MBR Official Rule Set

[KAOSTAR]

its about it being predictable in the same fashion as a stage like floats.

FoD and poke have a warning before they change. the argument is which one is more disruptive:

-protrusion of giant mountain
-slight platform movement

sveet said poke isn't disruptive because stadium is predictable. you know which transformations occur because if the warning.

now-im saying that its not actually predictable. floats/rainbow you know the exact timing of the stage. its the same every time. poke is not. you don't know what transformations the stage will do until you are playing on it. its random with warnings.

I just think stadiums transformations are more of a disruption to the natural flow of the game (fight at hand) than a small shift in platform movement.

im not bothered by random, just its still a disruption because you have to react to the stage. thus saying that FoD is less disruptive.

if reacting to the stage is disruptive, obviously the stage that causes the least reaction or change in current game is the better choice. fod vs sitting still for 30s.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

its about it being predictable in the same fashion as a stage like floats.

FoD and poke have a warning before they change. the argument is which one is more disruptive:

-protrusion of giant mountain
-slight platform movement

sveet said poke isn't disruptive because stadium is predictable. you know which transformations occur because if the warning.

now-im saying that its not actually predictable. floats/rainbow you know the exact timing of the stage. its the same every time. poke is not. you don't know what transformations the stage will do until you are playing on it. its random with warnings.

I just think stadiums transformations are more of a disruption to the natural flow of the game (fight at hand) than a small shift in platform movement.

im not bothered by random, just its still a disruption because you have to react to the stage. thus saying that FoD is less disruptive.

if reacting to the stage is disruptive, obviously the stage that causes the least reaction or change in current game is the better choice. fod vs sitting still for 30s.

Which causes more confusion or disorder
a timer based stage change which warns players 10 seconds in advance
or
2 randomly occurring and randomly positioned features which have no relationship to each other and warns you with a slight change in color on a reflective surface which may or may not even be visable on the screen

By definition FoD causes more disruption

 

[Mogwai]

Which causes more confusion or disorder
a timer based stage change which warns players 10 seconds in advance
or
2 randomly occurring and randomly positioned features which have no relationship to each other and warns you with a slight change in color on a reflective surface which may or may not even be visable on the screen

By definition FoD causes more disruption

Wait wait! I can frame my argument too!

Which causes more confusion or disorder
a timer based random stage change that sometimes has a giant mountain pop out of the stage and other times puts a tree that acts as a wall for infinite combos and other times just produces a giant windmill and sometimes just has some platforms pop up
or
2 platforms that randomly slowly change heights

By definition PS causes more disruption

 

[KAOSTAR]

Which causes more confusion or disorder
a timer based stage change which warns players 10 seconds in advance
or
2 randomly occurring and randomly positioned features which have no relationship to each other and warns you with a slight change in color on a reflective surface which may or may not even be visable on the screen

By definition FoD causes more disruption

its about which causes more disruption when it changes.

I can day something dumb like you might not noticed the screen that tells you which stage is coming.

I can honestly tell you I don't miss either stage warning but I don't look much at the screen so I miss which transformation occurs. probably my fault my problem.

THE WARNING IS MORE DRASTIC BECAUSE EVEN THE CREATORS THOUGHT THE DISRUPTION WAS GREATER.

 

[Fletch]

Shy Guys are random at Yoshi's as well correct? Should we get rid of that as a neutral?

 

[T-block]

Eh...I'm just gonna throw this out there. Everyone in my region is gonna jump down my throat for this lol:

Why do disruptions have to be a bad thing? Can't we view adaptability to the stage as things to be rewarded, both in the player and in the character? Why should starter stages be anything more than "the stages that yield the fairest (in that no character gains too much of an advantage) first match in as many matchups as possible within the context of the stage striking procedure"?

No hazards is a fairly arbitrary criterion if you let go of the idea that Smash should be played player-player only. It's Smash after all... not like any other fighting game.

Meh...maybe it really is that hard to let go of that idea though.

 

[KAOSTAR]

@fletch-if they are more of a disruption than giant mountain or platform movement then yes.

its not random thats a problem.

they change the game the way the match is played the least imo. you don't have to avoid them or anything.

fod you have an unusable platform, poke you typically pause the match for 30s and most of the main platform is obstructed.


lmao

"Why should starter stages be anything more than "the stages that yield the fairest (in that no character gains too much of an advantage) first match in as many matchups as possible within the context of the stage striking procedure"?

thats exactly what it is. stadium isn't a bad stage, just the least neutral out of the 6. mbr said they needed an odd number to strike and it made more sense to remove stadium then add kongo. it was the less drastic of the new options. you don't have to un learn playing on stadium, but you would have to lean to play on kongo.

