competitive Melee, by the next month there could be 40-50 new players who actually end up sticking with the game. It's basically all getting the game known for being competitive. Almost everyone has played or at least knows about the game from the standpoint of being a fun party game. Releasing information about getting into competitive Melee is simply bound to get SOME peoples' attention. The issue is the most efficient way of doing that.

14. Q. What do you think the MBR could do to stimulate the community?
A. I'm assuming this question is more addressing the issue of the current community than of future members. If that's the case, I think it'd be good to have a concrete process new players can go through so they don't feel so lost and confused upon arrival. Just imagine how overwhelming it would be for someone who saw Wombo Combo and decided they want to try playing like that. They would have no clue where to start, and I often see new players being told about a million different things (just go to a tournament and meet people; practice tech skill before anything else; watch a bunch of videos to get a feel for the game; read guides on the character specific board; etc.).

There seems to be 3 main groups of people we should focus on. People who play all the time and are mostly familiar with the game. People who have never played or maybe not even heard of competitive Melee. People who want to play Melee, but are getting mind****ed by things like in the list above. As important as getting new people interested in the game is, it's pointless if our system for introducing them has a 5% retention rate. New players need to be treated like they are the coolest people in the world. It's hard for people to wrap their minds around this. Currently people suggest to be nice to new players and let them hang out with you. This mindset results in that subtle feeling that you don't belong, but they are being polite. Experienced players need to actually be EXCITED to meet new players. They should be the CENTER of attention so much that they CAN'T not attend another tournament.

15. Q. How do you think the MBR would benefit from your input?
A. Greatly.

But seriously, I believe I have a combination of general knowledge of competitiveness as well as a more fresh perspective on the community. I realize the MBR is typically all the older and experienced players, but if Melee is going to get newer players, it seems like a tragic mistake to exclude anyone who isn't pro or hasn't been playing since '01. Not sure if the person evaluating this watches the show House, but if you do, you'd know that a good medical team doesn't consist of a bunch of doctors who get along and agree. Everyone needs people who are on the opposite end of the spectrum to balance them out and keep them in check. The same goes for a committee trying to promote a video game.


OPTIONAL

1. Please provide up to 5 examples of contributions you have made to the melee community. Links to exceptional, informative posts are highly valued here.
1. Link
i. Description: Graphix Gaming tournament series

2. List up to three players you feel demonstrate good discussion ability or have outstanding contributions to the community and explain why you think they are a good example.
1. Player: Dr. Peepee
i. Reason: Basically all of his posts are insightful into the future of Melee's game play, and he puts a lot of time in on the Falco forums to help people.
2. Player: Magus
i. Reason: His year old posts answer more of my questions than everyone else on the forums combined.

3. Have you read Sirlin's theories regarding "Play to Win"? Do you agree or disagree? Why? How do you think these theories affect and apply to the Melee community?
1. Answer:
I've read almost all of his articles, and for the most part I do agree with him. I think one area he has tended to stay away from is a distinction between community rules and personal rules. No johns and scrub mentality are typically directed at individual excuses. When someone says "that move's cheap" it's considered a john and they are considered a scrub. What happens, however, when an entire community agrees that a certain move/tactic really is too overpowered to be allowed? Are they all scrubs? I don't think so; they are just trying to improve their game. So while I think on a player to player basis, people should abuse the **** out of a game and play to win regardless of what that means, I don't think this mentality should carry over to the community. When developing rule sets, it is down right STUPID to not consider banning of "cheap" tactics that are honestly over-centralizing. We just have to be careful about how we go about these types of rules. The most controversial one I believe is by far wobbling. I really don't know whether or not I should ban it at my tournaments. I realize it's not fun and is basically a much easier version of IC's other chain grabs, but at the same time when I experience being wobbled as a player, I don't feel right blaming my loss on the tactic because it CAN be beaten. So yeah, overall, I agree, but they don't apply to the Melee community the same as they apply to Melee players.


ADDITIONAL COMMENTS/FINAL WORDS:

The new back room should be visible to everyone so people can learn easily, but for anyone without posting privileges, on their screen it should replace members' user names with some sort of arbitrary ID numbers so people can express their opinions without fear of criticism. I hope I get this opportunity to make my voice heard, and hopefully I will be able to contribute something truly significant to this amazing community.

