Creation of BBR Ruleset Committee; Brawl Nationals Agree to Same Stagelist! New TO's!

[Steam]

was that mk m2k?


oh

M2K is not the best MK vs. diddy.

@MarioBrouser- Japes is like the super timeout stage. It's so easy to time people out there.

also the klap trap, it causes gay SDs waaaaay too much :/

as much as I love japes being a lucario main it definitely shouldn't be legal.

 

[Spelt]

M2K isn't the only top MK that matters...

M2K is not the best MK vs. diddy.

So? He's still arguably the best player, and positively the most consistent player/mk main and he should at least be taken into account when bringing up the winner of dallas.

 

[SuSa]

@spelt
No. The fact that he is bad against Olimar and Diddy is pretty... well... agreed upon, even from himself it seems - and his results show it. He also has a strong mental block against Diddy Kong's. (paraphrasing him)

ADHD has beaten him more often than he has beaten ADHD.

The issue?

1) Gnes != ADHD
2) M2K != Only top MK

So neither you nor nidtendofreak are right, but he is... well.. "more right" because while he had the name wrong - his argument was decent.

I also don't see any of those stages being "free wins" for MK except against... (and what a shocker here)... bad characters who already are pretty much free wins for MK.

 

[BSP]

M2K is not the best MK vs. diddy.

@MarioBrouser- Japes is like the super timeout stage. It's so easy to time people out there.

also the klap trap, it causes gay SDs waaaaay too much :/

as much as I love japes being a lucario main it definitely shouldn't be legal.

I feel like there's a good response to this somewhere, but I just don't know it atm. Where's BPC or Razeik when you need them lol. But I do know that time outs are considered a legitimate way to win by our community, and a stage shouldn't be banned regarding them. This committee should try to make some justification for its stages too.

 

[Spelt]

@spelt
No. The fact that he is bad against Olimar and Diddy is pretty... well... agreed upon, even from himself it seems - and his results show it. He also has a strong mental block against Diddy Kong's. (paraphrasing him)

Doesn't mean it's not possible for him to ever beat them.

ADHD has beaten him more often than he has beaten ADHD.

Ok? He's still beaten him, showing it's possible and shouldn't be counted out.

The issue?

1) Gnes != ADHD
2) M2K != Only top MK

1) I think you mean "=/=".
2) ^, also, i already replied to this.

 

[Crow!]

Nationals synchronizing their stage lists and presumably the rest of their rules is fine. It doesn't thrill me, but it's not necessarily bad.

What I actively oppose are:
1. Denying stickies to and otherwise treating a region's important tournaments as second class citizens if they choose to use rules that serve their particular region better than whatever this "committee" decides on. Like responsible regional TOs should be doing.
2. Claiming that the present project is associated with the BBR. It's not.
3. Denying the community the BBR's idealist, "research paper style" ruleset.

All explanations justifying this heavyhanded project I have received essentially say that imposing a national ruleset is so important that harming the community at every turn is acceptible if doing so would accomplish that goal. I, for one, believe that we exist to serve you, the competitive Smash player, and not the other way around, and as such I do not support SWF suddenly deciding to, well, "turn evil" like this.


I have much more to say about this, and at some point I may copy/paste a couple of my essays from the BBR prior to this announcement being fully public.

 

[SuSa]

Doesn't mean it's not possible for him to ever beat them.



Ok? He's still beaten him, showing it's possible and shouldn't be counted out.

1) I think you mean "=/=".
2) ^, also, i already replied to this.

I mean !=.

He's beaten him. But not every time.

A "sure win" is every time. Is it not?

Case.
And.
Point.

 

[Spelt]

I mean !=.

He's beaten him. But not every time.

A "sure win" is every time. Is it not?

Case.
And.
Point.

What? No...
Now you're just agreeing with me, and acting like you still disagree. I guess this is a weird version of your "i'm going to write a novel about how i despise a certain point of view and then at the bottom write a tiny disclaimer about how i'm actually neutral on the topic"

 

[Blacknight99923]

LOL at people using Gnes beating tyrant on brinstar and norfair as evidence for their arguments, clearly they did not watch the matches and noticed tyrant didn't know what the **** he was doing.


tyrant made bad counterpicking decisions by playing on stages he did not understand major do's and don'ts of as well as strategies that give his character powerful options.


tyrant pretty much played the same way he does on any stage on both of those stages.