 

[ruhtraeel]

Lol IMO, lots of stages shouldn't be banned, because it gives incentive for the player to improve with numerous characters, which are good in specific stages. It's occasionally satisfying to play Flat Zone against a Jiggs player to prove that she's not as unstoppable as it seems :-p. I guess Melee tournaments could be split into "Who has the better matchups vs. different players for their playing style AND different characters" or "Who is the overall better player with the most characters/Who is the most adaptable"

But yeah, I think FoD always struck me as a counterpickish stage due to the platforms and the size, but Stadium felt like a neutral stage even more than FoD being counterpickish. I do see reasons why Stadium would be counterpick though, as the top 2 most frequently used characters go crazy on it; but on FoD, a few less used characters are hampered by it.

 

[T-block]

exactly what it is. stadium isn't a bad stage, just the least neutral out of the 6. mbr said they needed an odd number to strike and it made more sense to remove stadium then add kongo. it was the less drastic of the new options. you don't have to un learn playing on stadium, but you would have to lean to play on kongo.

No, that's not what it is right now. According to you (from your post earlier), a starter is defined as having the following two qualities:
-no damage giving hazards
-cannot pass through the main platform from below.

So, why can't a starter stage give damage? Why can't a starter allow you to pass through from below? Those aren't covered in the definition involving "fairness" that I provided. Maybe pass through floors are too good for Jigglypuff, but then let that be covered by the "fairest match 1" criterion.

 

[KAOSTAR]

No, that's not what it is right now. According to you (from your post earlier), a starter is defined as having the following two qualities:
-no damage giving hazards
-cannot pass through the main platform from below.

So, why can't a starter stage give damage? Why can't a starter allow you to pass through from below? Those aren't covered in the definition involving "fairness" that I provided. Maybe pass through floors are too good for Jigglypuff, but then let that be covered by the "fairest match 1" criterion.

that was my personal definition in response to pocky's first or second post of this discussion. you gotta go back and read, don't poke your head in the middle.

my understanding of the actual mbr definition was just given.

also my definition was:

-no vertical walls
-open ceiling across the middle
-closed floor (can't pass through)
-no damage giving hazards

if you would like we can discuss ^ compared to fairness.

 

[The Good Doctor]

that was my personal definition in response to pocky's first or second post of this discussion. you gotta go back and read, don't poke your head in the middle.

my understanding of the actual mbr definition was just given.

also my definition was:

-no vertical walls
-open ceiling across the middle
-closed floor (can't pass through)
-no damage giving hazards

if you would like we can discuss ^ compared to fairness.

Couldn't you in theory add the "Shy Guy Wall" as a vertical wall? I've been saved by Shy Guys COUNTLESS times....
And Randall....he's dumb too...

I also like that we ban stages with low ceilings, but not stages with shallow side blast zones...

 

[Strong Badam]

i understand why pokemon stadium is a cp and not a neutral, i just don't agree with it. oh well.

 

[FalseFalco]

i understand why pokemon stadium is a cp and not a neutral, i just don't agree with it. oh well.

And I can guarantee a vast majority of players don't agree either.

Evidently, the ones who are for against it as a neutral exaggerate and complain so much that I'd rather not have to play with a person like that anyway.

 

[KAOSTAR]

Couldn't you in theory add the "Shy Guy Wall" as a vertical wall? I've been saved by Shy Guys COUNTLESS times....
And Randall....he's dumb too...

I also like that we ban stages with low ceilings, but not stages with shallow side blast zones...

are you stupid? why would you try to argue that a group or collection of shy guys is a vertical wall.

 

[T-block]

also my definition was:

-no vertical walls
-open ceiling across the middle
-closed floor (can't pass through)
-no damage giving hazards

if you would like we can discuss ^ compared to fairness.

Kay, why do damaging hazards go against the idea of overall fairness in game 1?

 

[FalseFalco]

I have come to the conclusion that KAOSTAR is not worth arguing with.

 

[pockyD]

Pocky, you keep using disruptive to mean something its not.

dis·rupt (d

s-r

pt

)tr.v. dis·rupt·ed, dis·rupt·ing, dis·rupts
1. To throw into confusion or disorder

interesting

let's keep reading shall we

2. To interrupt or impede the progress, movement, or procedure of

WHOOOOOOPS

not like taking a forced 'break' of 30 seconds isn't impeding match progress am i right

although it's really not surprising, given that you have established a firm pattern of reading half of something, then ignoring the second half even though it directly addresses your concerns about the first half

To answer your only question, i consider a stage unpredictable when you can't predict it. Brinstar Depths, Ice Mountain, FoD, Flatzone. They are random so there is no pattern to learn.

