BBR Recommended Rule List v2.0 & General Ruleset Discussion

[Browny]

If 2 players cant discern the difference between using it to retreat and outright stalling, well i guess no amount of specific rules are going to get through their thick heads. so w/e lol.

im not really saying it shouldnt be banned, but something like

"Extending Metaknights Infinite cape AT ALL is banned. It is a very deliberate and difficult technique, not possible by accident. Any competitor caught using it will be warned once then forfeit the match."

The current rule only makes sense to those who fully understand it. Like, what would happen if someone used it for 1 second? can the other competitor request a forfeit on that match?

 

[infomon]

"Extending Metaknights Infinite cape AT ALL is banned. It is a very deliberate and difficult technique, not possible by accident. Any competitor caught using it will be warned once then forfeit the match."

The current rule only makes sense to those who fully understand it. Like, what would happen if someone used it for 1 second? can the other competitor request a forfeit on that match?

Yes, I agree completely; with the problem and the proposed solution.

 

[Kuraudo]

Dededecide not being allowed is the biggest pile of ****ing bull**** I have ever heard.

 

[lordvaati]

no banning of suicidal KOs, please.

 

[Deleted member]

idk they're kinda gay.

infinites have to go first at least.

 

[TP]

Umbreon, you're the first person from the SBR to post here in like a month. Can you go back a couple pages to where I proved that Ganoncides are determined by controller port and luck? I feel that the SBR really needs to see it.

 

[Titanium Dragon]

I can't deny that I have the fear of a "creep" effect wherein no one takes stages banned on this list seriously anymore while still pushing to ban more stages, resulting in lists 3.0, 4.0, and beyond just becoming more and more restrictive

I agree. Its not like the SSBM and SSBB communities aren't infamous for their scrubbiness, either, which I think is a large portion of why so many stages end up banned. Not to say this is always true (some of the stages, such as the circle camp ones, the walk-off edges ones, and the ones where you can be infinited easily against walls) are obviously in need of bans. But the guidelines instead allow people to ban stages for scrubby reasons, or move them down in the list for the same reason.

Why are Pictochat and Pokemon Stadium counterpicks and not neutrals? The reason is that people don't like them. I've seen no other reason.

 

[Uzima (Uzi)]

I've been thinking about this for a while, would it be possible for players be allowed to put a percent handicap on them selves before a match.

it would allow many characters to get past the ******** match ups they have and increase viability.
take for fox example, he is a great character but is murdered by unbreakable locks and chains,
he has like 3-4 match ups that are insaine due to the locks and chains, pika for example, has a 0-90 chain on him which is just dumb as hell on many levels.

now if fox could get a percent handicap it opens up a ton of match ups to rely on actually fighting, and not pulling of an unbreakable chain.
if someone thinks that adding 40-50% onto there opponent is unfair for them, they need to shut it and actually learn how to fight and not rely on unbreakable lock and chains for when they fight.

this isnt just for fox, but a ton of other characters suffer the same crap that keeps them low on the tierlist, not if you can get past these stupid things, even with the added start percent.

we all know these unbrekable chain are one of the most retarted aspect of brawl, since there is NO way out of them no matter how good you are, and so easy even someone who doesnt know CRAP about brawl can pull them off with just a tiny bit of practice (if even that)

now with the small handicap on, it turns back into a real fight and not a race for the lock or chain.

 

[Fenrir VII]

^^ This...

This was brought up before, but mostly ignored, so thanks to uzimakisensai for bringing it back up.

Basically, a Fox player, as in the example against Pikachu above, could put a 60% handicap on HIMSELF. This would mean that at the start of the match, and after each death, Fox would start at 60%, while Pika would start at 0%, as normal.

Now this would avoid another 20-30% that Pika could do to Fox, but would also be quite risky, since having to do 60% more to Pika than he has to do to you is a bit harsh.


In an even better example, Wolf could put his handicap to 45% in order to avoid Falco's death CG spike, making that match much more playable, without really eliminating Falco's advantage. Several more examples could be pulled here, but I think you get the point.


The only rules that should be banned are those that can give one player a large advantage over the other, such as MK's stalling tactic, etc.. This in no way gives the player an advantage. It actually puts him at a worse position than he would normally be, but eliminates the fear of a CG death or huge unbreakable CG/lock combo.

I believe that this rule should be explicitly stated in the rule list, to avoid confusion, as it simply allows certain terrible matchups to be playable, but still a disadvantage.


please do not respond to this with "don't get grabbed", or whatever... It is unreasonable to think that Fox will not get hit with a sheik ftilt, or that many characters will be able to avoid every grab that could KO them.

 

[DarkAura]

Also this would actually lead to some Players actually having to learn the match-up of a certain character because in the wolf-falco fox-pikachu (theres more i know... you get the point) case pika and falco can strictly rely on the same grab combo to get the win so they don't really have to try at all. With the handicap however, surely they will start at a disadvantage but atleast it will be a slightly more entertaining match that would last longer than 30 seconds.