 

[Raziek]

Nationals synchronizing their stage lists and presumably the rest of their rules is fine. It doesn't thrill me, but it's not necessarily bad.

What I actively oppose are:
1. Denying stickies to and otherwise treating a region's important tournaments as second class citizens if they choose to use rules that serve their particular region better than whatever this "committee" decides on. Like responsible regional TOs should be doing.
2. Claiming that the present project is associated with the BBR. It's not.
3. Denying the community the BBR's idealist, "research paper style" ruleset.

All explanations justifying this heavyhanded project I have received essentially say that imposing a national ruleset is so important that harming the community at every turn is acceptible if doing so would accomplish that goal. I, for one, believe that we exist to serve you, the competitive Smash player, and not the other way around, and as such I do not support SWF suddenly deciding to, well, "turn evil" like this.


I have much more to say about this, and at some point I may copy/paste a couple of my essays from the BBR prior to this announcement being fully public.

Seconding this.

We should not be retiring our recommended ruleset under any circumstances.

If there's going to be a unified ruleset for Nationals, fine.

WE STILL NEED to let Joe Q. Randomscrub know that Distant Planet, Norfair, Japes, Green Greens, etc, are all considered competitive stages.

If you retire the Recommended Ruleset, you're essentially stealth-banning 5+ stages that are PERFECTLY fine in competitive play.

 

[Steam]

I feel like there's a good response to this somewhere, but I just don't know it atm. Where's BPC or Razeik when you need them lol. But I do know that time outs are considered a legitimate way to win by our community, and a stage shouldn't be banned regarding them. This committee should try to make some justification for its stages too.

it's almost too easy to time people out. in soooo many matchups you're kinda screwed trying to approach your opponent on one of the upper platforms.

@Raziek- JAYOKU HOUTENJIN

 

[etecoon]

although I don't mind these stage rules at all, I do have to agree with crow 100%

essentially black listing every tourney that doesn't conform to this ruleset is a completely ridiculous way of going about things

WE STILL NEED to let Joe Q. Randomscrub know that Distant Planet, Norfair, Japes, Green Greens, etc, are all considered competitive stages.

they aren't considered competitive stages, though, what reputable region actually allows these? **** do ANY regions PERIOD allow distant planet?

 

[SuSa]

You stated these stages are MK friendly - but they do not ONLY benefit MK.

Rainbow Cruise is a pretty awesome counter for quite a number of characters. (Snake, G&W, Wario, Kirby, DDD, and others whom I'm to lazy to list at the moment....)

Actually. I think I mistook someone else's add-a-second-ban statement for you. *checks back thread*

Yep. You were just disagreeing with Nidtendofreak's reasoning to why the Mk-Friendly (although not Mk-Exclusive) stages were being added.

Point:
Doesn't matter anyways, as this stage list doesn't even have any reasoning behind it other than "A few select TO's agreed upon it and all the non-MLG (If there are going to even be MLG) nationals agreed to this stage list. That is our reasoning"

Which is NO BETTER than nidtendofreak's logic anyways. So unless you have a beef with both.....

EDIT:

While I agree with the concept behind this idea. I personally don't have issues with the stage list. The others have a point. But in my mind, if this is more realistic (and it's already been kind of done) I'm more for it.

People have to realize the preacher doesn't always practice what he preaches.... I hate being tied with certain ideas for the words that I spout. I don't do all this personal opinion bias crap when possible. I throw out objective reasoning and let it be torn to shreds or even better - promote a certain idea over another. Let progress happen. Personally - I'm Anti-MK ban. Objectively? I'm pro-MK ban. The difference? One's based on data I have seen. The other is on data I have experienced and care about more. If you can't grasp the difference, don't bother replying to my posts.

Progress doesn't happen unless someone sticks their head out into unexplored territory. I'm willing to be that person. Why?

Because internet fame is ****ing meaningless. It's the internet. Get your head out of your *** if you think otherwise. I believe in progress. Not my own reputation.

 

[Spelt]

i already posted my objection to this whole idea a couple pages ago.

 

[Blacknight99923]

I agree with raziek, this ruleset should only be utilized at national events, if some local wants to host a tournament using mansion, or using a 3 stage starter he should be allowed, however I believe this is a suitable compromise for national events.

 

[SuSa]

They explained how offshoots (for testing purposes) could be used, which could potentially expand the list.