If we choose stadium, I can close my eyes and know that 80 seconds into the game the screen will flash the stage change in the background then at 90 seconds it will change to the mode it warned us about then at 120 seconds the stage will shift back to normal (with a warning at 110 seconds).

forget the 80 or 90 seconds thing, let's look at a slightly smaller, and therefore more relevant, window

5 seconds before the flash, can you predict what the stage will look like in 20 seconds?

at the start of a rainbow cruise match, i can tell you that in 120 seconds it's going to look the same again

pretty much equally relevant, because playing only the boat on rainbow cruise would be a very viable candidate for neutral

Which causes more confusion or disorder
a timer based stage change which warns players 10 seconds in advance
or
2 randomly occurring and randomly positioned features which have no relationship to each other and warns you with a slight change in color on a reflective surface which may or may not even be visable on the screen

By definition FoD causes more disruption

i know you insist on using your misguided definition of 'disrupt', but hyrule is by far the most orderly and straightforward stage in the game

as far as the REAL usage of disruption, 'confusing' is not a ban criteria, nor is anyone claiming that it is. 'disorder' wise, stadium is BY FAR more disorderly; 5 seconds before the flash, can you tell me whether there will be a giant mountain, a giant windmill, or a giant tree?

it doesn't even matter what i say in this sentence, or even the previous one, because you're just going to half-attempt to address the first point and then stop reading.

 

[Fletch]

I don't really think PS should be made CP, but if it is... would there be a problem with a 3 stage neutral list? For example, get rid of FoD and probably Yoshis. I think we can all agree (at least I think) that Battlefield, FD, and DL64 are the most neutral.

 

[pockyD]

before anyone enters the argument, they should be REQUIRED to provide the definition of 'neutral' that they are abiding by

 

[Stevo]

why would it require a warning? do you have to actively learn how to NOT play on a stage?

reasoning was simple; people liked the round number of 5 for striking and out of the 'existing' 6 neutrals at the time, stadium was by far the least 'neutral'

My point wasn't that we should be warned of these changes, but simply adding on that there was no time to discuss this change. This makes the fact that very little reasoning for the move was given even more drastic.

But even still, it can have an impact on certain matchups, and could very well force you to actively learn to play on ANOTHER stage more.
well.... lets say for a minute that Pichu is really awesome on 2 of the 5 neutrals
(and that pichu was played in tournament, humor me)
and 2 of the 5 pichu was terrible on.
most likely, you will play on the stage that is neither terrible, nor awesome for pichu.
Lets say this was stadium. you get rid of it, and all of the sudden, you have to learn how to play against a pichu on some other stages.

This is not a perfect example, as you moved from a 6 stage neutral set to a 5 stage, but the idea is there. I just don't think that removing a neutral has no effect on things, like you seem to be implying.

In the end though, I'm not really trying to argue any of that.

I'm all for MBR taking control of rules and such, as most players have no clue what would be good/bad for the game. but I feel that more insight needs to be revealed about the decision.

Perhaps it really was simply "you are the weakest link, goodbye" stadium. If that's the case, it IS a little disappointing.

 

[KAOSTAR]

Kay, why do damaging hazards go against the idea of overall fairness in game 1?

as long as its a neutral hazard I don't have a problem with it in terms of fairness. something like lava that rises and falls regardless of player action. but something like corneria the random ships that come in and target a specific player I feel may pose a problem. if the hazards are "random" I also would prefer not to have. I think the match should be decided by the players as much as possible-if possible eliminating random occurrences.

but I see it as an unnecessary factor when trying to have a first round with as few possible outside influences. ideally I would remove randal, stop the platforms on fod (or make them timed), have a set pattern or eliminate wind and erase two of stadiums transformations. imo shy guys are dumb, but you don't have to react to them, they react to your hitboxes. I don't really wanna eliminate yoshis, but id be willing. imo the diversity it adds overwhelms shy guys.

but you have to work with what you got. we didn't create the stages we had to choose the most fair.

I would be ok with having the entire legal stage list available to strike, but I see it as unnecessary and a nuisance.

-all of the current cp stages minus stadium will be struck 95% of the time.
-it forces players to strike every single time, where random would no longer be available (using traditional strike method/off random stage list)
-most importantly it takes longer for every single set just to strike stages players don't want to go to anyway (the majority of players cp the neutral stage they are most comfortable with)

in my definition, the only stage that was eliminated using the hazard rule was brinstar. only kongo was eliminated with the closed floor rule. my list was designed to fit the neutral stages as is. not saying it was the best or even good criteria. I was just using words to shift the outcome to my bias bbecause I like the 5 neutral stage list.

