BBR Recommended Rule List v2.0 & General Ruleset Discussion

[John12346]

Edit: ignore

Double Edit: wtf I have to start a new page with THIS? I'd better type something, then.

Aside from Metaknight, are there any other factors attributed to considering using new stages, activating items, etc etc etc?

I've been sorta out of the loop recently, so I wanna catch up on details.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

BPC didn't respond to me . And niether did ADHD... . I honestly think that items and the ability to deal with a random event that pops up al ot and could give a player a distinct advantage are alien to the rest of the game, and distract from the rest of the game, and therefore should be banned. I mean, think about it. An item pops up next to you . You go and grab it. Your opponent does the same. Number one, stopping what you're doing and dashing to and picking up an item has nothing to do with and is alien to the rest of competitive brawl. Plus, add up all the seconds you and your opponent would waste getting items total. Like, a half a minute. That distracts, big time, from the rest of competitive brawl. I'll post more later. AND ADHD TALK TO ME!

On a side note, I bought Starcraft 2 yesterday and I really like it.

I missed the post, sorry.

The issue with this is twofold.
First of all, this is the weak argument against items. For items, unlike stages, it's perfectly reasonable to say "we as a community don't like playing this way"; it's comparable to not playing on coin matches. It's not reasonable to say "without items is obviously better at high levels than with items", because it's not. It's not even clear. By ISP rules, some would argue, the game is even more balanced.
Second of all, you are assuming that the rest of the game is meant to be a bland 1v1 pvp. You are assuming that random factors are something negative, something to be avoided, something that interfere with play, rather than being a part of it. With a grand total of maybe 6 or 7 stages that have nothing random about them, a physics engine that has randomness built into the most simple of actions (dash), and characters with ridiculously random moves, how can you assume this?

 

[T-block]

I never understood that argument.

Items are a setting. We choose to play with them set to None. Understood.

Only one stage may be chosen for a match. We choose to limit that to some subset of stages.

I wish the wording correlated better, but I think it's the same logic behind both points. We are forced to choose one and only one stage before a match can begin. Why can't we limit which stages are to be chosen? If each match in Brawl were instead a 41-game set that cycles through the stages, then I would agree. It would then be clearly the developers' intent that all stages be played. However, if you can say developers gave us the option to play with items off, then they certainly "gave" us the option of choosing only out of some subset of stages.

 

[-Vocal-]

By ISP rules, some would argue, the game is even more balanced.

I hear you talking a lot about ISP lately. About how it changes the game, by balancing things. Balancing them with a drastic change. You know what else would be a drastic change that would make things less inbalanced? Removing MK.

*waits4FLAMEyouzAn00b*

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I never understood that argument.

Items are a setting. We choose to play with them set to None. Understood.

Only one stage may be chosen for a match. We choose to limit that to some subset of stages.

I wish the wording correlated better, but I think it's the same logic behind both points. We are forced to choose one and only one stage before a match can begin. Why can't we limit which stages are to be chosen? If each match in Brawl were instead a 41-game set that cycles through the stages, then I would agree. It would then be clearly the developers' intent that all stages be played. However, if you can say developers gave us the option to play with items off, then they certainly "gave" us the option of choosing only out of some subset of stages.

When we ban a stage, we aren't saying "you can't play on this stage this round" (strikes) or "you can't play on this stage this set" (personal stage bans). We're saying "you can never ever in a competitive environment play on this stage" (or, because we do not have a community-wide standard, "you can never use this stage in this tournament/region"). It is, in fact, as if we would completely turn remove the stage from the CSS.
When we go round 1 SV, round 2 Brinstar, round 3 SV again, would Lylat Cruise, Frigate Orpheon, or Rainbow Cruise have been available? Yeah, of course, either player could have gone for those stages instead. Would YI(M) or PTAD? No, because it's as if it doesn't exist at all.

I hear you talking a lot about ISP lately. About how it changes the game, by balancing things. Balancing them with a drastic change. You know what else would be a drastic change that would make things less inbalanced? Removing MK.

*waits4FLAMEyouzAn00b*

Yes, but banning MK is, again, a ban. We don't like those.

 

[Orion*]

Probably not. But he's at least decent in the sense that he's on the NEPR, and the point is I'm getting people like him and others to play me so I can try to spot my weak points.

dont u play ike or something LAWL

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

dont u play ike or something LAWL

Actually I wanted to hit you up for tips. I know you're a top MK and famous for playing stupidly gay, so I figured I'd ask you for advice on my playstyle.

