The Unity Ruleset: Discussion

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I think the reason you're not hearing much about other topics of concern is that, well, the rest of the ruleset is really very solid. I honestly haven't seen any gripes about anything else.

Also, IMO it is best to hold like, a side-event on "questionable" stages. Like, a side-event with just Jungle Japes, Norfair, and Green Greens legal or something like that, to test the waters on those stages and see how players deal with it. It would help to provide the "proof" we need, one way or another.

 

[Maharba the Mystic]

okay. now for norfair.

facts:
- the stage has several differant hazards
- it has the most ledges and platforms out of any stage
- the hazards all have a large warning period before they actually come into effect
- this stage favors those with good aerial capabilities
- this stage favors time out characters (sonic immediatley comes to mind for some reason. idk why tho)
- wario is buffed on this stage
- people who are good at sharking are buffe on this stage
- even though it buffs sharking, it's overall layout actually helps characters who are succeptible to being juggled

cons:
- as always hazards can kill people. however these hazards less dangerous due to their long warning period
- it does give metaknight another good CP on several characters
- characters who already are good at killing have more kill options available with hazard prediction

pros:
- certain characters have ATs involving the hazards and platforms so they would have those options available and more options is always good for a character
- it gives several character's a CP on metaknight (wario, sonic, pit, peach, and TL come to mind)
- it buffs character's who have poor ground game but excell in aerial combat
- it provides a legit CP for mid and low tier against several top tier characters besides metaknight
- due to the predictability of the hazards, characters with a hard time killing can use these hazards to help them with that problem.

so the three main reasons i would say that this stage could be considered for legalization are:

1. while it does have hazards, they are incredibly predictable. they don't really have that much more impact on a match than the hazards at brinstar or halberd. and since we already allow those hazard stages, there is no reason that predictable hazards should be why it is banned.

2. characters with strong aerial game have options against characters like diddy and DDD. ya sure, wario gets hella buffed at this stage for air camping, but air camping only works if he gets the lead. also characters who normally have difficulty timing out with air camping metaknight actually have a stage that helps them with this disadvantage.

3. it helps out several mid and low tier characters with many high tier match ups thus again promoting diversity among players which is always good.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Indeed; several low tiers (Jiggs, Ganon, and Link come immediately to mind) get a lot from Norfair.

 

[Life]

/loves norfair to death

(This is offtopic, but BRC members should read this thread as it is important. It's written for Melee but works for us too. http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=302425 )

 

[Bizkit047]

I think the reason you're not hearing much about other topics of concern is that, well, the rest of the ruleset is really very solid. I honestly haven't seen any gripes about anything else.

Also, IMO it is best to hold like, a side-event on "questionable" stages. Like, a side-event with just Jungle Japes, Norfair, and Green Greens legal or something like that, to test the waters on those stages and see how players deal with it. It would help to provide the "proof" we need, one way or another.

Love this idea of side events for testing purposes. I've thought myself that testing the controversial stages in tourney settings would be problematic, due to Unity Ruleset not having them and tourneys following them. But this solves that problem pretty well.

 

[ZTD | TECHnology]

I have to agree with that. You know like how Allisbrawl had that "joke" ladder with banned stages. I think its worth looking into having side events with those stages. The question would be how to make the stage list though. But its worth considering. People might be adverse to trying it but its a side event so that would negate the whole "I lost the set that would have given me 200 dollars because I got caught in the river of Japes"

Might have to try this out. Curious as to what other Committee members think.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Problem with side events is that people use to take them as jokes, don't play them seriously, or just not even participate on them.

 

[Juushichi]

Tech, I don't know if you are aware but you live in a region that plays on these stages all the time. And has for years.

 

[Life]

He was at /hope. Trust me, he's aware. Probably just has to hold the BRC "party line" or something. (Nothing personal, man. )

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Love this idea of side events for testing purposes. I've thought myself that testing the controversial stages in tourney settings would be problematic, due to Unity Ruleset not having them and tourneys following them. But this solves that problem pretty well.