I lost at tournament because of one of these stupid locks... my opponent was originally a marth main... he was terrible, however he decided it would be fun to continually use pikachu against me... and long behold he won every time because all he did was dodge..dodge...dodge... CHAINGRAB YAAYYYZORZ I WIN... and don't go "oh why didn't you counter pick" i didn't counter pick because at the time i was only good with fox so simply put, i could only use fox. that loss made me start using more characters.

So anyways You should atleast consider changing the rules to allow a more enjoyable game of smash, and a slightly better chance for those who have none against certain characters

 

[Lightning93]

For the three posts above, I could not see any other logical counter-argument than "no, we need to keep these matchups completely unplayable," because that's either how it's always been, or maybe because it's "better" that way.

Otherwise, I completely support the new rule in question.

 

[Virgman]

Though this may seem a disadvantage in some cases, it actually keeps the game and the fights more even, challenging, funner, and balanced. I sincerely believe that the approval of this rule will not only make a difference on the field, but also in the eyes of the players. People will no longer overlook a character simply because they remember the character gets 0-deathed by so-n-so. If they really want to play that character, they can with no fear of their skill being nullified in battle. This will indeed make a lot of players happy. It certainly has my vote.

 

[Lightning93]

It would also advance the overall metagame of a lot of characters as well, instead of keeping the majority of tournament-viability within a lucky few. It might make Brawl far more enjoyable for a lot of people.

 

[infomon]

lol @ fox influx

 

[AvaricePanda]

The problem with this is that yes, you are putting yourself in some sort of advantage. To quote Ankoku:

Giving a handicap to yourself under the reasoning that it only "hurts" you seems to be a method of wording to hide information. Various Snake players have allowed themselves to get shot up by lasers so that they wouldn't have to live in fear of Falco's chaingrab into dair for the first 40% of their stock. You're essentially removing that period of vulnerability for free. Since you're giving yourself the opportunity to alter handicap at will, you've essentially traded the threat of a 60%+ or death setup.... for 40% a stock. Hell, against Marth you can get rid of that fthrow fsmash for 20% damage and fthrow dair gimp just by adding a 10% handicap.

How many people would look only at the fact that you're giving yourself a % handicap without seeing how it affects the character matchup you're about to play? And unlike counterpicking, where the other player is allowed to switch off the character to deal with your stagepick, you're just adding an arbitrary % to remove a disadvantage in your matchup, without possibility of response from the opponent. What's he gonna do, give himself a handicap?

CGs, locks, whatever don't only do a certain percent damage at the start of each stock, which is what using the handicap rule is almost implying. Pika can CG Fox to a certain percent depending on how early he starts the chaingrab, around 90% I believe if he starts at 0%, and can follow it up with a U-tilt/U-smash. Not only can it do more damage than what the handicap is put on, but it also puts the opponent in a bad position; above Pikachu, where he can proceed to try to juggle.

You're trading the threat of 100% and really bad zoning or death for 60% a stock. This can also be applied to other arbitrary match-ups, to avoid Marth's low percent CGs and gimps, as Ankoku said.

Plus, even though it's improbable that you can avoid the locks, it is still possible. It is possible (not probably) to avoid Pika's grab at a low percent, to avoid Falco's grab to low percent, etc. Heck, against Falco, you can just SDI his spike back ON the stage when he tries to spike you, tech it, and punish him. There is no reason to ever get spiked if you can just SDI on the stage (not on the ledge, on the stage itself) and punish him for the D-air.

Just because a match-up is really bad, doesn't mean that outside influences have to be made to make it better. Do you ban ICs or D3s chaingrabs to make the match-up fairer? Do you ban Marth's F-air and OoS upB in match-ups to make them fairer? Do you ban Diddy's bananas to make the match-up fairer?

Unfair match-ups don't only exist because of locks or the sort. Diddy's offensive and banana game really wrecks Samus's defensive options, and Sheik's F-tilt really wrecks Fox. The latter is what people complain about though, because it's non-interactive; instead of not really having a chance at the start of the match, you don't have a chance when you get hit by the first F-tilt.

Match-ups shouldn't be altered to make them fairer.

 

[Lightning93]

First of all, we are not banning any moves of the opponent, although we are limiting his potential to DESTROY. I do not see any justice in keeping these insta-death techs available for use. You're arguing that you'd rather have an easier kill or more percent than the handicap you set on us, which is rather selfish imo. I see your point, but isn't the point of changing rules to better the game as a whole? Making matchups "fairer" should benefit the metagame of a handful of characters instead of just a couple, like I said before.

 

[AvaricePanda]

You aren't directly banning moves, but you're eliminating the chaingrabs/locks/whatever that they could do before.