 

[-Vocal-]

Yes, but banning MK is, again, a ban. We don't like those.

Mushroomy Kingdom, The Summit, Skyworld, Green Hill Zone, and Big Blue say otherwise. Unless you're for every single one of those being a part of competitive play? Not one or several, but all?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Mushroomy Kingdom, The Summit, Skyworld, Green Hill Zone, and Big Blue say otherwise. Unless you're for every single one of those being a part of competitive play? Not one or several, but all?

We don't like them, but we accept that unless we ban certain things, competition is completely impossible. We ban those things. It's like with Akuma in SF2T-anyone could just pick him up, practice a few days, and destroy anyone with him. He reduces the game to just him as an option, destroying "viable" options to the extent that it's necessary to ban a "real" option to return viable options.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Oh, come on -Vocal-. You're better than that. We don't like bans, but sometimes they're needed. MK and GHZ have a lot of things going against them. Skyworld... has some gay tricks, but I don't personally think they are unsalvageable. The Summit, I can't comment on, because I don't know the mechanics, but I do know that OHKO fish is stupid.

Bans suck, but sometimes they happen. What BPC meant to say was:

"Yes, but banning MK is, again, a ban. We don't like those if they aren't warranted or needed".

EDIT: ****IT, BPC! Sniped.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Tee hee.

And no, we don't like bans period. We do them anyways because we absolutely are forced to.

GHZ has a permanent, level walkoff which is in almost every case just too overcentralizing around DDD. It also doesn't have options like "camp the platforms" which help against CGs. Summit has a hard circle and therefore has to be banned. Skyworld... Why is skyworld banned?

 

[Jack Kieser]

I think it's because of the platforms breaking. If you break the bottom ones and not the top ones, an U-Smash will bounce you off the top barrier and send you THROUGH the bottom clouds, leading to easy gimps. I think that's dumb, because you can break the top platforms first, but then again, you can also break the house in Luigi's Mansion, and people ban that, too.

Players are lazy, I think.

EDIT: Oh, and don't forget that GHZ has Checkpoint camping. Those **** checkpoints...

 

[-Vocal-]

Who is the person that arbitrarily decided that more is best? You keep saying we don't like to ban things - who is this we? I know that you and Jack generally agree on everything, AA agrees with you on stages to some extent, and another prominent player has expressed similar sentiments. However, if you want to "balance" the game by ADDING a major element (items), how is this inherently better than REMOVING a major element (MK)?

This is all just to get your perspective on things really; the possible balancing qualities of items aren't going to be a large selling point for a ban on MK anytime soon.

 

[Jack Kieser]

We, meaning "competitive game players" (not just video games, mind you). And more isn't necessarily better; I never said that. But removing things that have no justification for being removed, competitively speaking, dilutes the game. It's like that in every sport. I don't know why we think our game is "special" or "different" just because it was made by Sakurai. Games played in a competitive sense operate on competitive conventions.

One of those conventions is "if it's not broke, don't ban it". It's not something that has to be "agreed" upon.

 

[-Vocal-]

Then by that logic there's no need for items to balance anything. It's not broke, so it doesn't need to be balanced. The only thing that has a good case (extremely good, in fact, though that's another issue) for being broken/needing to be balanced is MK. If he isn't broken enough to be banned, then I fail to see any logic that would justify adding a myriad of new variables into the competitive pool (items) for the sake of balance.

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

When a character becomes such a nuisance to the community that people must consider rules made with him in mind, that seems like a broken character to me. But anyway....

The use of items goes beyond the considerations of a single character. MK made it known that planking is effective. Either for stalling, or for regular gameplay. The idea of food on low is intriging to combat planking for stalling seems effective. This I would say can justify the usage of some items in gameplay. Does anyone have any results of using food on low in tournaments? I thought Overswarm was doing somethign with that.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I think it's because of the platforms breaking. If you break the bottom ones and not the top ones, an U-Smash will bounce you off the top barrier and send you THROUGH the bottom clouds, leading to easy gimps. I think that's dumb, because you can break the top platforms first, but then again, you can also break the house in Luigi's Mansion, and people ban that, too.

Players are lazy, I think.

EDIT: Oh, and don't forget that GHZ has Checkpoint camping. Those **** checkpoints...