I have to agree with that. You know like how Allisbrawl had that "joke" ladder with banned stages. I think its worth looking into having side events with those stages. The question would be how to make the stage list though. But its worth considering. People might be adverse to trying it but its a side event so that would negate the whole "I lost the set that would have given me 200 dollars because I got caught in the river of Japes"

Might have to try this out. Curious as to what other Committee members think.

<3

Yeah, this is how you do it. Slowly but surely ease a few of the stages in, and at the same time you host these side-events...

IMO just take like, the 3-5 "closest" stages and throw them in with one stage ban and striking round one. Like, in this case, Japes, Norfair, Port Town, Green Greens, and Pictochat would probably be the five to go to... Alternatively, you could throw in a few "starter" stages... But then there's a good chance that people will just say "**** it" and pick those all three games of the set. Dunno.

 

[Bizkit047]

Problem with side events is that people use to take them as jokes, don't play them seriously, or just not even participate on them.

It's still a good way to test it out. Not everyone takes it as a joke either, unless it's a really crazy side event. I know NY/NJ and sometimes NE take their side events rather seriously, even ones like AllBrawl (random char/all stages random/items). People who enter AllBrawl know it's homo and have fun, but they still try to win.

 

[ZTD | TECHnology]

Tech, I don't know if you are aware but you live in a region that plays on these stages all the time. And has for years.

He was at /hope. Trust me, he's aware. Probably just has to hold the BRC "party line" or something. (Nothing personal, man. )

I am quite aware that Juu. I've also been to several Ohio tournaments that had some of these stages legal but not all of them. /Hope was the same way with an interesting ruleset though technically not a part of our region. (still <3 PA though)

The Midwest really isn't a great example though. For starters each state has like their own stage list anyway. Ohio was rocking the MLG Ruleset while other states were doing their own thing. PTAD was never used if I remember. Japes hasn't been utilized in a while and these are two of the main stages being debated. The only stage I see consistently used at each Midwest tournament Ive attended (that wasn't in Michigan) is Norfair. And I've been all over the Midwest. But I'm just providing a neutral outlook.

@InCom ..lol no worries. At least you know what's up.

It's still a good way to test it out. Not everyone takes it as a joke either, unless it's a really crazy side event. I know NY/NJ and sometimes NE take their side events rather seriously, even ones like AllBrawl (random char/all stages random/items). People who enter AllBrawl know it's homo and have fun, but they still try to win.

We take our side events seriously also no matter how "lulzy" they are. They're supposed to be fun regardless. I honestly don't think we'd see more cases of people not taking it seriously than more people actually caring. Especially if they know what the purpose is for this potential event. Everyone has an opinion on stages. Period.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Tech, I'd like to ask why you felt the need to add in a global ledge-grab limit when no one's planking, other than Meta Knights, has actually been proven broken?

If the idea is to increase character diversity, why is that the only rule implemented? Why don't you ban chain-grabs? What about banning hitting players with Mach Tornado? Etc...

 

[Maharba the Mystic]

^^^ why do you always throw us off topic? and use terrible examples (ban tornado.... seriously?)

anyways tech what did you think of my arguements for JJ and Norfair?

 

[ZTD | TECHnology]

To be fair, I wasn't in this committee when the ruleset was established. THAT question is better off being directed at a founding member. I can't speak for the entire group.

However...

Its simple if you look at it from a neutral position. Especially when you look at this global LGL. 35 for MK...50 for everyone else. I'm not saying that I agree but that LGL pretty much answers your question. MK's planking is broken. Solution? 35 LGL. Planking is still being investigated in its entirety as how "broken" it really is. But there are characters who can abuse it. We can take the Will vs Rich Brown incident as an example. So how do we combat planking AND MK's to an even higher degree? Give the rest of the characters a 50 LGL. It makes sense whether you agree or not.

And though I get your point and you're just using broad examples to illustrate your point..you have to remember what is considered the biggest influence in today's metagame..which in indirectly affects the ruleset.



It's funny how one character influences so much.

But my only response to the last part of your argument (though rhetorical) is give evidence is that chaingrabbing is ban worthy. Give evidence that Mach Tornado is ban worthy. Actually lets not even discuss specific moves. That's just absurd. What happens if we banned Move A and it was accidentally used? Is that a lost of a stock? Delving that far into the direction you're taking simply makes things more chaotic. There's already enough to worry as it is. As I've stated we're attempting to do the best we can with a middle ground while tackling the concerns of the public. There are some things though that are just not worth arguing about.