The entire point is that, despite how crappy a match-up is, if whatever makes it crappy isn't banworthy in the first place (and Pika/Falco's CGs, Sheik's F-tilt lock aren't), then the match-up shouldn't be altered. Period. Crap match-ups exist for some characters, sometimes because the character as a whole is just better and sometimes because of a lock or chaingrab. Diddy wrecks Samus, largely because of his bananas. Marth wrecks a good chunk of low-tier, largely because of his F-air alone (it's such a good spacing and zoning option that many characters without those options in low-tier can't do a thing about it). Sheik wrecks Fox, because of an F-tilt lock.

The only reason that match-ups like this would be considered for the handicap is because they're non-interactive "combos." Marth has really good match-ups against most of low-tier, not because of really one move doing an infinite combo, but one move can eliminate all of the opponent's options. Sheik has a good match-up against Fox if only because of her F-tilt lock.

Thing is, none of this is banworthy, so there's no reason to alter match-ups. You wouldn't restrict Marth from using his F-air against half the cast, and you wouldn't restrict Diddy using bananas on characters like Samus or Bowser. There isn't a reason to restrict Pikachu from using a 0-100% CG, even if it means handicapping yourself each stock.

Not only is there a problem with altering match-ups to make them more fair, but there's a problem with the handicap notion in the first place. Suppose you're a Fox playing a Marth. At the start of each match, Marth can f-throw->f-smash, f-throw->d-air, or f-throw->f-throw->d-throw->d-throw (I think it's legit, not exactly sure) if you're at 0-5%, or something like that. There's a solid risk of being put in a bad position offstage in either of those scenarios, and while f-throw to f-smash or f-throw to d-air may just do 20% but not kill you, Marth is in a position to edgeguard you and possibly do more damage to keep you offstage, or possibly gimp you.

So if the handicap rule was allowed, you could just handicap yourself to 10%, and now you don't have to worry about getting grabbed or staying in shield. Your playstyle is changed, and Marth doesn't have the edgeguarding advantage he would have had.

Same thing with Fox vs. Peach. Peach has a D-throw CG to like 35% that can lead into F-tilt or N-air or something. If you set yourself to a 10% handicap, you don't worry about something that could possibly lead to 50%+advantageous zoning.

There's no way to solidly say, "Well you can do a handicap if it's Fox vs. Pikachu, but not Fox vs. Peach or (insert char) vs. Marth," because there's no solid reason to handicap one and not the other; neither is broken, one just does more damage. So you'd have to let anyone get the handicap rule. Characters like Marth or Peach with low percent combos will suffer from this, because they lose not only the combo, but the advantageous zoning and the prediction at the beginning of the match. If you're facing a Marth without a handicap, you'll be a lot more wary about getting grabbed and play safer. If you're facing him without a handicap, you'd approach like normally, without having to worry about said grab.

Plus, as Ankoku said, unlike counterpick stages, where your opponent can choose a different character, your opponent wouldn't be able to do anything if you decided to use the handicap.

Not only is the rule wrong because match-ups shouldn't be altered to be made more fair, unless the tactic you're limiting/banning is broken in the first place, but the rule in itself is inconsistent and gives disadvantges to characters who have low percent set-ups to a possible gimp, ledgeguard, or simply good zoning.

 

[Lightning93]

Okay, the matchup is still pretty bad with a 60% at the beginning of each stock. Going for 10% is unfair. But of course you still argue it's a "BIG disadvantage" to the people who don't get to kill early. Last time I checked, the game was designed to kill at higher percents, which is what we're offering to give you.

And your only looking at MATCHUPS, instead of the metagame as a whole. Several characters would GREATLY (well maybe not because, it is after all, a handicap on US) benefit if they at least have a chance to fight back. But instead you give me a wall of text justifying something that requires little skill and promotes the death of several character's metagames. Also if you're going to compare this to the IC CG's, there are VIABLE ways to escape them. Splitting them up (which isn't that hard to do) stops their CG dead in its tracks, except for maybe the D-throw which still isn't that bad. And it's true, only a person with real skill can memorize like 36 different grab timings/combinations, not someone who gets an automatic 90% with ONE move.

 

[Zephil]

Is funny how ppl still defend the locks when they don´t suffer from it...how are you telling that moves like shiek ftilt that are just 1move=40% or more for the opponent not viabe for this rule?have you ever seen a pikachu vs fox match were someone say at the end "nice match"... no. Marth fair is a great move and a pain for a lot of chars but is not a lock si it doesnt make point in this discussion, maybe is almost imposible for some chars t approach marth but they have the option at least to TRY to approach. The locks are what they are "locks"... you simply can´t do anything to escape from them so they are against all the idea of a fighting game, and is not like we are banning them, is not an obligation to apply the rule to all the matches, this is choice of the one that wants the handicap. So what I understand is "Let´s not accept this rule because because we can´t then completely destroy some chars"

 

[Fenrir VII]

The problem I see with Panda's reasoning is this:

we aren't banning any move. We are not restricting the use of any move... so examples of Marth's Fair and Diddy's Bananas are completely out of place. In the same manner, we are not calling for IC's grab bans or anything of the like. each player should be able to do whatever moves they have at hand (barring some things like MK's infinite stall, but you get my point here)

imo, if I were playing as Pika, I would rather the opponent be scared and put a handicap on (and I do play Pika from time to time). I mean, Pika's grab range is terrible, so there's good chance that the Fox could avoid a grab, and then Pika is left trying to land it, and having to work harder, in the end, for something that the Fox player would just give to him.