Checkpoint camping is not a real issue. Just camp moar and wait for the checkpoint to disappear. It's like a temporary walkof-oh wait this stage has permanent ones. :V

Who is the person that arbitrarily decided that more is best? You keep saying we don't like to ban things - who is this we? I know that you and Jack generally agree on everything, AA agrees with you on stages to some extent, and another prominent player has expressed similar sentiments. However, if you want to "balance" the game by ADDING a major element (items), how is this inherently better than REMOVING a major element (MK)?

This is all just to get your perspective on things really; the possible balancing qualities of items aren't going to be a large selling point for a ban on MK anytime soon.

"We" being people who uphold tenants of basic video game balancing. Sirlin is particularly enlightening on this.
We aren't adding anything. Get this whole "add vs. remove" thing out of your head. When you open up brawl, and you've unlocked everything, there is nothing removed from the game at all. There is nothing left to add to it either, because it's full.
Now you turn the item switch to off and none. You have not removed anything that the designers didn't intend for you to remove. It isn't like you couldn't decide "okay, let's play this next match with items", and just ****ing do it.
Now you change it from stock to time. Again, the designers put this in there so you could choose.
Now you ban 75m. It's as if the stage had never existed. There is no switch to remove stages from the CSS. The designers intended for you to be able to play on the stage.

When we **** with the in-game settings, we aren't removing anything. We don't ban items, we simply shut them off. We don't ban coin and time mode, we simply play with stocks.

Then by that logic there's no need for items to balance anything. It's not broke, so it doesn't need to be balanced. The only thing that has a good case (extremely good, in fact, though that's another issue) for being broken/needing to be balanced is MK. If he isn't broken enough to be banned, then I fail to see any logic that would justify adding a myriad of new variables into the competitive pool (items) for the sake of balance.

Except we don't add or remove anything. We simply change the way we play. That's perfectly fine. When we add or remove elements though, we hurt the game itself.

 

[Jack Kieser]

BPC brings up a good point; this mantra of "add v. remove" is, indeed a false one. We, as players, cannot add CONTENT to the game. We can add rules, but those are external, and can affect the game in any number of ways. And the metagame is a natural process, something that evolves from the game as it is being played, not added as much as revealed. The metagame is a natural process.

We need to remember that we don't start from "No items, MK only, Final Destination" and add characters and stages from there; we START with "All items, all characters, all stages, 2 minute matches" and change, remove, or disable things as necessary.

We cannot add anything to the game that isn't already there (stage builder and hacking aside).

 

[ADHD]

Hi.

10 char

 

[Orion*]

I hear you talking a lot about ISP lately. About how it changes the game, by balancing things. Balancing them with a drastic change. You know what else would be a drastic change that would make things less inbalanced? Removing MK.

*waits4FLAMEyouzAn00b*

probably. game would be still be gay though. LOL

Actually I wanted to hit you up for tips. I know you're a top MK and famous for playing stupidly gay, so I figured I'd ask you for advice on my playstyle.

i dont consider myself top lawl, but i suppose ive been winning pretty consistently in singles recently so i cant complain. i do play wifi on occasion though if your connection isnt absurdly awful.

wyatt you suck at brawl get out of this thread and go practice ur oboe niggz

 

[Mr.-0]

Hi.

10 char

HI ADHD!

Am I the only one who likesa playing as the Zerg in starcraft on here?

Oh, and, here: read this:
Criteria to ban something in the game

[1] That aspect of the game must be so different from everything else in the game that it is an alien to the rest of the game.
[2] That aspect of the game must decrease the quality of every aspect of Brawl.

Now, why set these criteria? Is it arbitrary? No. The reason these are ban criteria is because:

A- Everything we have banned in Super Smash Brothers history has met both of these criteria, and
B – Besides Metaknight, there is nothing we have yet to ban that satisfied both of these criteria.

The issue is simple. Metaknight shares all the same aspects of Brawl that we have ALREADY BANNED – In Brawl, and to lesser extents, Melee and Smash 64. Thus, Metaknight should be banned as well.

Before we go into some details, please realize that the ban criteria the anti ban side come up with are likely not in accordance with past smash games but more likely in accordance with other fighting games. Then ask yourself what is more important: to ban what we the smash community have decided has been banworth over our series’ 8-10 year history, or to ban what other communties have set as ban criteria? Obviouisly, because this is a Smash game, the ban criteria we have set in SMASH GAMES SHOULD OUTWEIGHT THE BAN CRITERIA SET IN OTHER FIGHTING GAMES. We are the smash community and we are our own entity. Our game is NOT Street Fighter. We choose as a community to follow our own path and, while we take guidance from other communities, our own history sets a better standard than the history of other games.