@Mystic: His argument is meant to be taken in a figurative sense. He is not actually saying ban Mach Tornado. I get what he's saying.

Also I'm still reviewing your arguments for these stages. I may try out this whole "Controversial Stage Side Event" thing to further investigate your claims. Your arguments alongside BPC's are well organized at least. I seriously got bored reading certain posters' shallow arguments. I thank you for giving things to consider.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

To be fair, I wasn't in this committee when the ruleset was established. THAT question is better off being directed at a founding member. I can't speak for the entire group.

Okay...

However...

Its simple if you look at it from a neutral position. Especially when you look at this global LGL. 35 for MK...50 for everyone else. I'm not saying that I agree but that LGL pretty much answers your question. MK's planking is broken. Solution? 35 LGL.

No problems here...

Planking is still being investigated in its entirety as how "broken" it really is. But there are characters who can abuse it. We can take the Will vs Rich Brown incident as an example. So how do we combat planking AND MK's to an even higher degree? Give the rest of the characters a 50 LGL. It makes sense whether you agree or not.

I'm not trying to say that planking isn't a powerful tool, it is.

The Will vs. Rich Brown incident is just a case of a bad match-up for Olimar due to a specific tactic. There is no reason we should differentiate between having a LGL to buff Olimar and having a laser limit in the Falco MU to buff Olimar.

It's what I like to call a double standard, and a really easily avoidable one at that.

And though I get your point and you're just using broad examples to illustrate your point..you have to remember what is considered the biggest influence in today's metagame..which in indirectly affects the ruleset.



It's funny how one character influences so much.

Don't really understand this part... what does MK have to do with a global LGL?

But my only response to the last part of your argument (though rhetorical) is give evidence is that chaingrabbing is ban worthy. Give evidence that Mach Tornado is ban worthy.

"Give evidence that Pit's planking is ban worthy."

If you didn't see that response coming, I'm very surprised.

Actually lets not even discuss specific moves. That's just absurd. What happens if we banned Move A and it was accidentally used? Is that a lost of a stock? Delving that far into the direction you're taking simply makes things more chaotic. There's already enough to worry as it is.

What happens if Meta Knight accidentally grabs the ledge over 35 times and then the opponent times them out?

They lose the match. It's not difficult to enforce at all, no matter how "unfair" it may seem. How often do top level players accidentally do the wrong attack anyway?

As I've stated we're attempting to do the best we can with a middle ground while tackling the concerns of the public. There are some things though that are just not worth arguing about.

I'd say I'm happy with this, but I'm really not :/

Nothing I can do, I guess.

 

[ZTD | TECHnology]

I'm going to keep things brief..

I'm not trying to say that planking isn't a powerful tool, it is.

The Will vs. Rich Brown incident is just a case of a bad match-up for Olimar due to a specific tactic. There is no reason we should differentiate between having a LGL to buff Olimar and having a laser limit in the Falco MU to buff Olimar.

It's what I like to call a double standard, and a really easily avoidable one at that.

Advocating the banning of a certain tactic is one thing. Advocating the banning of how often you can use a specific move is absolutely absurd. These are not the same thing. You can argue Short Hop Double Laser is a tactic but its not planking.

Don't really understand this part... what does MK have to do with a global LGL?

Metaknight affects a great deal of the metagame and ruleset of as a whole. Simply put.

"Give evidence that Pit's planking is ban worthy."

If you didn't see that response coming, I'm very surprised.

Oh I already knew this was coming. The difference between what I'm bringing up vs what you are is that I am only addressing planking and LGLs. You are addressing other things that actually aren't really related. And its extremely difficult to find a "gray" area for all characters on a specific tactic like planking vs something like Chaingrabbing which is not universal.

What happens if Meta Knight accidentally grabs the ledge over 35 times and then the opponent times them out?

They lose the match. It's not difficult to enforce at all, no matter how "unfair" it may seem. How often do top level players accidentally do the wrong attack anyway?