And I don't really understand the point that was made about counterpicks... We really aren't breaking the game here... or doing anything that would require a counterpick effort here... Going back to the Pikachu Fox example... we could pick Fox and put a handicap of 60% (which would be obvious before the match starts), or we could pick somebody like Marth or Metaknight... Either way, the Pikachu player is fully aware of what we are doing, and could CP accordingly. I don't really see a huge difference here.

All we are trying to accomplish here is making certain matchups much more playable... You have to admit that there are those matchups that are insanely difficult, due to one character having an instant death tactic, basically. Of course the opponent would know that there was a handicap in place, and be able to change character, etc accordingly. We are not banning the use of any attack or tactic, but are eliminating stupidly hard matches, in favor or still pretty bad, but playable, matchups.

I feel that any player should be able to put a % handicap on his character in tournament play, and I don't feel that there is a legitimate argument against it. If you really look at it, Sheik and Pika would still have 7-3 matchups against Fox, easily... just not 8-2 or worse. Same with Falco Wolf, PT, etc... Falco would still have an advantage, just not quite as large as before. I cannot think of a single match that putting a handicap on yourself would switch the advantage, or even make it even.

Basically, the characters receiving the handicap would get a slightly better match against the opponents, without the opponents really getting nerfed... no matchups, as far as I can tell, would change, so the opponent character's tier position would not be at risk...

 

[Tyr_03]

If you put a handicap on yourself, would it be in effect for just that match or for the entire set?

A handicap percentage put onto your character after I choose my counterpick stage and character could drastically affect the matchup (this is in fact your entire point for suggesting it) and change whether I want to use a character or stage against you or not. You would in effect be counterpicking my counterpick by being allowed to change your percentage to improve the matchup in your favor. The same would be true in double blinds. How is it fair that you are allowed to adjust the matchup after it is blindly chosen?

The only way a handicap rule could be fair is if it is chosen as part of a double blind and then chosen again, before the opponent's counterpick is chosen or forced to remain the same throughout the set.

 

[Lightning93]

Like Fenrir said, in the end, the matchup would not change so much. And honestly I don't know anyone who would be scared to fight against someone who put a 60% on his or herself. The specifics about handicaps can be decided later if the smash community was more open to it.

 

[Tyr_03]

Like Fenrir said, in the end, the matchup would not change so much. And honestly I don't know anyone who would be scared to fight against someone who put a 60% on his or herself. The specifics about handicaps can be decided later if the smash community was more open to it.

If, in the end, the matchup would not change so much, then why would we make a change to the official Brawl ruleset just to deal with it? I thought the argument was that it would make your character more tournament viable by turning a near impossible matchup into one that was just at a disadvantage. That's a pretty big change if you ask me and is what makes it worth bringing up at all in the first place.

I wouldn't even entertain the idea until specifics are laid out in front of me. One way of doing it I think could be fair and beneficial to the metagame. Another way would be unfairly catering to a character that can't get around a bad matchup.

Please elaborate.

 

[AvaricePanda]

You're again avoiding my argument and claiming that leaving in the locks isn't "fair."

You do not alter match-ups when the thing in question that you are altering is not ban-worthy in the first place.

Are you directly banning Pika's D-throw CG? No. Are you making it completely out of the question, because it's unable to be used? Yes.

The only difference between Marth's F-air and Pikachu's D-throw CG is that the latter is guaranteed to wreck if the first D-throw connects, while the former is an amazing spacing and zoning tool that will wreck certain characters throughout the match.

The only difference between Marth's match-up against much of low tier and Sheik's match-up against Fox is that the latter is bad because of a lock, while the former is bad because of a really good spacing tool.

They're still both 7:3 match-ups. So you don't only alter the latter simply because it's a lock, but not alter the former.

Let's take this as an example: Falco. Falco has a 0-40% CG on most of the cast, which can lead to an onstage late DACUS or an off-stage D-air spike. The CG doesn't work if you're grabbed at roughly 20%, and you can SDI the D-air on the stage, tech, and punish the Falco while he's D-airing. Is this a broken strategy? No. Does this make some match-ups bad? A little; it shouldn't drastically as no one should ever die from his D-air spike after the CG.

In a normal match, Falco's opponent is afraid of being grabbed, because they fear the 0-50% onstage or the 0-possible death. So they play more wearily of a grab, and good Falco players will react on this, and punish them for playing safer or predict their actions better. If you set the handicap to 20%, Falco doesn't have this low percent to 50 or death chaingrab anymore, and Falco's opponent doesn't have to be nearly as weary of a grab, not only being an unequal exchange but changing the match-up, as some characters don't have good safe options to play well while still avoiding a grab, but with the handicap they don't have to worry.