I think becoming a community rather than a collective is a bit more important than being the most objectively right.... for the sake of being able to realistically happen.

Because no matter how much you try - I don't see the a lot of the major regions adopting an extremely liberal ruleset.

Why?

Because you can't define "how much is too much". It's subjective. The stages as a whole, can be shown to be completely degenerate to competitive gameplay - then there are those that we feel are degenerate to competitive gameplay. This line is 100% subjective. It's a challenge to get everyone to agree "This much is too much. This much is acceptable."

That is what this committee is trying to accomplish. Getting everyone to agree on how much is too much. You may not feel the walls and walkoffs on Onett are degenerate to competition because of the cars. How many people do you think I can find that disagree with you? How can you prove that you are right that it isn't harming competition? As much as I've argued for liberal stages (go ahead and visit stage discussion + my full stage striking) I have not once seen any argument to show that while these stages aren't over-centralizing to competition (such as Temple is) - that they aren't degenerate to competition; specifically the set of skills that the community has decided are the most important to test.

Player vs Player vs MINOR stage interference (because you cannot simply remove every stage) is acceptable by most. This is what most conservative players want. They say that "some interference from the stage is inevitable and we decide on how much is acceptable."

Player vs Player vs Stage is what most liberals want to test. They feel that being able to adapt to the stages is a large part of the game (not denying that) and feel it is best for competition (difference in ideas now). They want to allow everything that isn't over-centralizing to gameplay.

***Some notes

Due to laziness I used the words degenerate and detrimental rather interchangeably. While this isn't exactly correct at all - I hope you can understand. Something that is detrimental is only... "slightly degenerate". Over-centralizing is the other side of the coin. Something that is completely degenerate. My argument for both sides revolves around this separation of ideas - where liberals only want to ban what is completely degenerate, while conservatives want to ban things that they feel is detrimental to competition. A line that cannot be drawn perfectly - and so it becomes subjective, but can be acceptable.

It resides in the hands of the liberals to convince the conservative that what they are doing is wrong. No easy task, and I'm with Omni when I say I'd rather be realistic than idealistic. If something can reasonably happen, can happen quickly, and be agreed upon by a large majority. It is a better alternative to an ideal situation, that may take many years, that would take ages to be agreed upon by a large majority.

See:
Why utopia societies don't work, especially as the group existing within the "utopian" society grows larger.

 

[Raziek]

SuSa, the problem I have with this ruleset, even going along with that logic, is that they have Pictochat, but not Japes.

LOOOOOL. This list is the "common opinion" list.

@Etecoon: It's not about what's commonly accepted. That's the point of THIS ruleset. It's about what is considered COMPETITIVELY LEGITIMATE (This doesn't mean Japes gets excluded because of "it's campy", and "I don't like it."

If this change goes through, you stagnate experimentation completely. SWF and the "BBR Ruleset Committee" (BBR shouldn't even be in the name, because not all the members are in the BBR, and the BBR (collectively) does not 100% support this concept) are now taking a stance and saying "We will not sticky tournaments that don't use this".

If we remove the recommended ruleset, We're saying, "These 14 stages are fine. Nothing else is supported."

When we SHOULD be saying, "This is the list of stages universally accepted at nationals, BUT, these other stages are also fine, and you are encouraged to use them if your players accept them."

EDIT

Here's the other fun part. In order for your opinion to count, even if you're a TO, (For example, if I wanted to have input) I would have to remove stages I've been using for more than a year, (Yes, this includes Distant Planet. It's a fine stage) in order to even have any input AT ALL.

How the **** is THAT fair? All it does is split the community. TOs who agree with this limited stagelist with several glaring traditional omissions (Japes, Norfair) are going to join, because they have nothing to lose. The group grows in strength, supporting its own ideals, making it resistant to change.

No liberal TOs will join this ruleset. WHY? Because they'd have to ban quite a few stages just to have their voice count at ALL, and good luck fighting against the tide of conservative TOs already in the group.

This may unify nationals, but an entire section of the Brawl community is being cut out.

I'd rather have a diverse, open community where you have freedom of choice, even if it IS mostly based on regional philosophies, than have a divided community, controlled in this manner.

inb4trolls

YES, I'm salty.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

All right, first of all, this doesn't cover two of the most important factors in a stagelist.
1. Which stages are starters?
2. How many stage bans are there?

Second of all, it's one thing to have a unified ruleset, but why do it like this? See raziek's post.