 

[Pengie]

I don't really think PS should be made CP, but if it is... would there be a problem with a 3 stage neutral list? For example, get rid of FoD and probably Yoshis. I think we can all agree (at least I think) that Battlefield, FD, and DL64 are the most neutral.

No there is no problem with that type of stage listing except for personal preference, i.e. I hate BF and the remaining 2 stages the more boring stages as far as I'm concerned, but aside from that the only thing stopping that from happening is TOs wanting to be safe and use the more mainstream stage lists so that their attendance isn't hurt. It's not like anyone is being forced to play by the MBR's stage list anyway because two players can agree to any rules they want any way.

 

[pockyD]

My point wasn't that we should be warned of these changes, but simply adding on that there was no time to discuss this change. This makes the fact that very little reasoning for the move was given even more drastic.

No, because despite common misconceptions, the MBR is NOT a governing body; the MBR ruleset is simply a list of recommendations. T.O.s are free to (and frequently do) branch off and make their own little tweaks.

If a tourney you were attending switched its ruleset to this one a few hours before it started, then that's a problem with the T.O., not with the way the ruleset was released.

But even still, it can have an impact on certain matchups, and could very well force you to actively learn to play on ANOTHER stage more.
well.... lets say for a minute that Pichu is really awesome on 2 of the 5 neutrals
(and that pichu was played in tournament, humor me)
and 2 of the 5 pichu was terrible on.
most likely, you will play on the stage that is neither terrible, nor awesome for pichu.
Lets say this was stadium. you get rid of it, and all of the sudden, you have to learn how to play against a pichu on some other stages.

This is not a perfect example, as you moved from a 6 stage neutral set to a 5 stage, but the idea is there. I just don't think that removing a neutral has no effect on things, like you seem to be implying.

The new 5-stage set coincided with the recommendation of stage striking; prior to this current set, the recommended method of choosing the game one stage was THE BIG RANDOM BUTTON. Players had no choice but to learn at least 5 of 6 stages at that point (and some tournaments didn't allow you to ban a neutral, so maybe even 6). It's hard to believe that effectively giving them a free second stage ban somehow thrust them into more unfamiliar territory... and if it did, then there's likely something amiss with their approach to the game

In the end though, I'm not really trying to argue any of that.

I'm all for MBR taking control of rules and such, as most players have no clue what would be good/bad for the game. but I feel that more insight needs to be revealed about the decision.

Perhaps it really was simply "you are the weakest link, goodbye" stadium. If that's the case, it IS a little disappointing.

the entire system of stage striking was constructed around eliminating the use of 'RANDOM'; to strike down to 2 then 'RANDOM' anyway would not have achieved the goal we were seeking.

adding an extra stage instead of removing one was considered, but frankly, is it any 'better'? As I mentioned before, any stages past the 3rd or 4th are barely relevant, to the extent that you can use Flatzone and it won't drastically affect results (and any effect won't strictly be 'negative').

I personally have tested a rule at a tournament where the players struck down from the full set of stages (it was 11), and you know what? Every single set aside from one (it was brinstar for the curious) ended up on one of the 5 neutrals. What does that tell me? That the 5 neutrals are indeed at or extremely close to the median of all stages, which is pretty much what we're subjectively looking for, right? And even better, this coincides with the other subjective criteria for a neutral, with those stages being the least disruptive (HA!) relative to the others

It's important to note that striking from 11 was a ridiculous hassle and was pretty wildly unpopular due to how long it took. 3 is too few because it gives (relatively) too much power to the player striking second. I find that 7 works fine, but it's not really any 'better' than 5

In the end? the best number of 'neutral' stages is 1, no matter what stage that is. Too bad people will never accept it

 

[Fletch]

before anyone enters the argument, they should be REQUIRED to provide the definition of 'neutral' that they are abiding by

I think the best definition of neutral is pretty much a stage's relationship to the standard layout presented by Battlefield i.e. two ledges, no "islands", standard size, no walkoff ledges, no random elements, no hazards, platforms relative to the stage, etc.

 

[pockyD]

yep, and that puts fountain of dreams in the top FOUR

i dare say that if battlefield was considered the gold standard, fountain might be the 2nd best stage

and FD would be like 5th or 6th

I don't get why more people aren't campaigning to get rid of FD

 

[Pink Reaper]

Why are platforms the standard for a neutral stage?

Considering at the end of the day the only two stages without any random elements are BF and FD what makes BF better than FD?