Answer me this: Would you think it's fair to set a handicap to 10% against Marth players? Would you think it's fair, as a Fox, to set a handicap to 10% to avoid Peach's D-throw CG or some of her low percent combos?

This rule eliminates low percent set-ups, whether or not their broken (which none are). The opponent doesn't have a choice, and has to trade off for an unequal exchange. In Fox vs. Pikachu, Pika can CG Fox to like 90%, then U-tilt or U-smash out of it, and you're proposing to trade that for a 60% handicap. Will Pikachu grab you at 0-30% every time in a match? Probably not. But does he lose the option to play off of your inanely safe playstyle and have a CG that can lead to 100%, in place of 60%? That alone isn't fair.

Point is: you don't change match-ups. You're saying that, "Well we aren't banning a move, so using Marth's F-air and Diddy's bananas example is out of the question," but you are essentially. By setting the handicap to 60%, Pikachu can't do his D-throw chaingrab. It doesn't exist anymore. By setting the handicap to 10%, Marth can't F-throw->F-smash or F-throw->D-air. While you aren't banning the move, you're eliminating his usage for it, which you still just can't do.

They all still have 7:3 match-ups, some because of locks and chaingrabs, and some because of very good tools. You don't restrict a character's tools in a match-up to make the match-up fairer.

 

[Lightning93]

Our goal isn't to make matchups "fairer" but actually playable. We see your point. Yes we are eliminating the options of locks of CGs, but at a comprised cost to US. We don't want the matchup in our advantage or even, but we want to be actually able to play them. I don't think it's too much to ask for.

 

[Uzima (Uzi)]

one thing that keeps getting ignored is the fact that these locks and chain grabs are just that.
completely unstopable,

something a noob could pull off and a ultra pro couldnt stop, it COMPLETELY takes away the skill that used to exsist with combos, and just made it memorialize button imput that is a GARUNTEED Huge percent of damage, its something that takes ALL SKILL out of a game..
with these ultra locks and chains remved from the game it turns into what it is supposed to be, a judge of skill, to see who is better at the game, its no longer decided by impossible to stop combos, but from the actual skill a player has.

 

[Fenrir VII]

Lol at Fenrir and Tyr posting in the same discussion... sorry about your hand there...


To Tyr:

The original thought was that the match would move from something like an 8-2 to a 7-3 or so... Therefore, I had thought that either player could put a handicap on at pretty much any time... While it does make it a somewhat better match, it still does not in any way limit your CP.
There would be an alternate situation, though.. One could treat it as with picking a character. Basically, if you CPed Pika on me, and I didn't already have a % on, I couldn't put one on.

To be honest, I don't know that the handicap would really change the match very much at all, so it seemed to me that putting a handicap on would be a pretty much any time, and really not change the fairness of the match. Against Pika, I'm not even sure that putting a handicap on is the right choice for Fox, to be honest. I've been a huge proponent of the "Fox can avoid grabs" argument for a while, so when you're basically giving him a free 60% for something you might avoid, I'm not sure it's the best choice... but I digress.
Basically, I think that while it does make matches a bit more playable, it certain doesn't change that one character has a large advantage over the other as a CP, so I really don't see a reason that Fox couldn't set a handicap even after char choice.

To AP:

You do not alter match-ups when the thing in question that you are altering is not ban-worthy in the first place.

Are you directly banning Pika's D-throw CG? No. Are you making it completely out of the question, because it's unable to be used? Yes.

by banning walk-off ledges, DDD's CG is greatly weakened, too, but that is the best choice... Yes, we are trying to limit the use of a single move unbreakable CG. Pika's dthrow would still be used as a good setup to other things, just the CG factor of that would be gone... so yes, we are trying to do that, and think it's best for the metagame's development.

The only difference between Marth's F-air and Pikachu's D-throw CG is that the latter is guaranteed to wreck if the first D-throw connects, while the former is an amazing spacing and zoning tool that will wreck certain characters throughout the match.

The only difference between Marth's match-up against much of low tier and Sheik's match-up against Fox is that the latter is bad because of a lock, while the former is bad because of a really good spacing tool.

They're still both 7:3 match-ups. So you don't only alter the latter simply because it's a lock, but not alter the former.

Well, not exactly. Marth's zoning takes quite a bit of patience and spacing... and at any point, can be beaten by pretty much any character in the game. Zoning exists in every fighting game I am aware of, and is pretty much a staple of good play. Regardless of that, though, there's no way you can say that landing a single grab with Pika even compares in difficulty and skill level involved to proper Marth zoning. The same is true with Sheik, except even more so... Sheik can ftilt out of shield even, having good range and speed..

Basically, for Marth to properly zone a whole match is no comparison in skill than for Sheik/Pika/Falco to land one attack or grab...

