The Unity Ruleset: Discussion

[MK26]

so do things like footstool infinites...then again i dont think those are discriminated against either...

 

[Raziek]

Koro, what the hell are you talked about?

Skill barrier has NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING. As long as it's within human capability, you treat them the same.

I'm saying it's either all infinites, or no infinites. If ICs are legal (as they should and always will be), every other infinite should be legal.

This isn't a pity party for people who main characters with huge flaws.

 

[KoRoBeNiKi]

@koro: so the ics infinites get special treatment?

Did you read past the first half of the sentence?

The Ice Climbers infinite being legal does not matter in ANY matchup listing. They will KILL you regardless of an infinite if you get grabbed past 10 percent as Ice Climbers have massive grab combos regardless. It is different not because of skill gap. I am not saying this. It is different as the Ice Climber's killing game primarily is getting a grab and killing someone from a low percent.

Also there is one other thing to think about. Is it possible to split King D3 in half so he doesn't get an infinite grab? Is there a CPU controlling half of his movements and giving him the ability to use an infinite? There is a reason why the Ice Climbers aren't banned. It is possible to avoid their grabs by separating nana. I don't care how godly your spacing is with Luigi, Bowser, Mario, Samus, or DK. You are going to get grabbed and you are going to die to it.

 

[CT Chia]

wait... did you just say ICs can kill anyone with a grab after 10% even without their infinite?

 

[MK26]

ah. you're saying that banning the ics infinites would be useless because they have all sorts of grab combos that arent classified as infinites but will still kill you off one grab anyway.

this conversation is stupid. back to discussing pictochat plz, i didnt write a large post for nothing.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Except then you don't get tournaments like MLG dallas where Gnes beat top MK's on Brinstar/Norfair/RC etc. Just because a character is really good on a stage doesn't mean he's broken on it. I beat Tyrant in tournament on rainbow cruise which was his counterpick. This stuff happens often enough and you don't see mk's with perfect records on those stages.

Tyrant SD'd at 0% on Brinstar and 3% on Norfair against Gnes.

Props to him for winning but still noting part of the reason why he won is important.

 

[DLA]

The sudden death rule is unclear. For example, if Ganondorf does a suicide kill on the last stock, he arbitrarily loses about 50% of the time, or he goes to sudden death 50% of the time. Bowsercides usually make Bowser win.

Does the match go to the 1-stock rematch in all of these cases? Or does Ganon lose if the game says he loses, since the opponent can argue that "ganon died first, or else we'd be in sudden death?"

 

[MK26]

i read it as 'if the game declares a winner, that's what goes, but if the game says sudden death do the one-stock tiebreaker'

so dorf gets shafted

 

[CT Chia]

There is no reason to make arbitrary rules on who we believe wins if the game tells us otherwise. All we have done in that regard is change how sudden death is carried out.

If this shows to be a problem with solid proof, the rule will be changed.

 

[Raziek]

wait... did you just say ICs can kill anyone with a grab after 10% even without their infinite?

This.

What ARE you talking about?

 

[Gea]

Why do people expect the ruleset to "balance" the game? Like, for real guys? And did anyone explains why Japes isn't legal?

Edit: Espy I am also going to guess that the tripping clause is due to them not wanting to ban all codes (infinite replays) but people having no tripping on some Wiis and not on others is unfair.

 

[Chuee]

Also there is one other thing to think about. Is it possible to split King D3 in half so he doesn't get an infinite grab? Is there a CPU controlling half of his movements and giving him the ability to use an infinite? There is a reason why the Ice Climbers aren't banned. It is possible to avoid their grabs by separating nana. I don't care how godly your spacing is with Luigi, Bowser, Mario, Samus, or DK. You are going to get grabbed and you are going to die to it.

This X99999999

 

[KoRoBeNiKi]

This is what I am asking. How do the ice climbers kill without grab combos? Do the ice climbers, unlike characters like King D3, have other techniques to kill people? The Ice climber game revolves around getting grabs and doing massive grab combos. It is how they are played vs everyone, and not just vs a few characters. It is impossible to ban this technique for the IC's as the banning itself is ambiguous.