I hate it because I don't believe in a wide portion of these stages and would be playing on a japanese stage list if I had it my way.

However its tolerable, and I am not OUTRIGHT against it being used in tournaments and it is certainly better than the 1 MLG had.

I think a 2 stage ban of 1 neutral (at most) and 1 cp or 2 cps would make this even better however.

Two things. First of all, I think I have proven that the japanese ruleset, both with and without the non-stagelist rules, is less competitive than almost any American one. Please stop advocating it.

Second of all, Why would you ever restrict stage bans to one neutral and one CP? I talked this through with Kadaj and managed to change his mind on it... There's no reason to only allow the banning of one "neutral", especially when there are a lot of characters who will almost always counterpick you to neutrals. Example: Falco vs. MK on this stagelist. Falco gets 2 stage bans: RC and Brinstar are gone. MK gets two stage bans: FD and BF are gone... oh wait, no, he can't ban one of Falco's best counterpicks. And yeah, FD and BF are about equally bad in the matchup. It's the same sort of clearly biased thinking that would lead to nonsense like the Japanese stagelist, or having a very limited starter list.

so basically the bbr is retiring their "recommended" attitude and instead replacing it with a "use-this-or-we-will-come-to-your-house-and-brick-you" attitude.

I certainly hope so, and it's about time.

Stagelist needs more Japes, but other than that is fairly decent.

This. Seriously, what's the reasoning? If RC, Picto, and Brinstar are legal, what's the problem with japes? It's non-random, and the only real issue with it is polarization. However, if you were to ban stages for being polar and/or hardcore counterpicks, RC and Brinstar would be gone long before Japes would. I mean, overall I like the stagelist, but I can't help but mention that there are some leaps on logic I don't really get. When you legalize RC or Brinstar, then banning the other or Japes is simply illogical, no matter what criteria you're using.

And then MK bans FD and what ever other stage he feels like. You're already low on options against MK, a second stage ban is not only going to hurt things more, but has been proven to not be needed. I didn't see MKs dominating MLG stagelist with it's one stage ban.

While it's true that it's unnecessary, why is one stage ban necessary? Why have stage bans at all?
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=291947

Another question I'm likely to hear is, "why is it right to rebalance the system like this?" Well... Why have a stage ban at all? The existence of, and number of stage bans is completely arbitrary. There's no real reason to have any particular number (like the timer). So why not provide them in such a way that it rebalances what our counterpick system innately breaks?

Also, this would weaken MK substantially. Nobody has more than one good counterpick against MK anyways; most chars that do well against MK are either uniformly decent against him on most static stages, and maybe have one good, strong counterpick. Two stage bans doesn't mean much except maybe against Falco.

Seriously, is everyone from a conservative area going to be crying the whole time in this topic? Your own TOs for regional tournaments agreed to this list. Either learn the stages, or don't go. It's really that simple.

Seriously, this. THIS STAGELIST IS NOT LIBERAL. Aside from the typical superconservative BS stagelist, it's got... uh... PS2, Pictochat, and... uh...
No Japes.
No Green Greens.
No Luigi's Mansion.
And I guess I can kiss my dream of seeing PTAD in the next MLG season goodbye.


But yeah, there are a couple serious springs in logic in this stagelist... But overall? It's an improvement. Here's hoping it travels across the pond to germany.

 

[DtJ Hilt]

I understand that you want the BBR and National Tournaments to have more of a link among their stage list, but turning them all into the same stage list is, in my opinion, a bad idea. Why must a tournament, such as Whobo, remove a stage that was voted legal by the BBR, such as Japes? I really don't understand. One of the reasons I was going to travel to Texas, and already bought my pass, was because I loved its diverse stage list when compared to other nationals. And this was literally, no joke, one of the biggest reasons I pushed to make it so that I could go.

I understand that you want uniform in the rules for nationals. Saying "things need to be this specific way" when it comes to rules like infinite chaingrabs, or ledge grab limits is one thing. But when the Backroom says "Here are all of the stages you can choose from for your stage lists. Oh. But for nationals, you need this specific list" is bul ****. Seriously. If the East Coast wants to run a tournament with 5 or 7 neutrals and barely more counterpicks, and it aligns itself with the BBR Recommended Stage List, that's fine. But to remove creativity is freedom of choice in the creation of stage lists is... :/

 

[Steam]

First of all, I think I have proven that the japanese ruleset, both with and without the non-stagelist rules, is less competitive than almost any American one. Please stop advocating it.