Let's take this as an example: Falco. Falco has a 0-40% CG on most of the cast, which can lead to an onstage late DACUS or an off-stage D-air spike. The CG doesn't work if you're grabbed at roughly 20%, and you can SDI the D-air on the stage, tech, and punish the Falco while he's D-airing. Is this a broken strategy? No. Does this make some match-ups bad? A little; it shouldn't drastically as no one should ever die from his D-air spike after the CG.

In a normal match, Falco's opponent is afraid of being grabbed, because they fear the 0-50% onstage or the 0-possible death. So they play more wearily of a grab, and good Falco players will react on this, and punish them for playing safer or predict their actions better. If you set the handicap to 20%, Falco doesn't have this low percent to 50 or death chaingrab anymore, and Falco's opponent doesn't have to be nearly as weary of a grab, not only being an unequal exchange but changing the match-up, as some characters don't have good safe options to play well while still avoiding a grab, but with the handicap they don't have to worry.

Falco is not a good character only because of his CG... I agree it helps hima lot, but he has many other options. And while the teching thing is correct, it does not always hold true in matches (some stages, and etc), and some characters cannot simply get back on stage from it.

And I agree, this ruling would certainly make it interesting for Falco players. I do not feel that it would greatly alter his metagame, or even change his position in the teir list, but some matches would be better, yes.

Answer me this: Would you think it's fair to set a handicap to 10% against Marth players? Would you think it's fair, as a Fox, to set a handicap to 10% to avoid Peach's D-throw CG or some of her low percent combos?

Yeah, I would.

This rule eliminates low percent set-ups, whether or not their broken (which none are). The opponent doesn't have a choice, and has to trade off for an unequal exchange. In Fox vs. Pikachu, Pika can CG Fox to like 90%, then U-tilt or U-smash out of it, and you're proposing to trade that for a 60% handicap. Will Pikachu grab you at 0-30% every time in a match? Probably not. But does he lose the option to play off of your inanely safe playstyle and have a CG that can lead to 100%, in place of 60%? That alone isn't fair.

Point is: you don't change match-ups. You're saying that, "Well we aren't banning a move, so using Marth's F-air and Diddy's bananas example is out of the question," but you are essentially. By setting the handicap to 60%, Pikachu can't do his D-throw chaingrab. It doesn't exist anymore. By setting the handicap to 10%, Marth can't F-throw->F-smash or F-throw->D-air. While you aren't banning the move, you're eliminating his usage for it, which you still just can't do.

They all still have 7:3 match-ups, some because of locks and chaingrabs, and some because of very good tools. You don't restrict a character's tools in a match-up to make the match-up fairer.

Again, banning walk-offs and walls makes DDD's matchups fairer... So yes, at times you do limit the usage to make matches fairer...

I think that's our key difference. You feel that the game's matchups need to stay the same, and I feel they need to change. Any 0-100% (ish) unbreakable combo needs to be seriously considered here... because honestly... is it fair? I've never really thought so. I don't know why they wouldn't add throw DI there.

While I agree that other low-% setups aren't really broken, there are a few that just plain are... and they should be reconsidered here. That's our main point in bringing this up. since the game came out, basically, the Fox pika thing has been well known... and has kept Fox from being a more tourney viable character than he is... Falco has kept a couple of the lower tier characters from doing better, as well... I don't think that easy 100%ish or death combos should really be allowed here... but I agree that actually banning a move is very hard to legalize and not the right choice.

That's where the handicap comes in... you give yourself a set lesser damage than what they could give you, but it's free damage... idk, it doesn't change matchups from bad to even, or anything like that... it changes them from very bad to bad

 

[Tyr_03]

I know Fenrir, I've been hoping we'd play in a tournament sometime or something. That'd be cool.

I think adding this as a rule would be perfectly fair because you're putting enough of a handicap on yourself by putting yourself into earlier killing range. But I also believe that you should not be allowed to change your percentage after a counterpick by the opponent. It has to be a constant handicap chosen for that character for the entire set so that it doesn't break the counterpicking system. It would be an easily enforced rule.

While say in a matchup like Falco vs. Snake, this could give Snake an otherwise absent advantage, he risks leaving himself open to earlier gimps if the opponent counterpicks Metaknight. All matchups that this could effect should be considered however.

 

[Zankoku]

Like Fenrir said, in the end, the matchup would not change so much. And honestly I don't know anyone who would be scared to fight against someone who put a 60% on his or herself. The specifics about handicaps can be decided later if the smash community was more open to it.

Matchups would change quite a bit. Sheik vs Fox is the least of my worries. Sheik would be losing every single one of her tilt lock combos for 50%, Falco cannot hope to chaingrab into a dair setup for 40%, and just 10% would be enough to stop many chaingrabs and death combos. Allowing arbitrary handicaps might give Fox some less one-sided matchups, but at the expense of changing matchups almost universally. This becomes especially problematic, if, as Fenrir suggested, the handicap could be set at any time before the round happens. Personally, I don't want my even/slight advantage matchups all turning into slight disadvantage matchups just so Fox could get a 70-30 out of an 80-20.