I would mega support Bones0's stage list and rule set. Especially the rule set.

I would have to strongly disagree with his new DSR proposition.

JPOBS said:

I would have to strongly disagree with his new DSR proposition.

Click to expand...

Any reason why? I'm open to criticism as I hardly consider my current stage/rule set ideal. It's only been changed to deal with best of 5 sets. If you do regular DSR, people end up having to counter pick themselves for game 5 (I learned that the hard way lol). I want a better alternative for DSR anyway. It doesn't make sense a lot of the time because of character changes. Should a stage be banned for a previous victory even if both players are using different characters than in the original match? I don't think so. I anticipate that as Melee gets older we will see a lot more secondaries in tournaments as people have had more time to practice separate characters, and the issue of people changing characters to avoid being restricted by DSR will probably become more prevalent. Or at least that's how I see it happening.

Bones0 said:

Any reason why? I'm open to criticism as I hardly consider my current stage/rule set ideal. It's only been changed to deal with best of 5 sets. If you do regular DSR, people end up having to counter pick themselves for game 5 (I learned that the hard way lol). I want a better alternative for DSR anyway. It doesn't make sense a lot of the time because of character changes. Should a stage be banned for a previous victory even if both players are using different characters than in the original match? I don't think so. I anticipate that as Melee gets older we will see a lot more secondaries in tournaments as people have had more time to practice separate characters, and the issue of people changing characters to avoid being restricted by DSR will probably become more prevalent. Or at least that's how I see it happening.

Click to expand...

Here are the problems I see envision with it:

1. it wouldn't apply to a best of 3 set. period. there would have to be a separate rule created specifically for the two different set types. not impossible I guess but not ideal.

2. there are 9 legal stages, even with 2 bans and 4 "elminated stages" (assuming you can't go back to either stage you've won on, and want to avoid stages they've won on) that leaves 3 stages to choose from. I can't envision a scenario where that would force you to counterpick yourself.

If anything, your rule permits a decrease in overall stage/metagame knowledge necessary to win a set as you would in theory only need to play on 2 stages to win an ideal set, whereas in the current ruleset you atleast would need to win on 3 seperate stages. Most people prefer greater variety in stage wins, as it indicates a greater probablity of the winner actually being better.

I don't buy your argument that using different characters alters the scenario and therefore the previous victory stage is unjustly no longer qualified. No stage is outright banned after a win, your proposal that differeing chars alters the scenario is already covered under the gentlemen's clause. If the winner of the first match wants to reuse a stage, the loser can indeed agree to just play on the stage again (and switch characters if they want). Your rule doesn't add anything not already recovered by the ruleset.

I think DSR should be changed entirely so thats its no longer even resembles DSR. i have an idea for a rule which is DSR-like but different in key areas. when i have more time i'll make a thread about it or bring it up here or something

JPOBS said:

Here are the problems I see envision with it:

1. it wouldn't apply to a best of 3 set. period. there would have to be a separate rule created specifically for the two different set types. not impossible I guess but not ideal.

Click to expand...

I don't see why that's weird to have the rule slightly changed for best of 5 sets.
Bo3: You can't counterpick a stage you've won on once.
Bo5: You can't counterpick a stage you've won on twice.

JPOBS said:

2. There are 9 legal stages, even with 2 bans and 4 "elminated stages" (assuming you can't go back to either stage you've won on, and want to avoid stages they've won on) that leaves 3 stages to choose from. I can't envision a scenario where that would force you to counterpick yourself.

Click to expand...

In my stage list, there are only 6 legal stages and it is a best of 5. If you win games 1 and 3 and lose games 2 and 4, for game 5 your opponent only has 2 stages to ban from (assuming he wouldn't ban either of the stages he had counterpicked). To fix that, I just made it so you could repick a stage you have won on, but only once so you still have to win on at least 2 stages.

JPOBS said:

If anything, your rule permits a decrease in overall stage/metagame knowledge necessary to win a set as you would in theory only need to play on 2 stages to win an ideal set, whereas in the current ruleset you atleast would need to win on 3 seperate stages. Most people prefer greater variety in stage wins, as it indicates a greater probablity of the winner actually being better.

