Official BBR Recommended Rule List 3.0

[Masky]

So... wait... the SBR thinks that an edge UNDER the stage on Distant Planet doesn't make stalling broken there because... the water and the pellets? LOL

 

[Red Arremer]

In this community people can compromise.

No... no they can't.

 

[ADHD]

Pit and ROB players who ***** the ledge. You might not like this style of gameplay but that doesn't really matter, it isn't broken and they should be free to do that.

And by the way, regulating the ledge is a statement of belief that the ledge is broken. Would you say the ledge is broken?

First off, I must address this.

Who are you? No, seriously. Like, not down-talking you. Your avatar makes our posts annoying to see, though.

And ROB's planking is totally beatable, but pit's isn't; due to his up-air having massively long hitboxes and good, fast, priority. It's in competition with MK's "perfect" planking. So yes, to your question-the ledge is broken for a select few.

 

[fkacyan]

Maybe if you actually read occasionally you'd change your mind.

I spent too much time in the ZSS forums for that.

@GIMR: It's not that MK is broken on DP, it's that the sole best position to be in is that one little spot under the lead platform and on the slant.

Also, MK being able to shark characters is the only reason you don't see characters like Falco going to Halberd.

 

[Steam]

Are you sure about this? If so, awesome, regardless Bowser's chaingrab is complete **** there. The slope actually helps jump release regrabs and he can already ground release regrab most of the cast already.

And yes I did it on purpose.

Atomsk tested it. it works on everyone he normally CGs except luigi.

also yay more walkoffs. glad to see everyone is the Ice climbers now. :I

 

[Vex Kasrani]

First off, I must address this.

Who are you? No, seriously. Like, not down-talking you. Your avatar makes our posts annoying to see, though.

And ROB's planking is totally beatable, but pit's isn't; due to his up-air having massively long hitboxes and good, fast, priority. It's in competition with MK's "perfect" planking. So yes, to your question-the ledge is broken for a select few.

No, it's not, you can grab the ledge from Pit.

 

[Vermanubis]

As for people who said the BBR should acknowledge coding errors and **** (don't remember the whole thing), how about we don't allow people to attack Ganondorf whenever he's using Fair due to his coding error to not autocancel the move? Oh wait, now that this is in effect, we need another rule to justify what happens when someone hit Ganon while he's doing a Fair (even at the last possible minute before he got hit). Fixing coding errors is not what they do and they are in no position to make any amends to it. If it ****ed up your character, then it is what it is.

Falllllllllllllacccyyyyy.

The two share one common trait: coding errors. Beyond that, the two are wholly unrelated, and your example is moot. His FAir does not compromise his ability to recover, or his last stock. FAir can be worked around and is not integral to his survival. Side-b is.

 

[ADHD]

No, it's not, you can grab the ledge from Pit.

Yeah, and then?

 

[Remzi]

I applaud the BBR on this one, great work. The stage list looks excellent.

 

[Vex Kasrani]

Yeah, and then?

And then hes off the ledge, unlike MK.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

First off, I must address this.

Who are you? No, seriously. Like, not down-talking you. Your avatar makes our posts annoying to see, though.

And ROB's planking is totally beatable, but pit's isn't; due to his up-air having massively long hitboxes and good, fast, priority. It's in competition with MK's "perfect" planking. So yes, to your question-the ledge is broken for a select few.

It doesn't really matter who I am, although we have met once or twice before.

Pit's planking has been shown to be beatable by way of frame data analysis. It's annoying, but beatable. If it isn't, I invite you to win any match using Pit's broken planking.

Here, have the benefit of the doubt: Pit's planking is super broken and no one can beat it. Regulate his planking, too. MK and Pit can't grab the ledge more than 30 (this number is hand-waving and not scientifically derived) times. No one else is affected, because no one else has to be affected.