 

[Zephil]

do you realize that 80-20 is not a "slight" advantage? Is ****... Ankoku say exactly what I was expecting: "we don´t want to lose our advantage to certain chars at a cost of a handicap"...

do you realize how painful is for a fox main trying to escape Shiek´s ftilt lock or Pika cg when is impossible... the matches would still be in advantage of the Shiek and Pika even without these ATs because of the handicap and don´t forget the fact that fox is lighweight so the handicap makes still easy to kill him.

What we want is to people stop depending of a glitch to win a match... how boring is to see a match were a you cg until 80% and then Usmash when instead you could have a handicap of 40% and stop the cg and be able to have a fun match with still an advantage for the one that don´t suffer the handicap.

A **** match would always be a **** match just that now is at least playable for the ***** char... thats all we ask

 

[Zankoku]

It's not a glitch. Why would you even argue that it's a glitch?

Yeah, I'm saying exactly what you're expecting - why should I have reason to care more about your one auto-loss matchup becoming slightly less than an auto-loss matchup, when it also weakens 80% of my character's matchups? Even better, it weakens a good 60% of the matchups for my three characters. Why should I favor a change that helps two of your matchups, in exchange for that, at all? Is it because Fox is cooler, or something? You're asking for something with the intention of helping out fewer characters than banning Dedede's infinite, without even considering the fact that it actually affects far more than Fox vs Sheik and Fox vs Pikachu.

In addition, you're assigning a rule with the intent of manually rebalancing the game. That is better done using homebrew codes, not arbitrary rules.

 

[Tyr_03]

lol Ankoku wins

I didn't even think about Sheik dealing with other characters like this. It'd make her bottom tier just to make Fox a little higher. Advancing one character's metagame means nothing if it devolves another's.

 

[Lightning93]

From my experience with Shiek (and I should know considering my friend's Shiek has been more than once complimented as amazing) you should still be able to win without a lock, especially at higher percents. She doesn't have a lock on everyone anyways, but her potential for her gimping game should be increased, which is really good imo.

From recent arguments it seems like we're pushing this mostly for Fox, but in reality, if it was, I wouldn't be supporting it. I know other characters would benefit from this. And from playing SK-92, I know Falco doesn't need his death CG to spike to win, especially if the opponent was at higher percents. Like I said, gimping game greatly increase.

 

[Zankoku]

...So, you're supporting a rule that intentionally attempts to rebalance the game toward your interests?

I seriously can't think of a single rule that was implemented to help out with matchups unless they were universally unbeatable (running away as Fox on Temple in Melee), but that stuff was covered in stagelists.

 

[Fenrir VII]

Matchups would change quite a bit. Sheik vs Fox is the least of my worries. Sheik would be losing every single one of her tilt lock combos for 50%, Falco cannot hope to chaingrab into a dair setup for 40%, and just 10% would be enough to stop many chaingrabs and death combos. Allowing arbitrary handicaps might give Fox some less one-sided matchups, but at the expense of changing matchups almost universally. This becomes especially problematic, if, as Fenrir suggested, the handicap could be set at any time before the round happens. Personally, I don't want my even/slight advantage matchups all turning into slight disadvantage matchups just so Fox could get a 70-30 out of an 80-20.

No, you make a good point. We need to discuss practically every matchup that this would seriously affect.

The amount of % put on to stop CGs keeps going down... I'd really like a universal idea of how much % would be necessary to stop Falco's CG and Sheik's combos, along with everything else that has been discussed so far.. just to see how viable this is.

And I could agree with the % being part of the character selection... so as not to defeat a CP, really. I can see the point of that.

Also, whereas I am mostly talking about Fox matchups, because those are the ones I know the best, and thus can argue without too much error, I feel that this would also benefit characters with problematic CG matchups against Falco. I know Wolf and PT have had huge issues in the past. I cannot say that I personally know all the characters that are badly affected by that, but I am only capable of speaking what I fully know.

It's not a glitch. Why would you even argue that it's a glitch?

Yeah, I'm saying exactly what you're expecting - why should I have reason to care more about your one auto-loss matchup becoming slightly less than an auto-loss matchup, when it also weakens 80% of my character's matchups? Even better, it weakens a good 60% of the matchups for my three characters. Why should I favor a change that helps two of your matchups, in exchange for that, at all? Is it because Fox is cooler, or something? You're asking for something with the intention of helping out fewer characters than banning Dedede's infinite, without even considering the fact that it actually affects far more than Fox vs Sheik and Fox vs Pikachu.

No, it's not a glitch, but I feel it is poor programming to not add some sort of throw DI there...

And again, we are not speaking just for Fox, but please understand if most of our examples are of him... we are of course most knowledgeable on that character. I feel a fairly large number of characters would get safer matches against Falco, for one... so it could potentially help a lot of characters here, too...

I feel that DDD's infinite should be banned, too, for that matter... but that's a completely different topic.

In addition, you're assigning a rule with the intent of manually rebalancing the game. That is better done using homebrew codes, not arbitrary rules.