Click to expand...

I don't see how winning on only two stages is different from the current situation. The current rule set doesn't even have best of 5s until semi finals, so you typically only ever play 2 games total.

JPOBS said:

I don't buy your argument that using different characters alters the scenario and therefore the previous victory stage is unjustly no longer qualified. No stage is outright banned after a win, your proposal that differeing chars alters the scenario is already covered under the gentlemen's clause. If the winner of the first match wants to reuse a stage, the loser can indeed agree to just play on the stage again (and switch characters if they want). Your rule doesn't add anything not already recovered by the ruleset.

Click to expand...

Why do you think no stage is outright banned after a win? That's exactly what DSR dictates. It's pretty easy to abuse this if you plan on changing characters. You know they can't pick the stage they already won on, and you can then ban another stage, which essentially gives you two bans for losing game 1. I think you misunderstood what I was saying anyway. All I meant was the only reason DSR was ever even created was because players would just win by only picking one stage with the same character. You don't play YS the same with Fox as you do with Peach; it requires a completely different skill set. Why should a player not be able to counterpick YS as Peach just because he won a previous game on YS as Fox? Does it take more skill for them to win on YS as Fox and BF as Peach? They are still display skill in two different character/stage combinations. It's not like any characters are played very similarly just because they are on the same stage.

JPOBS said:

I think DSR should be changed entirely so thats its no longer even resembles DSR. i have an idea for a rule which is DSR-like but different in key areas. when i have more time i'll make a thread about it or bring it up here or something

Click to expand...

I agree, and I look forward to your thread. Like I've said, I think DSR is an inefficient way of moderating stage variety. I've thought of a bunch of other possibilities, but it always seems to have a few problems I can't get around. Just as an example, I thought about having players strike for a best of 3. P1 strikes, P2 strikes twice, P1 strikes again. The second stage struck by each player becomes their opponent's counterpick. I felt like this made it too easy to swap characters for your opponent's counterpick though because they'd have no idea what to strike if you have two much different characters (What do you strike if they main Falco/Jiggs? Should you have to guess/settle for neutral?). I've also thought about just giving players 2 bans (with 6 stages) and getting rid of DSR all together, but I figure that would just result in people playing the same neutral they struck to and one other counterpick.

So yeah, the fact that this rule set isn't perfect is driving me crazy so any ideas you have would be great to hear. It seems like everyone is in agreement of what they want (play on the 3 most neutral stages available without getting pooped on by surprise secondaries). It's just a matter of figuring out the best and most fair way of determining those stages/characters.

Just wanna discuss this point, the rest of your post i more or less agree with

Bones0 said:

Why do you think no stage is outright banned after a win? That's exactly what DSR dictates. It's pretty easy to abuse this if you plan on changing characters. You know they can't pick the stage they already won on, and you can then ban another stage, which essentially gives you two bans for losing game 1. I think you misunderstood what I was saying anyway. All I meant was the only reason DSR was ever even created was because players would just win by only picking one stage with the same character. You don't play YS the same with Fox as you do with Peach; it requires a completely different skill set. Why should a player not be able to counterpick YS as Peach just because he won a previous game on YS as Fox? Does it take more skill for them to win on YS as Fox and BF as Peach? They are still display skill in two different character/stage combinations. It's not like any characters are played very similarly just because they are on the same stage.

Click to expand...

I may have worded that poorly. It is ouright banned by DSR, but that doesn't change the fact that both players can play there again anyway if they agree.

But your proposed rule doesn't at all serve the point your trying to make. Why stop at two wins on a stage?Why should a player not be able to counterpick YS as Marth in game 5 just because he won 2 previous games on YS as Fox and peach?

The greater point you're trying to get at is that playing with different characters on the same stage (which your ruleset allows) is more or less an equivalent display of skill as playing with the same characters on different stages (current ruleset) and should be allowed. But thats not what your proposed version of the rule translates into. I support the underlying reasoning for the rule but the rule itself is faulty/unnecessary/arbitrarily enforced.