I'd love to see this. how can you "prove" something that is subjective?

This. Seriously, what's the reasoning? If RC, Picto, and Brinstar are legal, what's the problem with japes? It's non-random, and the only real issue with it is polarization. However, if you were to ban stages for being polar and/or hardcore counterpicks, RC and Brinstar would be gone long before Japes would. I mean, overall I like the stagelist, but I can't help but mention that there are some leaps on logic I don't really get. When you legalize RC or Brinstar, then banning the other or Japes is simply illogical, no matter what criteria you're using

I agree with this a lot. RC has way more lol MUs associated with it than japes. Brinstar not so much. I personally think RC and Japes should be banned but brinstar isn't quite as bad so long as you have a ban, baaarely legal though IMHO.

Seriously, this. THIS STAGELIST IS NOT LIBERAL. Aside from the typical superconservative BS stagelist, it's got... uh... PS2, Pictochat, and... uh...
No Japes.
No Green Greens.
No Luigi's Mansion.
And I guess I can kiss my dream of seeing PTAD in the next MLG season goodbye.

it's called a compromise for a reason.

 

[Orion*]

A second stage ban is pretty appropriate in my opinion. Banning RC and Brinstar would be a nice asset against MK.

seconding this

And then MK bans FD and what ever other stage he feels like.

there are enough neutral stages

Guys, how the rules are going to be structured is not the topic of this discussion. There are countless other topics in which that can be discussed.

how did you not expect people to talk about this really

WE STILL NEED to let Joe Q. Randomscrub know that Distant Planet, Norfair, Japes, Green Greens, etc, are all considered competitive stages.

If you retire the Recommended Ruleset, you're essentially stealth-banning 5+ stages that are PERFECTLY fine in competitive play.

lol at you calling the Perfectly competitive. yes god please your stages are obviously the best because you THINK so

Two things. First of all, I think I have proven that the japanese ruleset, both with and without the non-stagelist rules, is less competitive than almost any American one. Please stop advocating it..

in your opinion

im tired of people acting like whatever they say is fact

also picto is proven 100% random and i would rather play on PTAD than that **** and i ****ing hate that stage lmao

 

[SuSa]

If anything RC is less random (and abusable) than Brinstar.

Japes really should be legal. But as I said. I'm not going to push for things. Not going to fight it much, but it's no worse than any of the other legal stages... hell.. it's actually better than most of those stages. The croc is 100% fixed on a timer. The fact it's instant kill means.. (gasp) watch the timer.

I'm supporting 0 stage bans. Frankly, in our current system, whoever wins Game1 has a pretty good chance at Game3 regardless of WTF you ban anyways. I can counter your character than pick your 2nd worst stage. (a 2nd ban makes it your 3rd worst stage... but w/e... I'm already a character that counters you)

 

[Yink]

Guys, how the rules are going to be structured is not the topic of this discussion. There are countless other topics in which that can be discussed.

Eh, it was bound to happen AZ.

lol at you calling the Perfectly competitive. yes god please your stages are obviously the best because you THINK so

About what Raziek said:

He didn't really say they were the best. He was just saying he felt they were competitive.

 

[Steam]

If anything RC is less random (and abusable) than Brinstar.

Japes really should be legal. But as I said. I'm not going to push for things. Not going to fight it much, but it's no worse than any of the other legal stages... hell.. it's actually better than most of those stages. The croc is 100% fixed on a timer. The fact it's instant kill means.. (gasp) watch the timer.

I'm supporting 0 stage bans. Frankly, in our current system, whoever wins Game1 has a pretty good chance at Game3 regardless of WTF you ban anyways. I can counter your character than pick your 2nd worst stage. (a 2nd ban makes it your 3rd worst stage... but w/e... I'm already a character that counters you)

with a 0 ban system there's basically no point in playing past game 1 unless the winner if game 1 plays a character with no overpowering CP options or the loser of game 1 mains MK. Or you'll be Forced to pick up a secondary just to deal with specifc matchups on specifc stages (if you aren't already).

have fun on brinstar Falcos.

the point of stage bans is to more or less "depolarize" stages in matchups where they're game breaking.

 

[SuSa]

The issue with that is I can easily find (on ANY STAGE LIST) at least 3 characters that you would continually need to add bans to remove the "overpowering CP options"... but then there is a problem within that itself.