Now, we will show the ban criteria. Then in A, we will explain how everything we banned as a community fits the ban criteria. In B, we will show how Metaknight fits the criteria.

[1] The aspect of the game must be so different than every aspect of the game that it is alien to the game.
A - What have we banned that follows this criteria?

Examples: Items, Crazy Stages, Stalling Techniques

The first thing people will say is that items are banned because they are random. That is not why they are banned. Otherwise, why do we set the first stage on random? Why do we allow King DDD to use forward b and Peach to use down B? Why is Halberd not banned (it has random hazards) Items are banned because winning based on a random event is foreign to all the other reasons you should win. As a community, we want winning to be based on overall skill set, not your ability to deal with a random event. You cannot disagree that if you are far better at dealing with food on very low than your opponent, you will likely win the items match. It has a very low effect on the outcome, yet food on very low is banned. The random factor is even smaller than the hazards on some legal stages. It’s just that as a community, the skill of being able to deal extremely will with a random event is ALIEN to the rest of the skills of the game – mind games, spacing, tech skill, and so on. This applies to crazy stages. We don’t want to see how good you are at teching. If you were perfect at teching, nobody would ever beat you on Hyrule Temple in Melee or Luigi’s Mansion in Brawl. You’d be unbeatable. But winning based on teching alone isn’t a skill you’d want to test. Same goes for stalling. It takes skill to stall. Both players can do it. So why not allow it? It’s because it’s alien to spacing, mind games, tech skill. It’s alien and we don’t care to measure this as valuable.
B. Why Metaknight follows this Criteria

This point is supported by the rest of the pro ban argument. It’s all the stuff about MK having no bad matchups – its about MK’s unique ability to stall matches and break the planking ledge grab rules. It’s about MK’s over focus on the Metagame. Sure, it takes skill to win with MK. But guess what? It takes skill to stall too. It takes skill to deal with food on very low. It’s just that, these aspects are so foreign to the rest of the game that they should all be removed. With MK in, success in brawl is determined in your ability to beat one matchup, honestly. Notice that the best players in the world are those that are simply good against MK. This is the #1 far and above beyond aspect that makes or breaks you as a player, even if you are meh at every other matchup in the game. It’s foreign and fits the ban criteria. With MK removed, the game isn’t about defeating one matchup so much as it is about winning a massive load of matchups.

[2] That aspect of the game must decrease the quality of every aspect of Brawl.

A – Examples of things we banned that fit this – Crazy stages, Stalling, Items

Yup, the exact same examples. When you are playing on a crazy stage, every aspect of Brawl – counterpicks, excitement of watching the match, spacing, mind games are all minimized in favor of playing on the stage. Stalling. Stalling decreases the quality of watching matches, decreases viewing interest in the game, spacing, mind games and everything. It becomes a battle of who can avoid contact. Much like MK’s existence becomes about defeating MK and the ability to counterpick MK. Items. I’m not talking about bombs, and crazy things. we mean FOOD ON VERY LOW. Why is this banned? To be honest it’s because, bluntly, WE JUST DON”T LIKE IT. Can one seriously argue that food on very low is going to make a much more skilled player lose to a less skilled player? No. But, food’s EXISTENCE decreases the importance of every single other thing – mind games, spacing, tech skill. We just WANT to play a game where these qualities are the be all end all to test, not a game where food decreases the importance of these. Quite honestly food on very low is banned because it gets in the way of the game we want to play.

Yes, the argument boils down to “MK is not broken enough to be unbeatable, but MK is broken enough to ruin every quality and aspect of the game in the same way everything we have ever banned has been.” That is where we come up with the banned criteria. Things we’ve banned in Smash Brawl, Smash Melee, and Smash 64. If you are getting your ban criteria on PERSONAL DESIRE or OTHER FIGHTING GAMES, is it really as substantial as getting it from all the banned aspects of the series of games Super Smash Brothers Brawl? What we have banned as a community and the reasons we have banned them are ALIGNED with why the pro ban side wishes to ban Metaknight.


Praxis said that, I think. And I kept the MK ban stuff in there too, just for lulz.