Why not just stick to the current modified DSR? "Players may not pick the last stage they have won on." This allows them to win on BF, then win on YS, then lose and pick BF (but not YS). This is somewhat already standard (iirc its part of the MBR Suggested ruleset, though i didn't check so i could be wrong).


edit- the thing i dislike most about his ruleset is "- Each player gets 1 ban after a win. Bans are temporary, and do not last the entire set (Ex. You win Game 1 and ban FD. I counterpick DL and lose Game 2 as well. You can reban FD or switch your ban to DL (or any other stage)."

What is even the point? Seems like just another complication to the system for no gain in fairness.

Also, i disagree with lowest port choosing strike order, though i don't really see much of a difference in outcome since the first player to strike BF [should be] disadvantaged (except in cases where there are chaingrabs on one side of the matchup, which imbalances the strike)

Cactuar said:

Edit: Also, sorry I haven't been updating the submissions list the past few days, been busy. Also, now that smashboards' keyword search functionality is like broken, I have nothing to keep me coming back lololol.

Click to expand...

OMG THIS

it makes me so sad

Is it just me or has Smashboards' search function always been atrociously bad? It brings up the most irrelevant stuff while ignoring the obvious results.

I've never been on a site that DIDN'T have a crappy search system. The large majority don't work at all (like you get random pages completely unrelated) and the ones that do typically leave out certain parts of the site when they search, so like if you are looking for an article posted by the admin on a forum, it won't show up in the search.

JPOBS said:

Just wanna discuss this point, the rest of your post i more or less agree with

I may have worded that poorly. It is ouright banned by DSR, but that doesn't change the fact that both players can play there again anyway if they agree.

But your proposed rule doesn't at all serve the point your trying to make. Why stop at two wins on a stage?Why should a player not be able to counterpick YS as Marth in game 5 just because he won 2 previous games on YS as Fox and peach?

The greater point you're trying to get at is that playing with different characters on the same stage (which your ruleset allows) is more or less an equivalent display of skill as playing with the same characters on different stages (current ruleset) and should be allowed. But thats not what your proposed version of the rule translates into. I support the underlying reasoning for the rule but the rule itself is faulty/unnecessary/arbitrarily enforced.

Click to expand...

Obviously they can agree to that stage if they want to. What I am saying is a player could potentially leverage the stage that was banned in game 1 for a matchup that is no longer even being played. If the stage that is struck to is the most fair, why can't a player counterpick it? It just seems stupid that it is autobanned. I understand it's to promote stage variety, but I feel like we need a better way. And yeah, I realize my currently proposed rule set doesn't address a handful of the issues I am bringing up. I just can't think of any way to accommodate all the issues that arise when choosing stages and characters.

Sveet said:

Why not just stick to the current modified DSR? "Players may not pick the last stage they have won on." This allows them to win on BF, then win on YS, then lose and pick BF (but not YS). This is somewhat already standard (iirc its part of the MBR Suggested ruleset, though i didn't check so i could be wrong).


edit- the thing i dislike most about his ruleset is "- Each player gets 1 ban after a win. Bans are temporary, and do not last the entire set (Ex. You win Game 1 and ban FD. I counterpick DL and lose Game 2 as well. You can reban FD or switch your ban to DL (or any other stage)."

What is even the point? Seems like just another complication to the system for no gain in fairness.

Also, i disagree with lowest port choosing strike order, though i don't really see much of a difference in outcome since the first player to strike BF [should be] disadvantaged (except in cases where there are chaingrabs on one side of the matchup, which imbalances the strike)

Click to expand...

I kind of like the modified DSR we have now, but like I've said it fails to accommodate for the matchups changing throughout the set, and it seems weird that someone should be allowed to pick a stage they won on earlier in the set, but not later. What justification is there to assume that the most recent victory is the most "biased" or w/e for the match. My rule is basically the same, but it disregards WHEN you won on the stage (because that shouldn't matter). Perhaps I will look into a form of DSR that applies to all stages except the one that is originally struck to. Do you think something like that would help? This way winning game 1 doesn't make you feel like you limited your counterpick options. Idk, I always have to think out different matchups before I am happy with a rule.