By removing their "overpowering CP options" you are left with jack **** against them. Have fun on your neutral "counterpick".

EDIT:

See my 1st post in this thread. The blue text.

 

[Steam]

yes you lose stages too but what you're left with isn't as big of a loss as what they're left with.

in the end the character with the overpowering CP will lose more.

 

[etecoon]

I'm supporting 0 stage bans. Frankly, in our current system, whoever wins Game1 has a pretty good chance at Game3 regardless of WTF you ban anyways. I can counter your character than pick your 2nd worst stage. (a 2nd ban makes it your 3rd worst stage... but w/e... I'm already a character that counters you)

the better characters, MK especially obviously, don't have real counters, you're now using your second or worse than that character against my main when you lost to begin with as well. character CPing doesn't really work without the stages to go with it

also I completely agree that brinstar is a horrible stage and the fact that it's remained legal so long baffles me, that **** is STILL the most illegitimate stage on this list even with some previously banned stages added

 

[Ghostbone]

You guys are making it out like MK ***** everybody on his counterpicks, that really isn't the case.
Look at a character like ZSS, after Frigate what strong counterpick does he have? Most of his common counterpicks are her counterpicks, and he doesn't even do that much better on the regular starter stages.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I'd love to see this. how can you "prove" something that is subjective?

You're new here aren't you? I have proven that it is an objective fact, under the condition that we aim to be the most competitive community we can be, that the japanese ruleset is a bad ruleset, and that it is less competitive and has far less competitive depth than almost any other ruleset. And that's just the stagelist; don't make me get into

I agree with this a lot. RC has way more lol MUs associated with it than japes. Brinstar not so much. I personally think RC and Japes should be banned but brinstar isn't quite as bad so long as you have a ban, baaarely legal though IMHO.

Why? Also, for the record, RC is FAR less polar than brinstar. RC does not have that many ridiculous matchups. In fact, it's about in line with Final Destination as far as polarization goes, whereas Brinstar is far above it.

Japes... Why ban japes?

it's called a compromise for a reason.

I say 1+1=2. Another guy says 1+1=3. Some third party comes in and says "let's compromise". Sounds great. >.>

with a 0 ban system there's basically no point in playing past game 1 unless the winner if game 1 plays a character with no overpowering CP options or the loser of game 1 mains MK. Or you'll be Forced to pick up a secondary just to deal with specifc matchups on specifc stages (if you aren't already).

have fun on brinstar Falcos.

the point of stage bans is to more or less "depolarize" stages in matchups where they're game breaking.

At this point, there's no reason to stick with only one stage ban. Unless you're running a hyperconservative ruleset like in germany (i.e. more conservative than APEX), it should almost always be two or more stage bans. Why have one stage ban? Why have them at all? Once you've established the answer to this, crafting the number of bans around which characters are broken where is a pretty damn good way to do ****.

@Etecoon: what illegitimizes Brinstar? It has (virtually) no randomness, it has no overcentralizing or broken tactic, and in general all it does is polarize matchups. If that is a ban criteria, then FD and RC would be the next two stages to go.

 

[etecoon]

I don't think FD polarizes MU's that much, and RC is overrated as hell in that regard

and why is the stage having a constant hitbox that moves acceptable just because it TECHNICALLY isn't random? it still radically alters gameplay, and it is overcentralizing in that there's maybe 3-5 characters that don't horribly fail there, it's basically an auto loss for some characters

 

[SuSa]

You can even tech the croc.... <_<

Anyways... off Japes for a second:

Characters > Stages

This has been a pretty widely agreed upon thing. If a few characters COMPLETELY break a stage, like throws it into the gutter and piss on it. We don't ban the characters, we ban the stages. Why?

Because people main characters. Not stages.

Now what happens when you invalidate 6-8 characters by adding an extra ban or two to our bans? You're essentially completely nerfing a handful of characters. Some of whom may have been pretty decent otherwise, but now it's impossible for them to get that slight advantage they need on their counterpick. All because MK breaks 3 stages and they only break 2... but there are 3 bans now... tough luck.

This is why I'm more for banning stages that are completely broken, even if by only 3-4 characters - and allowing 0 bans, than to allow stages that are broken by several characters, and allowing a few bans.