This is somewhat directed at you pocky in the idea of the "1 stage" rule set. Since there would be no other stages choosing one over the other is an arbitrary choice of which characters and strategies will be better, so why is BF the better choice?

 

[pockyD]

There's not a hard logical basis behind my ideal of battlefield as the perfect stage

It just 'feels' like a median. FD on the other hand just feels like an extreme

battlefield doesn't possess any major qualities that no other stage has

Note that I rarely actually try to convince anyone to join me in battlefield land... at the same time, I rarely get challenged on it too, which I take as a sign that it's a pretty reasonable choice

FWIW my second candidate would be dreamland. I feel like the 'better player' wins the most consistently on those two stages

 

[Stevo]

The ledges on battlefield to me dont feel very "neutral" or "gold standard"

Sheik's up-b uses those ledges fine, whereas, Mario has some trouble sweet spotting.

I do agree that FD doesn't feel any more perfect, however.

 

[KAOSTAR]

The ledges on battlefield to me dont feel very "neutral" or "gold standard"

Sheik's up-b uses those ledges fine, whereas, Mario has some trouble sweet spotting.

I do agree that FD doesn't feel any more perfect, however.

irrelevant. the ledges are there and useable.

they don't disallow characters to recover.

they don't put some characters at a large advantage.

too picky imo. lets define perfect dimensions for platforms and blast zones as well

edit:lol prefect imo would be the median or average dimensions of the current neutrals including neutral stadium.

 

[Fletch]

yep, and that puts fountain of dreams in the top FOUR

i dare say that if battlefield was considered the gold standard, fountain might be the 2nd best stage

and FD would be like 5th or 6th

I don't get why more people aren't campaigning to get rid of FD

Random elements or anything that can interfere with normal gameplay definitely come first. Yes FD has no platforms, but without those elements, I feel it is the second most neutral stage to BF. From there, it's a fight for third spot between FoD, DL, PS, and Yoshi's. PS is out for transformations, FoD would be out for it's randomly changing ledges, and I'd eliminate Yoshi's because of random shy guys and Randall coming at inopportune times over the wind at DL.

 

[john!]

my definition of "neutral" is "not giving any character a significantly larger advantage over another character", because that's exactly what counterpicks are for. If a stage doesn't fit that definition, it shouldn't be neutral. Personally I think no other character benefits from FoD like Fox (the reason half the stages are banned in the first place) benefits from Pokemon Stadium. If stages like Dream Land (with high platforms) and Yoshi's Story (with low platforms) are both neutral, why would FoD be non-neutral? Platforms too low for ya?

 

[KAOSTAR]

Edit: I agree

 

[pockyD]

my definition of "neutral" is "not giving any character a significantly larger advantage over another character", because that's exactly what counterpicks are for.

Actually for most people, this is much closer to the definition/goal of a 'legal' stage. A stage that gives any character a significantly larger advantage over [every other] character is a BROKEN and BANNED stage

 

[JPOBS]

Battlefield is far and away the best, most neutral stage in the game.

 

[Pengie]

If that were the case I wouldn't ban it at every tournament .

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

I just remembered why i stopped "debating" about this stuff. PokeyD is a sophist and will just argue until you are bored and claim he wins.

 

[arbustos]

If that were the case I wouldn't ban it at every tournament .

self-interest informs that decision, unless you truly hope to play on the most neutral stage every set.

I just remembered why i stopped "debating" about this stuff. PokeyD is a sophist and will just argue until you are bored and claim he wins.

aren't you presenting arguments and counter-arguments until you agree to disagree, persuade the other, or persuade some external body? complaining because your opponent hasn't lost interest doesn't seem fair.

if he's a sophist, that'd give you a pretty strong angle of attack if you could support the claim.

 

[pockyD]

I just remembered why i stopped "debating" about this stuff. PokeyD is a sophist and will just argue until you are bored and claim he wins.

cool, advance from ignoring half a post to all of it

good riddance though, you were really being counterproductive to your side

 

[TheManaLord]

fd only is best for real competitive play

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Yeah. Pocky i take that back, i was just frusterated last night at 2am when i got home seeing 40 posts of things to reply to. I guess i'll make a few posts when i get the chance...

While you accuse me of ignoring half of the argument, you are ignoring half of the argument as well. I'm focusing on the random aspect and you're focusing on how fair the changes are.

What you're completely ignoring and have never once addressed is the fact that there are two types of fairness. One type is fair like a mountain comes out and you can "infinite" on it. The other is what i call competitively fair, when the result of the game is completely resultant on the players' skills.

You only want to judge based on the first type, while i am saying the only valid "fair" to consider when developing a ruleset is the second.