If a ban was proposed: what exact type of Ice Climber chain grab would be banned? What is the fine line in other words between a banned technique and allowing techniques that are quite similar to the infinite that the Ice Climbers use as their main metagame?

Also, as I said before, there is are a few big differences between the Ice Climbers and King D3 infinite otherwise. The Ice climbers are 2 characters. The Ice climber composes of a player and a cpu. The two characters can be separated in other words and popo if I remember right has no infinites alone. The Ice Climbers chain grab is avoidable as well. It doesn't have the massive range that makes King D3's chain grab unavoidable for those 5 characters.

Tech skill actually matters in this case. This isn't a ruleset designed for the worst players in the world.

 

[DLA]

Chibo that wasn't my question... this is what the rule says:

If the match ends with both players dying at the same time (either coincidentally or via suicide move) or if time ran out with both players at equal percent, a one stock three minute rematch will be played on the same stage.

What I'm saying is that this rule is unclear, because you don't even mention "sudden death". Many people consider Ganon/Bowsercides as "dying at the same time", regardless of whether it goes to sudden death or not.

I'm not even going to bother trying to argue the stupid sudden death rules in this ruleset because no one cares what I have to say. All I'm asking is that you make the rule more clear, because many players will get confused between "sudden death" and "dying at the same time from a suicide move".

 

[BSP]

Sigh...all this time and a lot of characters' number one CP is still in the starter list.

Plus Picto

 

[Gea]

It's pretty clear to me. If the game decides a winner, then the match was not a draw.

 

[Chuee]

Sigh...all this time and a lot of characters' number one CP is still in the starter list.

Plus Picto

FD isn't even that many characters #1 CP.

 

[DLA]

It's pretty clear to me. If the game decides a winner, then the match was not a draw.

Where does the rule say that? It doesn't say anything about the game deciding a winner.

 

[BSP]

FD isn't even that many characters #1 CP.

Ok, #1 may be pushing it, but it's still up there. AZ pulled some statistic in the BRC thread let me go get it real quick.

lright, and now to bust out some stats:
At MLG in 2010, from a sampling of over 1,000 sets and over 2,300 games:
Pictochat
Banned: 30 times (~3% of all sets)
Used: 62 times (~2.7% of games)

Final Destination
Banned: 346 (~34% of all sets)
Used: 205 (~8.9% of games)

That's in comparision to what people usually consider a CP stage. FD shouldn't be a starter >_>

Why is pictochat still legal? Seriously. The stage allows random reward to entire match and has no spot in competitive brawl. How can you guys not see this yet?

 

[T-block]

This is what I am asking. How do the ice climbers kill without grab combos? Do the ice climbers, unlike characters like King D3, have other techniques to kill people? The Ice climber game revolves around getting grabs and doing massive grab combos. It is how they are played vs everyone, and not just vs a few characters. It is impossible to ban this technique for the IC's as the banning itself is ambiguous.

If a ban was proposed: what exact type of Ice Climber chain grab would be banned? What is the fine line in other words between a banned technique and allowing techniques that are quite similar to the infinite that the Ice Climbers use as their main metagame.

This is really silly. If the entire character revolves around the infinite, and infinites are boring and degenerate, why do we care about this character? You want to ban infinites, but all of a sudden it's okay if a character depends on them?

Other infinites are difficult to enforce as well. Are you going to ban small-step regrabs? How many regrabs are allowed? Are they not going to be allowed at all? What if someone regrabs "accidentally"? How will this be proven to a judge if the tournament doesn't have enough staff, and the Wii isn't hacked for infinite replay? Is Dedede allowed to step forward slightly before regrabbing DK? How will you tell that he did?

 

[Espy Rose]

Where does the rule say that? It doesn't say anything about the game deciding a winner.

If the Ledge Grab Limit does not declare one player the winner, the winner will be declared by what the game says in all situations, except for when players are presented with sudden death:

If the match ends with both players dying at the same time (either coincidentally or via suicide move) or if time ran out with both players at equal percent, a one stock three minute rematch will be played on the same stage. For a tie-breaker match, a Ledge Grab Limit of 13 is used for Meta Knight, and 18 for all other characters.