The player has the chance to actually count where he is in terms of LGLs. Can you really accidentally grab the ledge enough to cause you to lose a match.

Top players make execution errors. Everyone does. I'm sorry but once again discussing specific moves isn't really worth it.

I'd say I'm happy with this, but I'm really not :/

Nothing I can do, I guess.

Its that mindset that gets you stuck with a ruleset you don't like. I joined this group to make a difference because I didn't like certain things about the actual ruleset but loved the idea of the committee. If you have ideas...express them. There is ALWAYS something that can be done. This is not a dictatorship.

 

[Maharba the Mystic]

don't argue with grim. if you read all of his previous arguements you will find that he just likes to argue.

also, glad you found my stuff interesting enough to read

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Does putting me down make you feel better about yourself?

 

[WindMajor]

don't argue with grim. if you read all of his previous arguements you will find that he just likes to argue.

God forbid that anyone in this sub-forum likes to argue anymore.

 

[ZTD | TECHnology]

There's nothing wrong with a little debate as long as its civil.

 

[Juushichi]

I am quite aware that Juu. I've also been to several Ohio tournaments that had some of these stages legal but not all of them. /Hope was the same way with an interesting ruleset though technically not a part of our region. (still <3 PA though)

The Midwest really isn't a great example though. For starters each state has like their own stage list anyway. Ohio was rocking the MLG Ruleset while other states were doing their own thing. PTAD was never used if I remember. Japes hasn't been utilized in a while and these are two of the main stages being debated. The only stage I see consistently used at each Midwest tournament Ive attended (that wasn't in Michigan) is Norfair. And I've been all over the Midwest. But I'm just providing a neutral outlook.

@InCom ..lol no worries. At least you know what's up.



We take our side events seriously also no matter how "lulzy" they are. They're supposed to be fun regardless. I honestly don't think we'd see more cases of people not taking it seriously than more people actually caring. Especially if they know what the purpose is for this potential event. Everyone has an opinion on stages. Period.

I was at a tournament that used both of those two weeks ago. And a bit ago (back when I mained toon link) I played Kel on PTAD and navi's well... or as well as you can against him. I believe AZ played Pops on PTAD or someone else at the OUGA two weeks ago. I will admit that Jungle Japes (****, PTAD as well) are probably niche picks.

Nothing particularly wrong with them from my experience, but they're probably specialty picks. Like Ness and Brinstar or something like that.

As for the bit about the Midwest being a bad example. I have to disagree. It's exactly because we've tried out so many different rulesets and stages that we know already about these stages. I mean, I can't speak for Michigan since I rarely see you guys, but most of what I've seen at tournaments around here generally are acceptant of these stages.

 

[Orion*]

\
I think that the BBRRC should do the job that the BBR couldn't do: slowly pushing the smash community in the right direction

I LOL'ed

What's the "right direction" in your eyes may not be the same to everyone. Stop being so self centered, I know you take a lot of crap for wanting different rules but acting like you're Jesus just makes you look like a ******.

Also, IMO it is best to hold like, a side-event on "questionable" stages. Like, a side-event with just Jungle Japes, Norfair, and Green Greens legal or something like that, to test the waters on those stages and see how players deal with it. It would help to provide the "proof" we need, one way or another.

Me and Marc actually where doing/talking about this last night...

7 stage list

PTAD
Distant Planet
Norfair
Japes
Green Greens
Picto
PS2 (I realize it's not as gay as the others, but I really feel not to many people know the stage and I wanted an odd number)

It will give the community a chance to at least learn the stages so they can judge them rather than make decisions based on lol theory craft

 

[[FBC] ESAM]

Grim, the reason we have a LGL is to make the game seem more entertaining for potential sponsors. There are more characters that can abuse ledges (Although not brokenly like MK can) that will drive sponsors away. Infinites are much less wide-spread and it is much more difficult to justify banning some rather than others. That would be equivalent to a LGL on MK, Pit, G&W and DK. What about Pikachu? What about ZSS? SO we get rid of that problem with a blanket LGL and then a stricter one for MK.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Why can't you just ban all infinites, then?