 

[T-block]

When we ban a stage, we aren't saying "you can't play on this stage this round" (strikes) or "you can't play on this stage this set" (personal stage bans). We're saying "you can never ever in a competitive environment play on this stage" (or, because we do not have a community-wide standard, "you can never use this stage in this tournament/region"). It is, in fact, as if we would completely turn remove the stage from the CSS.
When we go round 1 SV, round 2 Brinstar, round 3 SV again, would Lylat Cruise, Frigate Orpheon, or Rainbow Cruise have been available? Yeah, of course, either player could have gone for those stages instead. Would YI(M) or PTAD? No, because it's as if it doesn't exist at all.

We don't ban items; we choose not to play with them.

In the same way, it could be said we choose not to play on some stages.

Okay, so the player who lost is not allowed to Counterpick Big Blue game 3. He's also not allowed to Counterpick Beam Sword for game 3.

 

[Orion*]

HI ADHD!

Am I the only one who likesa playing as the Zerg in starcraft on here?

id play zerg but theyre hard as hell and im lazy. *spams rines* LAWL

 

[Jack Kieser]

I thought I had read that before. I started reading and went "This isn't Mr.-O's argument". That being said, Praxis brings up interesting points. His ban criteria aren't really ban criteria; it's obvious that those were thought of AFTER the fact, and were not actually used in banning things. Point two couldn't have POSSIBLY been enacted before a ban took place, and isn't even really relevant to banning something, anyway. The REAL ban criteria come straight from the mouth of Sirlin, anyway:

"A ban must be enforceable, discrete, and warranted."

That's it. If you want greater detail on what any of those points mean, I direct you to this very webpage.

 

[Mr.-0]

id play zerg but theyre hard as hell and im lazy. *spams rines* LAWL

They're not that hard, just don't float, hotkey good, have a good build and don't get lazy with your larva. They are hard at first, though. The protoss are just ridiculously easy though after the beginner levels, and the terrans with their MMM balls are just so pwn and so easy. And yeah jack, that's praxis' argument, not mine.

 

[Orion*]

lawl warpgates 2good

and im lazy, i dont play starcraft competitively. i dont even own it yet, ive just been playing at other peoples houses since the beta. when i get settled next year in college ill probably buy it and then get good

 

[ADHD]

I had a dream that I was a prostitute.

 

[Mr.-0]

Interesting. I had a dream that I was that guy from inception, but I didn't look like DeCaprio. And orion I don't play starcraft competitively either, I just spam ultralisks and hydralisks and call myself pro.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Ok, guys, get back on topic. Mr.-O, ADHD and Orion* are trying to derail/troll the thread. Please don't feed the trolls, and don't let them make you derail the thread, either. This isn't a Starcraft thread, it's a BBR Ruleset thread.

 

[Pierce7d]

Yeah, this is the best part about Ally and M2K compared to ADHD. They don't try to join arguments where they obviously have no clue what the hell they are talking about and couldn't formulate arguments beyond "you are dumb" if they did.

Actually, M2k does this all the time ROFL. I agree with him a lot, but he's got the point-making skills of a 2nd grader.

Ally is also quite the troll, but he knows his stuff.

 

[Mr.-0]

I'm not trolling, I copied praxis argument and posted it. That's a lot of work. All kidding aside, I think items should be banned cause I think nothing should derail from two players duking it out, without any interference. That's competitive smash.

And I'm bored. Why am I even posting anymore?

 

[John12346]

I would agree with the ISP's current ruleset, but forcing all of the items to appear at the center of the stage would involve hacking the game, and if we were to go that far, we could just use Balanced Brawl or something as the competitive standard of Brawl.

(Which I wouldn't mind, but still. >.>)

 

[-Vocal-]

I should have worded my post better.

First, a side note: as far as your stage example, the game does offer a random stage switch that allows you to turn stages off. Why would the developers put anything more than that in? It's the same as the item switches.

Main point: I am not speaking about adding or removing anything to or from the game of Brawl. I am speaking about adding or removing things to and from the competitive Brawl scene. I don't care what's on the disc; I'm talking about what is currently used in competitive Brawl tournaments. That means that if Big Blue isn't a part of the tournament ruleset (it isn't) and we were to start using it in the future, we would have to ADD it to competitive Brawl. Now do you understand what I'm saying?

To quickly rehash my argument using this wording if you'd rather not read my earlier post in this light: competitive Brawl does not have items. You would like to make a drastic change to competitive Brawl by adding items to balance it. How is this any better than removing MK from competitive Brawl, which is another drastic change that would also achieve a greater level of balance in the game?