In Ganondorf's case, if it goes to Sudden Death, then you do a tie-breaker, since both players got KOed at the same time.

If the opponent wins, then too bad, Ganondorf.

 

[Chuee]

Ok, #1 may be pushing it, but it's still up there. AZ pulled some statistic in the BRC thread let me go get it real quick.

Why is pictochat still legal? Seriously.

Yea, I remember it.
However, whats not noted is the characters.
I'd be willing to bet most of the bans are from Diddy and ICs.

 

[Alex Strife]

@espy ---- i love that show.

Also....I guess its good people are generally in favor.

 

[Tin Man]

So when do people outside the USA get a chance at joining the BBR-RC?

Can someone give me a legit answer? Chibo, Xyro, Bizkit, BBR?

 

[KoRoBeNiKi]

This is really silly. If the entire character revolves around the infinite, and infinites are boring and degenerate, why do we care about this character? You want to ban infinites, but all of a sudden it's okay if a character depends on them?

Other infinites are difficult to enforce as well. Are you going to ban small-step regrabs? How many regrabs are allowed? Are they not going to be allowed at all? What if someone regrabs "accidentally?" How will this be proven to a judge if the tournament doesn't have enough staff, and the Wii isn't hacked for infinite replay? Is Dedede allowed to step forward slightly before regrabbing DK? How will you tell that he did?

1. I am not saying that the Ice Climbers depend on the infinite. I am saying that the Ice climbers do not need the infinite in order to win the matchup as they can get basically what people consider a 0 to death without it. People that get grabbed die. It isn't due to the infinite but rather the character.
And when did I say the infinite was boring?

2. I would use Xyro's ICG rule. King d3 has to step in between each chain grab. It can only be used once in a row without a dash. King D3 is required to move in between each grab.

3. If someone is abusing the infinite, the person should pause the game once the 2nd grab has been done. One of the TD's responsibilities is to go to the round being questioned. There is a reason why he is called the Tournament Director. He Directs and Solves disputes within his Tournament. If the infinite was done before the 3 minutes were up and the opponent denies the infinite. Quit the game, save the replay, and show it to the TD.

Spoiler

Be back later.

 

[CT Chia]

Chibo that wasn't my question... this is what the rule says:



What I'm saying is that this rule is unclear, because you don't even mention "sudden death". Many people consider Ganon/Bowsercides as "dying at the same time", regardless of whether it goes to sudden death or not.

I'm not even going to bother trying to argue the stupid sudden death rules in this ruleset because no one cares what I have to say. All I'm asking is that you make the rule more clear, because many players will get confused between "sudden death" and "dying at the same time from a suicide move".

What Espy said. It's an extremely clear rule.

Game says player a wins, then player a wins.
Game says player b wins, then player b wins.
Game says draw, does sudden death, instead of the in game sudden death you do our sudden death ruling (1 stock 3 minute rematch)

 

[Espy Rose]

Alex Strife is a brony?
Yessss~

 

[san.]

I am pretty confident Picto needs to go. Everything else seems half-done or par for the course. The compromises are pretty self-evident.

The infinites I am iffy about. It makes plenty of matchups near auto-lose. I just can't think of any non-contradicting reason to ban them since the Ice Climbers exist.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Ok, #1 may be pushing it, but it's still up there. AZ pulled some statistic in the BRC thread let me go get it real quick.



That's in comparision to what people usually consider a CP stage. FD shouldn't be a starter >_>

Why is pictochat still legal? Seriously. The stage allows random reward to entire match and has no spot in competitive brawl. How can you guys not see this yet?

Depends who banned it and who was CPing it.

 

[ぱみゅ]

I'm pretty much okay with the Ruleset. It is clear and avoids possible game-breaking strategies (planking).