I thought everyone has always done lowest port chooses strike order? I don't see how that is even important; I only have that in my rules for anyone who actually argues about striking first or second, but I've never heard anyone even care about it. It rarely, if ever, affects what stage is struck to, except maybe in dittos I guess...

I thought first port was supposed to go first, not choose order. Like we both said, it really doesnt make a difference.

Why doesn't it matter when the stage was won? The first stage of the set can't be a counterpick stage, so that means the final stage in the series can't be a repeated CP stage with the current mod-DSR. I know your ruleset removes the stages that could most benefit from that abuse (brinstar, cruise, DK64), but in your ruleset that means that fox can CP to stadium twice in a row, but with the other mod-dsr he can only CP to the first stage win (battlefield, probably, if its a game1 win). The rule should also take into account the fact that it is a suggested rule, and that TOs should be able to modify it to their wishes. Your rule only works with your current ruleset, and when removed from your ruleset it will cause abuses.

And since it sort-of came up, i want to say that i think the best stagelist is a 3 stage strike between YS, BF and DL, with FoD, PS, and FD on counterpick. The person who suggested this ruleset to me suggested no stage bans with this list; I sort of like the idea, but at the same time i'm not sure if it will make the players happy who are forced to go to their worst stage.

Sveet said:

I thought first port was supposed to go first, not choose order. Like we both said, it really doesnt make a difference.

Why doesn't it matter when the stage was won? The first stage of the set can't be a counterpick stage, so that means the final stage in the series can't be a repeated CP stage with the current mod-DSR. I know your ruleset removes the stages that could most benefit from that abuse (brinstar, cruise, DK64), but in your ruleset that means that fox can CP to stadium twice in a row, but with the other mod-dsr he can only CP to the first stage win (battlefield, probably, if its a game1 win). The rule should also take into account the fact that it is a suggested rule, and that TOs should be able to modify it to their wishes. Your rule only works with your current ruleset, and when removed from your ruleset it will cause abuses.

And since it sort-of came up, i want to say that i think the best stagelist is a 3 stage strike between YS, BF and DL, with FoD, PS, and FD on counterpick. The person who suggested this ruleset to me suggested no stage bans with this list; I sort of like the idea, but at the same time i'm not sure if it will make the players happy who are forced to go to their worst stage.

Click to expand...

Well first port has a slight advantage (for stuff like grabbing on the same frame), so I let the lower port choose the striking order. If the lower port wants to strike first then they can. I like striking first for matchups like Falco vs. Marth where it's really obvious that I'm going to strike FD. In other matchups I sometimes like striking second because I can get a better idea of how they play (if a Fox strikes Dream Land, they probably aren't a campy player).

I see what you're saying about being able to choose a CP twice vs. choosing the original neutral twice. I'll actually change that right now. I'm not sure how I never realized why the rule said "the last stage you won on"... Progress!

I've thought about reducing the neutral list more, but I don't think it really benefits at all. There's really nothing wrong with FoD; I consider it the most fair stage for most matchups after BF because it has a high ceiling with small sides, and with the platforms alternating they are never stay at a particular height that benefits one character over the other (and sometimes aren't there at all). It also doesn't introduce BF's slightly limited recovery options into the mix, which I think helps ALL characters have a better fighting chance and focuses the recovery game more on player skill than on their character's options.

Aside from just liking FoD, I've always felt FD is more of a problem when counterpicking. Even as a Falco who plays a Marth player 90% of the time, I really don't mind having to strike FD all the time. What's frustrating is when I basically HAVE to use my ban on it. I've thought about leaving it for stage striking and taking it out of the counterpick list (which I realize is weird), but I'm way too biased against it to be able to make that decision so I'll just wait until someone else suggests it. I guess I just don't think it's worth removing FD completely from neutrals because a lot of matchups strike to it, just not a lot of the ones with spacies because of chain grabs.

FD is the least similar of the neutral stages because it lacks platforms. It imbalances matchups for characters that have chaingrabs, especially for characters with good defensive grab games (sheik and marth come to mind). I don't see a problem with it's legality, but i disagree with it being a striking stage. Other than marth vs spacies, it effects sheik vs many characters, as well as pika vs fast fallers, most if not all ICs matchups, and a few obscure ganon matchups. Also, some people dislike playing against falco there because of lasers; i assume similar things can be said about other projectile camping players/characters.