 

[Mic_128]

So... wait... the SBR thinks that an edge UNDER the stage on Distant Planet doesn't make stalling broken there because... the water and the pellets? LOL

Got a video to show of it being broken?

 

[Vex Kasrani]

It doesn't really matter who I am, although we have met once or twice before.

Pit's planking has been shown to be beatable by way of frame data analysis. It's annoying, but beatable. If it isn't, I invite you to win any match using Pit's broken planking.

Here, have the benefit of the doubt: Pit's planking is super broken and no one can beat it. Regulate his planking, too. MK and Pit can't grab the ledge more than 30 times. No one else is affected, because no one else has to be affected.

The problem with this is though, that Pit has the same problem as ROB, when it comes to getting back on stage safely, unlike MK, so the ledge grabs add up fast.

 

[Vermanubis]

Got a video to show of it being broken?

Got a vid of it showing to be not? Works both ways.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

The problem with this is though, that Pit has the same problem as ROB, when it comes to getting back on stage safely, unlike MK, so the ledge grabs add up fast.

I actually agree with you, but agreeing with him was the fastest way to get to the real point and I hate semantics.

 

[bigman40]

What makes a difference when Ganon isn't tourney viable unless he's hacked up to be decent? It isn't the BBR's job to fix what's ****ed up about certain characters. So, if you want to spam someone hate posts/mail, then start sending emails to Sakurai for the rest of his life.

Doesn't help that when both characters are falling to their death, Ganon's body is almost even (or slightly ahead) with most characters

 

[T-block]

Falllllllllllllacccyyyyy.

The two share one common trait: coding errors. Beyond that, the two are wholly unrelated, and your example is moot. His FAir does not compromise his ability to recover, or his last stock. FAir can be worked around and is not integral to his survival. Side-b is.

That difference is completely irrelevant. Honestly, it sounds like you're arguing out of bias for your character now.

We don't care if it compromises his ability to recover. On the fundamental level, there's nothing special about points that revolve around his recovery. The fact that he tends to lose on a last stock suicide is a character trait. Giving him the win (which never was in the previous rulesets either, btw) was a character buff. It may seem like a reasonable one, but it was a buff nonetheless.

 

[Clai]

I understand your grievance with this, and others mentioned similar thoughts in the BBR.

But would you be okay with Captain Falcon winning a match if he landed a falcon punch?

No? Why not?

Because the game didn't say so, and simply using a risky move should not be given an arbitrary reward. The game tells you that you lose, you lose. Game tells you that you win, you win. Game tells you that it's a tie, it's a tie and we have a one stock remtach for that.

Changing the actual outcome of a game based on an arbitrary preference on a style of play or by giving "cool points" for doing something awesome is not competitively sound. We can't directly buff weaker characters any more than we can weaken strong characters, it wouldn't be fair.

Port priority involving Bowser was what made him win prior, but we discovered later Bowser can always survive with a well timed jump.

The "screen decides winner" is the fairest way of doing things; arbitrarily changing the natural properties of a rule is unfair. It either is an unfair disadvantage or advantage, best not to touch it.

I appreciate your response to this grievance, but at this point, the issue is pretty much settled. Your ruleset hails the screen as dogma when even the screen randomly chooses whether Ganon loses or not (and I did take the liberty to test this- although port priority has some influence in Ganonciding, the process is still random). My insistence is that forced ties due to move mechanics need to follow the mechanics under which the move was designed. All in all, I cannot argue with the results screen, and as much as I'd rather have something that actually knows about competitive nature rather than a machine that can easily makes its decisions as arbitrarily as what we do, it looks like I'm going to have to agree to disagree.

TL,DR: You're too slow, Overswarm, but thanks anyway.

 

[Vermanubis]

What makes a difference when Ganon isn't tourney viable unless he's hacked up to be decent? It isn't the BBR's job to fix what's ****ed up about certain characters. So, if you want to spam someone hate posts/mail, then start sending emails to Sakurai for the rest of his life.