Only issue I see with it is the stagelist.
-Number of legal stages is fine

Spoiler

it just need to be cooler

-Despite not real reasoning behind them, banned stages are fine

Spoiler

they just need to be cooler

-BUUUUUUUT I'm against having a 5-stage starter list (specially having FD among them).

Spoiler

You know, it needs to be at least 20% cooler

FD has been proved over and over to be overpolarizing in several Matchups, and the fact it was "fine" in Melee (as someone pointed early in the thread) doesn't make it any better.
Larger Starter Stagelist has proven to be better than Shorter ones competition-wise. In terms of involved in stage striking, it is much less than people may think if avery player know what they're doing.

 

[Bizkit047]

Can someone give me a legit answer? Chibo, Xyro, Bizkit, BBR?

You'd have to ask AZ about that. He mentioned on the last DI Episode that there were no plans of spanning out to other countries right now (maybe due to extreme ruleset differences?). But I don't know if that means that the members should be US only.

 

[Life]

Typical stagelist sigh here. Y'all know how I feel about the whole deal, no use repeating myself.

On a positive note, I like the LGL thing--if not in actual competitive terms, in political ones. Seems like a nice compromise between "only MK needs a LGL" and "if we have a LGL because of MK, we should ban MK".

EDIT: Reread more closely. The pause rule is EXCELLENT.

Anti-splitting rule is interesting. Controversial issue. People won't like it, but it's worth trying.

No substitutions? As in, substituting players?

Last two rules are also good.

I'd actually be totally fine playing under these rules. But dat stagelist...

Selfquote from the announcement thread.

tl;dr stagelist is bad, LGL is okayish, everything else is good.

 

[san.]

It depends on how much people would like to emphasize traits FD has that other stages do not. I believe not having any platform significantly alters many components of player vs player on the stage, since it removes a key aspect that is prevalent on every other legal stage in the game.

Multilevel play with platforms is greatly diminished. Facets of vertical spacing utilizing the platform and layout structure of stages are reduced to null at FD. A certain style of character is greatly emphasized on this stage that leaves players with very little choice. Options of strategic positioning are also reduced.

 

[Gea]

I think before the community even takes where FD should fall they should own up to what constitutes a legal/nonlegal stage instead of arbitrarily saying "Brinstar and Cruise makes MK auto-win why aren't things banned." Then legit stages start to disappear because players don't like them, while stages that are less than ideal (Picto, because of the wall forming before you can see it) remain.

This has always been a beef of mine with our community, though. We blow *** at choosing a stage list that goes by actual guidelines.

 

[DLA]

Yeah yeah I know what the rule is All I'm suggesting is that it is worded more clearly.

It's a really stupid rule though... why the **** does Ganon arbitrarily lose 50% of the time if he LANDS a move? He directly loses the game because he successfully lands an attack. How ******** is that? The programming on Ganoncide is obviously faulty if the game RANDOMLY decides whether Ganon wins or not, based on COMPLETELY arbitrary criteria.

Ganon does the same exact animation for Ganoncide EVERY single time. Whether he wins or loses isn't even character-specific. How can the BBR-RC possibly think that deciding the outcome of a match in a COMPLETELY arbitary fashion is competitively viable?

You say that it's unfair to arbitrarily award the win to one player for using a suicide move. Well here's the thing: IT'S NOT ARBITRARY. There is direct evidence that the programming on Ganoncide is broken: the fact that ganonciding arbitrarily results in one of two outcomes, instead of just one outcome every time.

If the game was designed so that Ganon loses 100% of the time he ganoncides, instead of just 50%, THEN it would be arbitrary to award him the win or the 1-stock rematch, because it's not randomly decided. Ganon knows that he'll lose if he ganoncides.

If the game awarded Ganon a win with some characters but a loss with other characters, due to the size of the opponent's hurtbox, then it would be ALSO arbitrary to award Ganon the win/rematch every time, since the Ganon actually has a way of knowing whether or not the Ganoncide will award him the win or not based on the character he's fighting.

However, the way it is now, Ganon players literally have NO way of knowing whether or not a Ganoncide will make them lose or not. It's completely random, due to faulty programming. THIS is the reason that making a rule that gives Ganon ONE result for ganonciding is NOT arbitrary. Deciding a match completely based on randomness is not competitively viable.