I disagree with your assessment of FoD. I am of the opinion that the platforms disrupt things quite a bit. I personally don't care for the stage because of this disruption and lack of predictability, but - like FD - i dont see a problem with it being a legal stage.

I personally like the idea of a 3 stage strike since it would be decided between the 3 most fair and similar stages. The other 3 fair-but-not-consistent stages would be relegated to counterpicks.

Just use 1 stage strike per player and then random the rest of the stages for a 6 stage rule-set. Seems fair enough to me. And then the losing player can ban a stage of his choice.

Kage bringing back that '06!

I still like the MLG ruleset (random stage, 1 veto per player). Its fun to play and simple for players to do. But since stage striking has become pretty standard over the last year or so, I don't think we can justify using a less fair method for determining a stage. The point of a tournament is to determine the best player by using the fairest ruleset available.

Oh man. I'm supposed to release some information about this today.

...

LOL

/mangostyle



I'll have a list of regional leaders out today and will be PMing them an Accept/Deny request. As soon as they all get back to me, we will be selecting the first round of membership.

Cactuar said:

Oh man. I'm supposed to release some information about this today.

...

LOL

/mangostyle



I'll have a list of regional leaders out today and will be PMing them an Accept/Deny request. As soon as they all get back to me, we will be selecting the first round of membership.

Click to expand...

then why didn't i get a request?



jk, would love to represent my region but mostly to rep Sabergaming with possibility of having some input in the back room for tournament rules and trying some new stuff at our tournaments and getting feed back from the players to make it so that we an improve this game, or running by the back room seeing if they have any ideas also to try at tournaments.

JPOBS said:

See i think thats a total cop out.

The obvious answer to the question is "both." Its such a loaded question. "Derp, should you know how to do something but not be able too, or should you be able to do anything and not know which?, derrrp"

I think theres more value to be had n reading people's responses who actually sacked up and chose a side an defended. Im pretty sure everyone knows "both" is the politically correct answer.

Click to expand...

I don't think you should pick based on answers, period, but the explanation behind the answers. So that works for defending one side or the other, but being able to say something more than "they're both necessary" is also valued.

also, I don't see why you're arguing rulesets in an application thread. It just clutters it. There are a lot of opinions in this thread, and if we argued all of them it would never go anywhere.

Though I have to say I approve of striking. If you really disapprove of a stage, it won't be in the final 2. The only complaint I've ever seen for striking is that it's too complicated (it's not) and that it converts stadium to a non neutral. Which I agree with, though that's another story. The only conceivable problem with stage striking is that giving players a choice means the "least" neutral stages will generally not be played first match, in which case they shouldn't be on random anyways. That does not appear to be a problem though, as stage preference depends on a multitude of factors, such as which characters have been picked, individual player preference, as well as what you know about your opponent. Neutral stages are picked because they are considered to be the "most neutral" overall, not in character matches. Certain stages certainly favor characters in matchups, which is why we have striking, so that we don't start off the game with falcon vs. sheik on FoD (even that's arguable).

Bah, now to stop being a hypocrite. Basically, take the discussion to another thread guys. You're arguing all sorts of different things (stage neutrality, striking, DSR).

im like a page late but i would "cop out" and say both for #10 because its a stupid question

its just an opportunity for every good player who has chosen one over the other to choose strategy, and for nobody to dare to submit an application to cactuar in which they choose tech skill

despite that clear trend, tech skill is definitely just as important in every scenario as your strategy is almost worthless if you cant do it consistently and precisely

all of the top players have great strategy and great tech skill, probably the best of both if you consider tech skill consistency and precision (as you should) instead of flashiness and tricks with fox

i cant keep up with fast moving threads now so this is probably it for my contribution

the MW misses u, drew.

List is updated, Cactus

So, what are the results?

I think the regional leaders still have to accept or deny a PM and haven't all gotten back to him. Could take a while, heh.

Sorry, had to have a last minute discussion.

To be posted shortly.

Also, thank you Jungle.

Hey Jungle

For some reason the link to my application on the front page links to HugS' application. It seemed you copied it correctly, so I don't know what happened.