...So, you're supporting a rule that intentionally attempts to rebalance the game toward your interests?

I seriously can't think of a single rule that was implemented to help out with matchups unless they were universally unbeatable (running away as Fox on Temple in Melee), but that stuff was covered in stagelists.

The banning of walk off stages prevents DDD from wrecking a large part of the cast, really... but not universal.

Every ruling that comes out with regards to suicide KOs, stage lists, the banning of MK's extended dimensional cape even outside the normal definition of stalling, among quite a few more, is set forward to rebalance the game. This is not exactly a new thing to fighting games, or Smash at all...

Yes, in essence, we are trying to rebalance the game to benefit a few characters that are kept from being widely tournament viable due to a handful of very bad matchups. This is the same undertaking as choosing a stage list, etc... each rule on this list, mainly, is set to rebalance the game, in essence, to make it fairer.

I agree with you about homebrew codes... but since most tournament setups in tourney will be brought by players, making a homebrew standard would be quite difficult, and likely will not happen. Normally, yes, I would support homebrew projects, such as balanced brawl.

And again, I agree with people saying that this would change the way that the game is played, in a small part. It would change some matchups, even beyond the scope of what we were thinking when we proposed it... but that is where the debate comes in. We should examine the different characters and matchups that this would affect, in whole, to determine whether it makes the game better, or defeats the game entirely. I have to admit that I do not know every character matchup in the game, but I have no problem discussing them, should others provide input.

 

[Zankoku]

The banning of walk off stages prevents DDD from wrecking a large part of the cast, really... but not universal.

If we banned walk-offs because of Dedede's chaingrab, then we'd be doing a great disservice to our own policy. As it is, walkoffs can be abused in many other ways that many of us feel is too far removed from normal play. Either that, or the stage is made in a way where people would never actually fight and timeouts would always happen.

Every ruling that comes out with regards to suicide KOs, stage lists, the banning of MK's extended dimensional cape even outside the normal definition of stalling, among quite a few more, is set forward to rebalance the game. This is not exactly a new thing to fighting games, or Smash at all...

Rulings for suicide KOs are there to determine a set outcome given the game's random interpretation of what happened. Stage lists and turning off items have been the farthest we've gone to directly steering how the game is played.

The banning of MK's IDC is simply because it's really impossible to determine whether it was being used for stalling or not, so instead of requiring every tournament to have a judge for each match, we just banned the technique. This was an issue of enforceability rather than rebalancing.

And yes, this is a rather uncommon thing to fighter games. Besides Smash, tournament fighters typically are barely touched with regards to rules.

Yes, in essence, we are trying to rebalance the game to benefit a few characters that are kept from being widely tournament viable due to a handful of very bad matchups. This is the same undertaking as choosing a stage list, etc... each rule on this list, mainly, is set to rebalance the game, in essence, to make it fairer.

Our goal in making rules for Smash is not to make the game "fairer," but "playable." A technique that involves holding down on the control stick while mashing up on the C-Stick until time runs out doesn't qualify as "playable." Freezing the game by exploiting a strange glitch doesn't either. An exceedingly poor matchup may be "unwinnable" for one of the two characters, but it is not "unplayable," nor is it a widely sweeping problem. Yes, many people dislike Dedede's infinite, but the main reason it has not been banned is because to do so would be manually adjusting game balance to favor a handful of characters.

And again, I agree with people saying that this would change the way that the game is played, in a small part. It would change some matchups, even beyond the scope of what we were thinking when we proposed it... but that is where the debate comes in. We should examine the different characters and matchups that this would affect, in whole, to determine whether it makes the game better, or defeats the game entirely. I have to admit that I do not know every character matchup in the game, but I have no problem discussing them, should others provide input.

But this makes it an odd decision to even consider implementing the rule at all. If it helps and hurts a wide array of matchups almost arbitrarily, at times even hurting low tiers and helping high tiers, why would you want to try running it as a standard?

 

[Zolios]

I would understand someone's decision to take away Final Destination. For many characters, it's incentive to camp. The smaller stages with platforms, such as Battlefield or Smashville allow a character to approach using several methods, able to avoid any incoming projectile.

 

[scorekid100]

wow talk about banning final destination? I doubt it will ever happen and to be honest if final destination wasn't banned in melee why would it be banned in brawl? They are essentially the same stage(with minor differences most notably the edges) so I don't see it happening.

 

[DUCKAtl]

i got a quick question, should GC controllers thats left and right right trriggers springs have been removed be allowed, because MLG suggests it but technically its moded so please leave an answer.

question #2: should port town and green greens be allowed in a tourney of about 12-18 people?

 

[Rajam]

Sorry if it doesn't goes here, but i couldn't find anything about this in this thread: http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=230481

What is the official rule about Planking? Is it considered as Stalling? How much planking is allowed ( like how many edgehogs per match? ) I don't prettend to open a whole discussion about this, i just want to know the official statement about Planking of the smashboards community