Doesn't help that when both characters are falling to their death, Ganon's body is almost even (or slightly ahead) with most characters

Hate posts? What? Is that supposed to incriminate me? LOL

I'm the last person to ever give myself praise, but when the time calls for objectivity, I'll give it. I place better than 70% of the competitive community with Ganon. I've won money as Ganon. He may not be viable in a large way, but he's not completely incapable of competing. This would make it so he is, unless I could consistently 2-stock everyone I play.

It isn't the BBR's job to fix coding errors. It is, however, their job to determine things which are unclear in the scope of the end results and the means through which they are met.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Got a vid of it showing to be not? Works both ways.

Actually it doesn't. You can never "disprove" anything, the entire concept is fallacious. If someone makes a claim, it is up to them to prove it. This is why secularists always ask for proof of a god and laugh when religious folk ask them to "disprove" them (this is just an example and I'm not really looking to start a religious argument). You can't just claim anything and then make people prove that you're wrong.

 

[Ganonsburg]

Can you BBR babies stop beating around the bush and answer for once and for all:

Why are you okay with making an arbitrary rule saying that when both players on on their last stock, and the time runs out, that the player with the lower percent wins? The game doesn't say that that player wins. You made up a rule so that that player wins. Why not go with the games results? Or go with your next made up rule about 1 stock 3 min match? Why does this case get special treatment? With this rule, you're buffing campy characters. If we're going with what the game says, why don't we play out the sudden death?

Or are you all too hypocritical to notice your own mistakes?

Edit: And no, I'm not sorry about the name calling. This point has been ignored every time it's brought up. Chances are namecalling will grab your attention, so....

 

[Mic_128]

Got a vid of it showing to be not? Works both ways.

Not really. Innocent until proven guilty. You can't accuse it of the crime of being broken without any evidence at all.

 

[Vermanubis]

That difference is completely irrelevant. Honestly, it sounds like you're arguing out of bias for your character now.

We don't care if it compromises his ability to recover. On the fundamental level, there's nothing special about points that revolve around his recovery. The fact that he tends to lose on a last stock suicide is a character trait. Giving him the win (which never was in the previous rulesets either, btw) was a character buff. It may seem like a reasonable one, but it was a buff nonetheless.

What else would I be arguing out of? lol

Also, no, it is not irrelevant. If it is, please expound.

 

[Sake-Hato]

this will make other players who dont main mk main mk....

have fun killing brawl ^__^

 

[AlMoStLeGeNdArY]

Can you BBR babies stop beating around the bush and answer for once and for all:

Why are you okay with making an arbitrary rule saying that when both players on on their last stock, and the time runs out, that the player with the lower percent wins? The game doesn't say that that player wins. You made up a rule so that that player wins. Why not go with the games results? Or go with your next made up rule about 1 stock 3 min match? Why does this case get special treatment? With this rule, you're buffing campy characters. If we're going with what the game says, why don't we play out the sudden death?

Or are you all too hypocritical to notice your own mistakes?

I was wondering the same thing.....

 

[Xyless]

Can you BBR babies stop beating around the bush and answer for once and for all:

Why are you okay with making an arbitrary rule saying that when both players on on their last stock, and the time runs out, that the player with the lower percent wins? The game doesn't say that that player wins. You made up a rule so that that player wins. Why not go with the games results? Or go with your next made up rule about 1 stock 3 min match? Why does this case get special treatment? With this rule, you're buffing campy characters. If we're going with what the game says, why don't we play out the sudden death?

Or are you all too hypocritical to notice your own mistakes?

Actually a decent question.

 

[Vermanubis]

Actually it doesn't. You can never "disprove" anything, the entire concept is fallacious. If someone makes a claim, it is up to them to prove it. This is why secularists always ask for proof of a god and laugh when religious folk ask them to "disprove" them (this is just an example and I'm not really looking to start a religious argument). You can't just claim anything and then make people prove that you're wrong.