Seems equally justifiable. Lots of characters don't have useful infinites, and lots of characters don't have useful planking methods.

 

[Orion*]

Why not just admit we have an LGL so the game doesn't suck lmao

 

[[FBC] ESAM]

What is an infinite and what is not?

Marth GRing Lucas/Ness isn't an infinite, it is a small step. Same thing with everybody against ness/lucas besides DK.

Is Pikachu d-throwing Falcon/Sheik/fox/wolf an infinite?

Are constant Grab Releases on Wario infinites?

Is doing normal infinites against a wall legal? (Such as DK/mario/luigi/samus) He would be able to do it normally, but does the wall make it ok?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

An infinite chain-grab/grab release is a chain-grab/grab release that can go on infinitely. That's it, lol.

 

[xDD-Master]

To bad I don't discuss in this thread anymore
But it still is funny and it gets stupier everytime. But big love to Orion and Tech <3
Just leaving that here: Grim and friends, stop dodging arguments you know you can't counter.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

What argument have I dodged?

 

[[FBC] ESAM]

so Pikachu's CG isn't? What about attack locks on walls (Like laser locks)

 

[Grim Tuesday]

If it's infinite and inescapable, it's an infinite. Lol, how is there any ambiguity here?

 

[[FBC] ESAM]

It goes to death %, but not infinitely.

So GR things on Ness/Lucas are fine since they aren't infinite?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Seeing as you are banning infinites, yes. You would have to use a different rule for anything that, well, isn't infinite.

 

[DeLux]

In this rule of banning infinites you're proposing, I bring up the Ice Climbers:

Hobbling (which can be done to every character) is a non infinite tactic. It involves one ice climber throwing an opponent with the other climber footstooling him. The throwing climber is then free to ice block to force getup the opponent, making him free to grab.

This is not infinite because 1. Ice blocks start freezing people right around 220% depending on range, thus making them ungrabbable and 2. People can SDI the Ice blocks, potentially making the IC whiff a grab if they are dumb 3. People can mash. So it's not only not continuous to an extent, but not inescapable. The only difference is that it's hard to escape.

Would this tactic be considered illegal?

Now what if I combined it with what COULD be an infinite tactic such as repeated walking down throw CGs. For example, a player uses one walking down throw, followed by a second walking down throw, followed by a bthrow hobble. One "infinite", One "infinite", One "Non infinite". Is that also illegal?

Using these scenarios, it's hard to take a hardline stance on what you can and can't do. Is D3 allowed to Wall infinite someone on a stage where the transformation allows it for only a finite time? Are characters allowed to jab/laser/whatever lock in a similar fashion? If these two scenarios are allowed, then even by the ban all infinites scenario, you'd have to make some arbitrary distinction in order to ban the tactics you're seeking to remove.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

In this rule of banning infinites you're proposing, I bring up the Ice Climbers:

Hobbling (which can be done to every character) is a non infinite tactic. It involves one ice climber throwing an opponent with the other climber footstooling him. The throwing climber is then free to ice block to force getup the opponent, making him free to grab.

This is not infinite because 1. Ice blocks start freezing people right around 220% depending on range, thus making them ungrabbable and 2. People can SDI the Ice blocks, potentially making the IC whiff a grab if they are dumb 3. People can mash. So it's not only not continuous to an extent, but not inescapable. The only difference is that it's hard to escape.

Would this tactic be considered illegal?

No, Hobbling would be legal.

Now what if I combined it with what COULD be an infinite tactic such as repeated walking down throw CGs. For example, a player uses one walking down throw, followed by a second walking down throw, followed by a bthrow hobble. One "infinite", One "infinite", One "Non infinite". Is that also illegal?

Doing any grab > grab scenario as ICs that is inescapable regardless of percentage is considered an infinite. So yes, that would be illegal.

Using these scenarios, it's hard to take a hardline stance on what you can and can't do. Is D3 allowed to Wall infinite someone on a stage where the transformation allows it for only a finite time? Are characters allowed to jab/laser/whatever lock in a similar fashion?

Yes, both of those are non-infinite.

If these two scenarios are allowed, then even by the ban all infinites scenario, you'd have to make some arbitrary distinction in order to ban the tactics you're seeking to remove.