And I highly approve of Mr. O's quoted post. Just because something is beatable does not mean it's not worthy of being banned; but I digress, I'd rather not murk up my current point with that discussion.

 

[John12346]

Vocal holds a valid point there. Between the addition of items and the removal of Metaknight, both changes are just about equally drastic, yet seek to foster balance in the game.

-The inclusion of items(with no spawn at the center of each stage; that involves hax and like I said, Balanced Brawl would be a better alternative) gives advantages to the player that's losing.
-Metaknight simply gives advantages to whoever decides to use him.

I personally think MK removal and no items would be the best choice, given the above descriptions. That, or Balanced Brawl. ;D

 

[-Vocal-]

Balanced Brawl would probably be the most drastic change of all lol; I haven't really played it, but aren't there all kinds of knockback modifications? I like knowing where my throw combos are headed personally; learning all that stuff again would be a HUUUGE pain

 

[John12346]

Balanced Brawl keeps all the core mechanics and physics of vBrawl, and only edits moves where needed. Olimar only received ONE change, since he was so close to being "average" to begin with, and that change was powering up his Pikmin Change.

Official Site; details all changes made to the game
Introduction video to Balanced Brawl <-- WATCH THIS!!!

Quote: "The foundation of this project is that Brawl is already a fun game. We deliberately avoid changing any core elements that make Brawl what it is. Balanced Brawl has the exact same physics as standard Brawl, and elements such as animation speed, hitbox size, or general character playstyle are rarely changed in any way. No one should have any problem moving between standard Brawl and Balanced Brawl, even back-to-back!"

I personally think Balanced Brawl would be the best competitive step the community could ever take about a game. Plus it would, essentially, allow the entire community to KEEP Metaknight as a playable character and still leave the items off.
.
.
.
.
.
ANYWAY. So what about the discrepancies between addition to items and removal of Metaknight?

 

[-Vocal-]

Still, changing everyone like that requires learning each matchup in a new way, and that'd be much too drastic of a change to adjust to easily. Even adjusting to items would be easier than shifting to BBrawl; you'd only have to learn how to play against items, as opposed to 32 new playstyles. Anywho, I doubt we'd be switching to BBrawl anyways, nothing's really all that wrong with vBrawl besides MK

 

[John12346]

Well, it's not like all the changes were too drastic, except in MK's and Ganon's case.

Snake, for example, has less powerful tilt moves, stronger explosives, and has his Cypher restored when he's grab released.
ICs essentially lost their infinites, but they're a touch stronger now and have invinicibility on their Squall(only when together).
Yoshi is stronger overall and has heavy armor on Egg Roll.

I could go on, but I just want to emphasize that most of the changes made in Balanced Brawl shouldn't call for someone to 'relearn' the matchups too strenuously from what they learned in vBrawl.
.
.
.
.
.
Mind you, I'm not saying that we SHOULD choose Balanced Brawl as the solution, but it's definitely a viable option among banning MK and Item Standard Play.

 

[Orion*]

ok, guys, get back on topic. Mr.-o, adhd and orion* are trying to derail/troll the thread. Please don't feed the trolls, and don't let them make you derail the thread, either. This isn't a starcraft thread, it's a bbr ruleset thread.

sorry mr mod i forgot everyone in the bbr sucked ur dck

 

[-Vocal-]

Well, it's not like all the changes were too drastic, except in MK's and Ganon's case.

Snake, for example, has less powerful tilt moves, stronger explosives, and has his Cypher restored when he's grab released.
ICs essentially lost their infinites, but they're a touch stronger now and have invinicibility on their Squall(only when together).
Yoshi is stronger overall and has heavy armor on Egg Roll.

I could go on, but I just want to emphasize that most of the changes made in Balanced Brawl shouldn't call for someone to 'relearn' the matchups too strenuously from what they learned in vBrawl.
.
.
.
.
.
Mind you, I'm not saying that we SHOULD choose Balanced Brawl as the solution, but it's definitely a viable option among banning MK and Item Standard Play.

Yea, I get what you're saying. If I had to choose one of the three, I'd choose to remove MK, because it doesn't have as universal a effect in change but still a universal effect in balance. What I mean is with items, everyone would learn how to play with them; with BBrawl, people would have to adjust to their new characters; with an MK ban, people just stop getting ***** by the winged bat of Hades.