Disproval is fallacious, but it's only slightly modified from the inverse of "proven", which is, "not proven", which is not fallacious.

It does work both ways. If it is broken or not is not proven on either side. The side that proposes that it isn't broken is obliged with the burden of proof to provide evidence.

 

[Supermodel From Paris]

Actually a decent question.

Agreed, but a little civility please.

 

[Crow!]

Can you BBR babies stop beating around the bush and answer for once and for all:

Why are you okay with making an arbitrary rule saying that when both players on on their last stock, and the time runs out, that the player with the lower percent wins? The game doesn't say that that player wins. You made up a rule so that that player wins. Why not go with the games results? Or go with your next made up rule about 1 stock 3 min match? Why does this case get special treatment? With this rule, you're buffing campy characters. If we're going with what the game says, why don't we play out the sudden death?

Or are you all too hypocritical to notice your own mistakes?

This topic actually comes up from time to time. If there were any good alternative, I have no doubt it would gather quite a bit of support, but no such method has yet been devised.

Letting percents decide the winner when a timeout occurs just solves too many problems simultaneously for it to be easily dropped. A replacement to that rule would most likely require many rules, some of which are much more arbitrary than the timeout rule being replaced.

 

[Sake-Hato]

Can you BBR babies stop beating around the bush and answer for once and for all:

Why are you okay with making an arbitrary rule saying that when both players on on their last stock, and the time runs out, that the player with the lower percent wins? The game doesn't say that that player wins. You made up a rule so that that player wins. Why not go with the games results? Or go with your next made up rule about 1 stock 3 min match? Why does this case get special treatment? With this rule, you're buffing campy characters. If we're going with what the game says, why don't we play out the sudden death?

Or are you all too hypocritical to notice your own mistakes?

Edit: And no, I'm not sorry about the name calling. This point has been ignored every time it's brought up. Chances are namecalling will grab your attention, so....

To GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD

 

[Vermanubis]

This topic actually comes up from time to time. If there were any good alternative, I have no doubt it would gather quite a bit of support, but no such method has yet been devised.

Letting percents decide the winner when a timeout occurs just solves too many problems simultaneously for it to be easily dropped. A replacement to that rule would most likely require many rules, some of which are much more arbitrary than the timeout rule being replaced.

Still hypocritical.

The BBR fabricates loopholes to suit its agenda. If someone presents a valid point, some new principle is introduced to circumvent any issues.

 

[AfroQT]

Lets just turn EVERY STAGE ON.
WHY ARENT WE DOING THIS?
WHATS LEFT AT THIS POINT?
BRIDGE OF ELDEN BRINGIN BACK D3

 

[AlMoStLeGeNdArY]

This topic actually comes up from time to time. If there were any good alternative, I have no doubt it would gather quite a bit of support, but no such method has yet been devised.

Letting percents decide the winner when a timeout occurs just solves too many problems simultaneously for it to be easily dropped. A replacement to that rule would most likely require many rules, some of which are much more arbitrary than the timeout rule being replaced.

???? I don't get it. You don't seem to answer his question at all. If it's good for the goose it should be good for the gander. If a match goes to sudden death for one reason and has to be played out a certain why then why not have that be a universal rule? Why would you need more rules?

 

[Steam]

still no one has acknowledged that D3 can Chaingrab everyone up slopes he normally CG's except luigi :I and that it makes D3 ******** on his CP. Delphino and CS become his 4th and 5th option if the TO allows pipes. now wtf

 

[Ganonsburg]

This topic actually comes up from time to time. If there were any good alternative, I have no doubt it would gather quite a bit of support, but no such method has yet been devised.

Letting percents decide the winner when a timeout occurs just solves too many problems simultaneously for it to be easily dropped. A replacement to that rule would most likely require many rules, some of which are much more arbitrary than the timeout rule being replaced.