/1:25am logic. I have sleep johns if I come back in the morning and tear my own logic apart. So feel free to ignore this post til I double check it when I wake up.

 

[Steam]

You're new here aren't you? I have proven that it is an objective fact, under the condition that we aim to be the most competitive community we can be, that the japanese ruleset is a bad ruleset, and that it is less competitive and has far less competitive depth than almost any other ruleset. And that's just the stagelist; don't make me get into

you can't define competetive.

I say 1+1=2. Another guy says 1+1=3. Some third party comes in and says "let's compromise". Sounds great. >.>

the difference is, you might not be right :D. though there isn't a "right". this isn't completely objective like a mathematical equation. This is all personal opinions so we have no choice but to compromise.

At this point, there's no reason to stick with only one stage ban. Unless you're running a hyperconservative ruleset like in germany (i.e. more conservative than APEX), it should almost always be two or more stage bans. Why have one stage ban? Why have them at all? Once you've established the answer to this, crafting the number of bans around which characters are broken where is a pretty damn good way to do ****.

A liberal stagelist would be tons more acceptable with 2 or more stage bans IMO.

 

[etecoon]

who does having another stage ban invalidate? you need to be able to win on a neutral or your opponents CP(which could be a neutral) to begin with, no character can be good just on stage gimmickry

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I don't think FD polarizes MU's that much, and RC is overrated as hell in that regard

Really? It's the top counterpick or top ban in almost every matchup. RC is acceptable in many matchups.

and why is the stage having a constant hitbox that moves acceptable just because it TECHNICALLY isn't random? it still radically alters gameplay

Oh god THIS **** again.

Why would a constantly moving hitbox not be acceptable for a stage, when it moves slowly, is easily avoidable, and kills upwards of 180%? How can you claim that it "radically alters gameplay" when there isn't a norm? FD radically alters gameplay by not having any hazards, movements, or platforms.

Your entire viewpoint is massively flawed. You see static as the norm. It's not. You think that hazards are anticompetitive and/or banworthy. They are in 99% of all cases, not. And if you want to recreate the game to make it that way, you lose a lot of the competitive depth said hazards offer.

and it is overcentralizing in that there's maybe 3-5 characters that don't horribly fail there, it's basically an auto loss for some characters

Overcentralizing tactic. Yes, it's a hardcore counterpick. MK, Wario, and G&W are amazing there. But how many matchups AREN'T broken on Brinstar?

Now what happens when you invalidate 6-8 characters by adding an extra ban or two to our bans? You're essentially completely nerfing a handful of characters. Some of whom may have been pretty decent otherwise, but now it's impossible for them to get that slight advantage they need on their counterpick. All because MK breaks 3 stages and they only break 2... but there are 3 bans now... tough luck.



This is why I'm more for banning stages that are completely broken, even if by only 3-4 characters - and allowing 0 bans, than to allow stages that are broken by several characters, and allowing a few bans.

/1:25am logic. I have sleep johns if I come back in the morning and tear my own logic apart. So feel free to ignore this post til I double check it when I wake up.

The problem here, as usual, is the amount of depth lost by banning every polarizing stage. And I really doubt people would follow this. Why? Because it means banning FD. Yep. ICs completely and totally break FD. And then there's Falco, Diddy, and DDD, who may not break the stage, but still love it to death.

But let's come back to the depth thing.

If your character is awful on counterpicks, that is a character weakness, correct?
If your character is great on counterpicks that is a character strenght, correct?
If your character is bad on a lot of counterpicks, that is a character weakness, correct?
If your character is good on a lot of counterpicks that is a character strenght, correct?


Why are we completely ignoring these weaknesses and strenghts? Yes, at times, they may be drastic. Wario on brinstar is with almost no match; there are a few chars who can keep up with him there, but that's it. However, this is a serious character strength of his. To completely and utterly remove it simply because it's there is ridiculous. However, we find it wrong to allow this to happen, because it really does make Wario broken on his counterpick. So we have three possible solutions:
1. Ban all heavily polarizing stages in the game. This does remove the issue of hardcore counterpicking, but it also removes a lot of the game's depth. Sure, ICs can't counterpick MK to FD, but now Marth can't counterpick DK there either. MK can't counterpick Wario there. Diddy can't counterpick Snake there. All of these matchups which are perfectly fine get excluded.
2. Stage strike every game from the full stagelist. This will lead to the most balanced stage in the matchup every time, but it's bad because of the massive amount of stages that are "effectively" banned. It's almost like 1, except that it goes even further-anything even remotely polar is just gone, and you have 3-4 stages that will be used commonly.
3. Give the player personal stage bans equal to the highest number of stages a character is "broken on" to ensure that polarizing matchups don't happen on the "broken" stage in question. Now you have several advantages. First and foremost, the polarizing matchups don't happen any more. This is the goal, and it is fulfilled. Secondly, unlike with the other methods, matchups that aren't hardcore counterpicks can happen on those stages. This means that the stage's operations and strategies on that stage still are things people have to know. (This is a GOOD thing). Matchups on the stage that aren't heavily polar remain present.