You're right though, banning infinites is not as easy as I said it was.

I retract my earlier statement.

 

[sunshade]

You guys do know that grim is not actually suggesting a universal anti-infinite rule right?

He is show that the claim that a ledge grab limit on everyone is the same as universally banning infinites. You guys are saying things like "what about ice climbers", and "what about this situation where its close but not quite the same thing", go reread the ledge grab limit discussion threads where people said things like "what about pit/rob" and "what if metaknight treasures you on a ledge and forces you to excede LGL".

Both are surgical changes being made for the sake of balance. A metaknight specific LGL is an alternative for banning him but for everyone else the rule is not needed for reasons other than "eww planking is gay and I hate homosexual techniques inside of my brawl".

 

[[FBC] ESAM]

It isn't the same though. LGLs are super easy to enforce (go over the # you lose if time runs out) as opposed to infinites where there are a bunch of grey lines and it is hard to enforce.

 

[Supreme Dirt]

There's a very easy way to ban infinites. We ban stages such as Temple rather than making a rule declaring that circle camping is against the rules. So ban Dedede, the Ice Climbers, and any other character with an infinite rather than making arbitrary rules to ban the infinites.

Oh wait, this bans 80% of the cast, probably more. Even Ganondorf has infinites, for example on Wario (Forward-B -> Dash DThrow tire + instant regrab -> Forward-B repeat, Grab -> Grab Release -> Footstool -> Tipman -> Grab the forced rising, repeat). Most characters can jab lock.

Or we could, you know, not ban infinites because they are an inherent part of the game and a weakness of certain characters against other characters. Not to mention they are a major nerf to characters like King Dedede, Ice Climbers, and even Ganondorf (do we really need to hurt Ganon's 1 playable MU against a top-tier? is chainchoking banworthy, as it can technically continue indefinitely on Charizard with very little difficulty, and is not much harder to perform on Bowser?)

We shouldn't cater to any character, high or low tier. We also shouldn't do everything in our power to make sure a character has some aspect of their metagame nerfed. Do we ban Pit from firing arrows? Falco from firing lasers? Diddy from pulling bananas? Then why do we prevent Metaknight from sitting on the ledge? Other high tiers get auto-wins against low-tiers, why should we treat top tiers differently? If MK auto-wins against every other character in the game without a LGL, why should we treat this as any different than ICs vs. Ganondorf?
If we have a LGL for MK so he doesn't have autowins against characters, ICs should not be allowed to use Squall or Blizzard against Ganondorf. Both prevent auto-wins, however one is argued to be justified because it's a buff to high tiered characters, whereas one is considered irrelevant because lol, it's Ganon, just switch to a different character.

Tell me that if King Dedede could infinite Falco, Metaknight, or Diddy Kong, the stance that the BBRRC has wouldn't be different.

 

[[FBC] ESAM]

There is a difference between a few +4 MUs and everybody being a +4 MU. If MK's ledgegrabs weren't limited, he would probably be banned (This was never a discussion, this is my personal opinion, don't apply it to all of the BBRRC). If something is THAT degenerative to the metagame (MK solidly winning every MU) he would be banned. Why do you think CGs past 300% are banned? It makes it so that one grab =/= game. ICs could theoretically end up just grab releasing and dash grabbing with the other, then b-throwing at the edge.

Anyway, we nerf ledgegrabs because 1. The community IN GENERAL despises ledgecamping to a really high degree (IE Will vs RB), 2. It CAN be a problem in the metagame when it comes to Metaknight, and 3. It is more entertaining to watch for sponsors if somebody doesn't have a 17% lead and runs to the ledge and stays there for the whole match.

You guys have to remember that this ISN'T the most competitive ruleset! The BBR tried that before and got laughed at. The BBRRC is making a ruleset that is fair and appealing to everybody (in the US) so that we can have one ruleset going so that we are, as the title of the ruleset infers, unified. It is unfortunate when people in a certain region play on certain stages, then go to a tournament in a different region and have a different set of rules (LGLs and stages mostly) so the BBRRC is trying to unify everybody to use the same list. It isn't like we made this and this is it forever. There will be updates.