Well, in order to keep a consistent mindset that we CAN and WILL disagree with the results screen, the suicide rule should be kept in. Not only for the sake of consistency, but because in Brawl characters are supposed to attack, defend, kill, punish, and recover, among other things. When Ganon uses Aerudo, he is initiating an attack to recover more often than not. Chances are if it's a Ganoncide, he's punishing someone's poor defense of the stage. Why should you punish Ganondorf for doing what the game has players do, while at the same time having another rule that buffs campy characters?

 

[da K.I.D.]

How the hell did this thread get 75 pages in 21 hours?

 

[AlMoStLeGeNdArY]

still no one has acknowledged that D3 can Chaingrab everyone up slopes he normally CG's except luigi :I and that it makes D3 ******** on his CP. Delphino and CS become his 4th and 5th option if the TO allows pipes. now wtf

steam da bess.

 

[Vermanubis]

still no one has acknowledged that D3 can Chaingrab everyone up slopes he normally CG's except luigi :I and that it makes D3 ******** on his CP. Delphino and CS become his 4th and 5th option if the TO allows pipes. now wtf

From what I surmised so far, this is what sane logic would be, followed by BBR logic:

Sane logic: Ban that stage.

BBR logic: IF YOU GET GRABBED YOU DESERVE TO LOSE BUT WE CAN'T DETERMINE WHO DESERVES TO LOSE SO WE'LL JUST GO OFF TOPIC AND AVOID ANY AND ALL VALID POINTS

 

[MetalMusicMan]

Can you BBR babies stop beating around the bush and answer for once and for all:

Why are you okay with making an arbitrary rule saying that when both players on on their last stock, and the time runs out, that the player with the lower percent wins? The game doesn't say that that player wins. You made up a rule so that that player wins. Why not go with the games results? Or go with your next made up rule about 1 stock 3 min match? Why does this case get special treatment? With this rule, you're buffing campy characters. If we're going with what the game says, why don't we play out the sudden death?

Or are you all too hypocritical to notice your own mistakes?

Edit: And no, I'm not sorry about the name calling. This point has been ignored every time it's brought up. Chances are namecalling will grab your attention, so....

There's no beating around the bush. In the most dire of circumstances, it is acceptable to ban something, so long as it is isolatable and concise, with no gray area or subjectivity.

This is why things like Sudden Death and IDC can be banned and enforced, while something like a Ledge Grab Limit cannot.

This is why you can ban a character, or a stage and be okay. On rare occasions when it is isolatable and concise, you can ban a tactic. Again, IDC is different though because it can be isolated and doesn't occur naturally as part of the game play (it's impossible to do on accident).

You can't definitively say that someone who grabbed the ledge X amount of times was "just trying to stall". If a Falco is firing lasers at an MK or a G&W, or what have you, then why should he be forced to eat the lasers when he could stay on the ledge and avoid them? Grabbing the ledge is a natural part of the gameplay and it there is no way to enforce a "limit" or even determine what is an "acceptable ledge grab policy".

still no one has acknowledged that D3 can Chaingrab everyone up slopes he normally CG's except luigi :I and that it makes D3 ******** on his CP. Delphino and CS become his 4th and 5th option if the TO allows pipes. now wtf

It has been acknowledged, it doesn't break anything. It's not hard to avoid the slope on Distant Planet in the slightest. If you are getting grabbed UP the slope, it's your own fault.

YI:M is worse in my opinion, I didn't vote in favor of it and I don't like it. It's still not a huge ordeal though; you can stay on the left side and not get killed, even from a CG>F-throw, until like 100%+ or so with DI.

 

[clowsui]

still no one has acknowledged that D3 can Chaingrab everyone up slopes he normally CG's except luigi :I and that it makes D3 ******** on his CP. Delphino and CS become his 4th and 5th option if the TO allows pipes. now wtf

show me a video

i'm not like bbr members where i go by people's word