What effectively happens with stage bans is, we recognize that having really strong counterpicks is a virtue, and we also recognize that most chars with really strong counterpicks have several decent counterpicks. So we move the overall advantage from the extremely polarizing skill of "having amazing counterpicks" to the less polarizing skill of "having lots of counterpicks". Does this make sense?

 

[etecoon]

Why would a constantly moving hitbox not be acceptable for a stage

because most people prefer it to be player vs player instead of player vs player vs stage, while obviously other things such as platform layouts do affect gameplay, one has to draw the line somewhere as to how much the stage can interfere with gameplay before it has become a problem. "these platforms favor marth's aerial pressure game" is obviously a far cry from "the stage literally attacks you"

when it moves slowly, is easily avoidable

you're not looking at the entire picture, the stage isn't a problem if you look at it in one dimension "just jump and you don't get hit by the lava", but you now have a situation where the stage has FORCED you to do something independent of the other players actions. this is like me saying that meta knight's tornado should have a tractor beam so that it sucks anyone in from anywhere on the stage and there's no way to avoid it

that would be totally awesome though, can some of the hackers get on something like this?

and kills upwards of 180%?

still does damage and tends to hit one character more than the other. particularly strong ground characters while the lava might as well not exist for MK, GAW, and wario

How can you claim that it "radically alters gameplay" when there isn't a norm? FD radically alters gameplay by not having any hazards, movements, or platforms.

FD doesn't have stage created two pronged attacks where you have to choose between getting hit by lava or farted on or rufio'd

you lose a lot of the competitive depth said hazards offer.

hazards, especially ones that are as constant as brinstar's, do not create depth, they destroy it. I'm sure everyone has seen M2K vs ally on that stage or DMG vs razer, fighting on brinstar is as one dimensional as the game gets. you replace reads, baits, and mindgames with "if I do THIS over and over again, they literally can't stop it"

But how many matchups AREN'T broken on Brinstar?

that's...one of the reasons it's an absolutely ridiculous stage

 

[Orion*]

You guys are making it out like MK ***** everybody on his counterpicks, that really isn't the case.
Look at a character like ZSS, after Frigate what strong counterpick does he have? Most of his common counterpicks are her counterpicks, and he doesn't even do that much better on the regular starter stages.

because metaknight.... needs a counterpick for zss? LOL

 

[Veel]

They have sacrificed individually in order for the sake of having unity

So is this a statist totalitarianism or communism.. jk <_<. The results of this move will be fun to watch at least.

 

[etecoon]

So is this a statist totalitarianism or communism.. jk <_<. The results of this move will be fun to watch at least.

given the way that they're attempting to force this through it's not entirely a bad analogy, this wasn't really agreed on by the community at large they're just trying to make it standard via manipulation of information(that is, not listing tournaments that use different rules)

 

[Orion*]

Eh, it was bound to happen AZ.



About what Raziek said:

He didn't really say they were the best. He was just saying he felt they were competitive.

the way he and bpc and crow and raziek and the rest of the lets get PTAD to be game 1 nuetral have a habit of wording things as if they where a fact, or that they cant be wrong. so yeah that was the point of my post

also

im debating NOT going to genesis/cot5/w.e. if this is the ruleset unless i just happen to be in NJ/NY now

because im not paying like 5375328094324 euros for a plane ticket to rage when someone picks like... pictochat? wtf is that LOL, not that they will change any rulesets over me but. i like my East coast and EU conservative rulesets pl0x

i can deal w/ ps2 its kinda gay but theres not real problems on it just physics changes.

 

[Ghostbone]

because metaknight.... needs a counterpick for zss? LOL

MK doesn't need a counterpick for anyone technically, he just counterpicks people because he can.