Here it is again: http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=12500085&postcount=313

When are the new b-roomers going to be announced? Not that I applied. I'm just curious.

Thats...odd? Thanks tecotacos

Thanks man

:D

Jungle just really wanted to make sure we read HugS's app.

Smashboards Username: KirbyKaze
Region: East Coast Canada, Toronto
Primary Character(s): Sheik
Secondary Character(s): Fox, Peach, Zelda, Game & Watch

REQUIRED

1. Q. How long have you been playing competitive melee?
A. 4 years.

2. Q. How often do you attend tournaments? How familiar are you with your local scene? Your regional scene? The national/international scene?
A. I am familiar with my local scene and regional scene. I make an active effort to travel to Quebec prior to major American tournaments (or frequently host them when they come here). The national and international scene eludes me somewhat; I am not able to travel out of the country as much as I would like as a result of my employment. That said, I do make a concerted effort to keep up with most of North America through my various contacts and online friends.

3. Q. How would you classify yourself as a player relative to the current metagame? (beginner, average, high level, pro, etc.)
A. I’m probably the low end of high level. Though, with some of the self-rankings people have given themselves, I could probably argue pro if I felt like it. That said, I don't think I'm that good.

4. Q. Do you think the other individuals in your region would support you being a member of the MBR? Why?
A. I believe they would. In the old selection of the MBR they were quite surprised when I wasn’t initially chosen, actually. I feel they view me as knowledgeable in terms of the game’s mechanical aspects and I have a lot of good ideas to contribute. I have also had some experience running small tournaments and regularly try to incorporate new faces into the community.

5. Q. Do you consider yourself a discussion leader? Why?
A. I feel I do not initiate discussion very often but I am good at directing pre-existing discussion in different directions. As a result of my vast mechanical game knowledge, I am good at closing discussions, too, or offering opinions. I do not mind taking control of a conversation, but I prefer not to unless it's going in a terrible direction.

6. Q. Are you an active Tournament Organizer? If Yes, what are some recent tournaments you have hosted? If No, what are some ways you feel you contribute to your local scene despite not being a TO?
A. I was, but not lately. I contribute mainly by providing a place for smashfests and by trying to incorporate new people and make them feel welcome. I may start tournaments up again during the summer, but my work schedule limits my ability to host to Sundays. Some people have a problem with that.

7. Q. Do you feel that the current tier list is accurate? Why?
A. Tier list can be written very differently depending on how you grade matchups, tournament results, human potential, etc. Tentatively I’ll say it’s not bad. Overall it is fairly accurate. I feel Falco is better than Fox, however, and I also feel Pikachu is underrated. I think Sheik might be better than Jigglypuff but it's hard to really argue that one in lieu of the current metagame so that can be our little secret for now.

8. Q. Do you feel that the current MBR recommended stage list is fair? Why?
A. I feel one can sometimes run out of stages in a set. But it is a fair list.

9. Q. Do you feel that the current MBR recommended rule set is fair? Why?
A. I feel striking is a good improvement from single ban. It’s a fair ruleset. I dislike Dave's Stupid Rule in a few aspects but I'm not sure what else could be done about it.

10. Q. What is more important to you: Tech Skill or Strategy? Why?
A. Low levels are dominated by tech skill. High levels are dominated by strategy. Low levels emphasize not getting ***** for messing up as people develop their game. At high level, I feel a certain technical threshold is expected of the players anyway. Once that minimum level is met, I feel strategy becomes more important because it provides answers to more situations and allows you to focus your development to create a better style. In short, I think after the bare minimum, strategy becomes more important because it enables you to streamline your style and emphasize your skills as a player. It also gives you more ability to combat the opponent’s style effectively. I feel this trend is reflected in top level play. Some of the most basic Fox styles are the most successful.

11. Q. What is more important to you: Maximizing Punishments (Combos) or Initiating Punishments (First Hits)? Why?
A. In the extremes, initiating is better because if a player only has access to one, the one with combos can’t hit someone whereas the player that initiates can. With that said, I am going to assume there is a base level of general competency met (I am referring to high level play). In which case, I am going to say initiating is more useful for similar reasons to the previous question. In my experience, completely optimal punishment is not completely necessary for one player to beat another. There’s a threshold that exists where combos are “efficient enough”.