Hell, making a rule that says Ganon LOSES every time he ganoncides is more fair than the current rule. At least it's not based on arbitrary factors.

That wouldn't be the right thing to do though, because Ganon's hurtbox is clearly farther from the blast zone than his opponent's hurtbox during the Ganoncide animation. That's why Ganon should win, or at least bring it to sudden death.


edit: did I use the word ARBITRARY enough? it's because the BBR-RC rule is ARBITRARY

 

[BSP]

It depends on how much people would like to emphasize traits FD has that other stages do not. I believe not having any platform significantly alters many components of player vs player on the stage, since it removes a key aspect that is prevalent on every other legal stage in the game.

Multilevel play with platforms is greatly diminished. Facets of vertical spacing utilizing the platform and layout structure of stages are reduced to null at FD. A certain style of character is greatly emphasized on this stage that leaves players with very little choice. Options of strategic positioning are also reduced.

It doesn't hit you, therefore it's 100% fair

Deciding a match completely based on randomness is not competitively viable.
.

Pictochat is legal, so yes it is, though completely is a stretch in its case.

 

[Tin Man]

You'd have to ask AZ about that. He mentioned on the last DI Episode that there were no plans of spanning out to other countries right now (maybe due to extreme ruleset differences?). But I don't know if that means that the members should be US only.

Thank you.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Um...what?

Can you please provide informational posts? I'd expect a bit more from a backroom member.

*sigh*
Really?
Very well.

There are several issues with a ledge grab limit.
The first is the fact that the ledge is a part of basic gameplay. It is not some mechanic that exists on certain stages, but one that exists on every single stage.
It is something that aids in defining gameplay, that can be used for a massive amount of things from offense, to defense and to mindgames.

Essentially, dictating that an individual can only grab the ledge a certain amount of times is the equivalent of demanding they cease doing something you dislike.
It is akin to telling a Fox user to fire no more than 70 lasers because of the fectiveness of his camping.

The second issue, if we were to ignore the first, is the player themself. What method does the player have of monitoring the number of times they have grabbed the ledge? When one places a limitation in the form of a number, such as the 300% rule regarding infinites, there needs to be a method through which the player can monitor their actions in a way that is not unreasonable.

Counting ledge grabs is unreasonable because of the fact that the number is only provided at the END of the battle. Asking them to keep count is grossly unfair because they already have a massive amount of things to take into account during a set. Counting the number of times you grab the ledge while facing your opponent is far from reasonable.

The third issue is that if something needs to be limited it should be banned. The reason for this is because limitation of a certain strategy/move is an admittance of the over centralizing effect of that strategy. A limitation does not out right remove this overcentralizing strategy, and instead only dictates WHEN the strategy can be used. It does not remove the strategy, nor rectify the situation it creates when it is used.

Fourthly, let us look at the character in themselves. Is a global LGL neccessary? Well then it would have to be shown that EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER has a broken ledge game. That EVERY SINGLE CHARACTER is UNTOUCHABLE when they are planking on the ledge.
Are they? They are not, this has been proven with frame data and hell, even the LGL rule acknowledges this since the only character that is untouchable, has an even lower LGL than every single other character! What madness is this!

I can go on and on and on, but you get the point. A global LGL is foolish and scrubby.
An lgl that targets a specific character becomes a surgical change which is bad for similar reasons. Even then it only dictates WHEN it can be used, it does not remove it.

Happy now?

 

[Espy Rose]

DLA, for goodness sake.

BBR-RC made this set up, not the BBR.
Two different entities, amigo.

 

[DLA]

DLA, for goodness sake.

BBR-RC made this set up, not the BBR.
Two different entities, amigo.

I typed BBR-RC the first time, near the top of my post... then I got lazy and typed BBR afterwards. I know they're different lol.

It doesn't really matter though because both entities came up with rulesets that had the same rule about suicide moves. My post is directed at both, even if it doesn't concern the BBR any more lol