The question is somewhat awkward to me because it doesn’t really take into consideration positional advantaged gleaned from often-less-efficient combos; a lot of high level play with a few characters nowadays involves putting Peach onto the ledge with a combo (which often means doing less damage because of how low-trajectory moves work out) rather than launching her off the level with Bair or whatever. The player that hit Peach to the edge, because Peach's poor edge options, has a better chance at following up than the player that hit Peach high into the air (where she has her aerial mobility and various other things to fall back on). In this case, would your ability to continue to keep the opponent in a bad state where they have reduced options count as comboing? Or does the presence of options make it countable for first hits? I feel there are a few grey areas in this question.

At any rate, all awkward cases aside, in a general sense I lean towards first hits on the premise that once a certain combo competency is met, improvements in combos will not show a significant difference in overall player effectiveness. Acquiring more first hits, conversely, will continue to be useful. Also worth noting is that some characters simply do not have the ability to take advantage of a punishment-centered style.

12. Q. Does SSBM have a limited lifespan as a competitive community due to its age or any other factor? Why or why not?
A. Our game has the ability to survive. I feel our biggest issue is that new members find it difficult to learn the game not only because of the lack of other members around their skill level, but also because we lack the resources to teach them effectively (up to date guides, instructional videos, etc).

13. Q. What do you think could be done to expand our community?
A. I feel we need to make it more accessible. Advertisements and other exposure are also important. However, I do think the most daunting prospect to newcomers is the issue of how stupidly hard it is to learn and practice this game. If we could get a training mode hack with a recordable CPU function and some other features, it would greatly help Melee’s accessibility because practicing this game is difficult. I’m not entirely sure how realistic such a thing would be, though.

14. Q. What do you think the MBR could do to stimulate the community?
A. I feel if the MBR took a more active role in tournament organization we would benefit from it. Pound 5 was a fiasco and I believe much of it could have been avoided if we simply took part in the organization of it. Fly and Sheridan, at the very last, are masters of numbers and I know we have (or had?) some brilliant analysts in there (including a particularly stunning dessert plant).

For a lot of game communities they sometimes release strategy articles. This game still has a lot of things unexplored; even something as rudimentary as a conversation-format article on various offstage options that Fox or Falco have when thrown and the benefits of each might be stimulating for new players. I feel a lot of important stuff does not get talked about. Given that MBR is supposed to some of the brightest and most reputable minds of the community, I think something like this would be good. Explaining certain behaviors that occur within the game would also be good.

I am also going to suggest updated character guides (maybe even video guides) to promote accessibility and I think the MBR could play a good role in that. That virtually all of the character guides are outdated seems bad to me.

15. Q. How do you think the MBR would benefit from your input?
A. I have knowledge of the game and interest in seeing it pushed forward in terms of refining its gameplay. I’m good at smash theory and have positive relations with a lot of regions and their top players (although I also have some negative relations with specific people but that’s neither here nor there). I can talk about the game well. I feel I could help provide direction or thoughtful insight for various projects. I also make a great mascot or cheerleader.

Blahhh i thought fixed them all

it was a good app what can i say :3

BigD!!! said:

im like a page late but i would "cop out" and say both for #10 because its a stupid question

its just an opportunity for every good player who has chosen one over the other to choose strategy, and for nobody to dare to submit an application to cactuar in which they choose tech skill

despite that clear trend, tech skill is definitely just as important in every scenario as your strategy is almost worthless if you cant do it consistently and precisely

all of the top players have great strategy and great tech skill, probably the best of both if you consider tech skill consistency and precision (as you should) instead of flashiness and tricks with fox

i cant keep up with fast moving threads now so this is probably it for my contribution

Click to expand...

What I'm really looking for is people who will stand by their opinion. Caving and catering to me just because I happen to be the one posting the application is super weak. I'm not the one accepting people, we have an acceptance committee.

People need to learn to express their opinions before starting the back and forth of a debate.

Honestly, I don't care if people answer one or the other, as long as they provide a solid reasoning behind their choice.

There are so many ways to approach that question. Answering "both" is more of a copout than you guys realize.