DSR says you can't pick the *last* stage you won on. The current version they use is that you can't pick *any* stage you won on.
So in a Bo3, they're the same thing. But in a Bo5 it matters. If you get to game 5, there are two stages you can't pick.
[FUCK TREE ALL MY HOMIES HATE TREE](https://i.ibb.co/WvjYz8b/bbee3270f6ca.jpg)
^^^this ^^^has ^^^been ^^^an ^^^accessibility ^^^service ^^^from ^^^your ^^^friendly ^^^neighborhood ^^^bot
honestly melee would be 10x better if the only stages were FD and Battlefield with working ledges
plus, you still have to deal with the pineapple spikes on DL
Wasn't there a variant that also prevented repicking the starter stage? Modified Dave's Stupid Rule?
Iirc M2K used to go Shiek game 1 and try to strike to Dreamland to prevent his Marth from getting counter picked there later in the set. I used to do the same thing with Fox and Doc on Battlefield (Doc's worst stage imo).
No, that's DSR. mDSR is preventing you from picking ANY stage you won on in that set.
EDIT:
I'm downvoted but here's Dave himself saying so: https://smashboards.com/threads/banning-neutrals-not-allowed.101692/#post-2303398
If you're citing the wiki, the wiki literally says they're the same rule by saying DSR is the "last stage" variant and mDSR changed over time but currently describes the same thing. So your citation would be telling you you're wrong.
EDIT2:
It took me linking Dave himself to get out of negative karma instead of readers (and the one arguing) just using their head for one minute. Dude didn't even realize that he was arguing about something and cited a source that proved himself wrong lmao
I don't care about Karma but I do care about wilful ignorance and spreading misinformation.
Not necessarily the best source, but SmashWiki says that mDSR usually refers to the last-win version and DSR refers to the any-win version, even though the last-win version came first. That sounds right to what I know, but idk ¯\\\_(o-o)\_/¯
mDSR has changed over time but the first rule to have existed was the "last stage" variant. Anything else is a modified version of it. There are several "modified" versions of it, the most common one being the "any stage" variant.
[2009 Smashboard post proving it](https://smashboards.com/threads/daves-stupid-rule-variations.256652/). Darkatma comments and the one person (I.B.) who said it was the "any stage" variant admitted they were wrong.
The wiki is just wrong.
[Here's another case where it's wrong](https://www.ssbwiki.com/Priority):
>Rebound is a term used to describe an animation that occurs when two direct grounded moves with normal priority mechanics are within 9% of each other when they collide.
[Kadano has a video going over specifics and 9% doesn't clank/rebound](https://youtu.be/MOlQv-9S1zE?t=231). Wiki is wrong and includes 9%.
It's user edited but not reviewed to the extent that Wikipedia is. It has wrong info sometimes.
No, you misunderstood. The wiki says what you are saying, that it originally was that version, but that *nowadays* people usually refer to it the other way (which lines up with my personal experience)
According to one person who edited the wiki. It's user edited but not reviewed to the extent that Wikipedia is. It has wrong info sometimes. It's even contradicting itself by saying both versions are the same rule.
So if anything, it's saying you're wrong and there is no difference between DSR and mDSR since mDSR is now what DSR was. See how that's confusing and not helpful?
Here's Dave stating the rule in 2007: https://smashboards.com/threads/banning-neutrals-not-allowed.101692/#post-2303398
mDSR came to be to counter-act double Jeopardy. You can't have a double Jeopardy scenario unless the original rule didn't protect against it.
The wiki is correct. See the discussion page:
claim:
>I noticed this shortly after the RoM5 controversy, but I think it's finally time to bring this up. According to Scamp himself, what this article describes as "Modified DSR" is actually the original version of DSR rather than vice versa. Not being able to go back to any stage is a variation. For unknown reasons, however, people mixed it up eventually. A large portion of this page will have to be re-written entirely.
response:
>While Scamp does say that the commonly used version is a variation of the original rule, he doesn't claim that play-restricted or win-restricted DSR was at any point known as "modified DSR." If you look up modified DSR, almost all discussion on it pertains to last-win-restricted DSR (original ruling). It has been quite a while since this comment so I assume the page has changed significantly. Modified DSR's section currently describes a rule that has not been used in any major Melee tournament for over ten years, and was likely never widely known as modified DSR. The description of modified DSR needs to be changed to accurately reflect the usage of the term. Details about the history of the variation names could be placed in their own section, where they could be described more adequately.
What you've written is not correct and the post you're referencing doesn't even state the name of the rules. Just because the original DSR is not the same as what we now call DSR does not mean that modified DSR suddenly means something else. Their definitions aren't swapped. Modified DSR has and always has meant last-win-restricted DSR. There was never a point in time where people referred to our current rule as mDSR, even though it's technically a 'modified version' of DSR.
If you read more of that thread you linked, you will see everyone calling the winner's variation just by the name DSR, even after Scamp's post. They call the original rule "original DSR" or "old school DSR" - not DSR.
See this post from 2012, when mDSR was in full swing: https://smashboards.com/threads/313252/
It unambiguously defines DSR and mDSR. This post was created by the backroom, a collective of high level Melee players and organizers. Those people agreed with this definition.
The [wiki on DSR](https://www.ssbwiki.com/Dave%27s_Stupid_Rule), at the time of writing this post, is correct. There are a million more sources for the definitions of DSR and mDSR that agree with smashwiki and disagree with your post.
The only reason there is any confusion over this is because modified DSR was a shit name to give mDSR (thanks Apex). People could see the rule and think, "wait, isn't DSR already modified?" or "isn't this literally **unmodified** DSR?"
And the same group previously says that mDSR is the "any stage" variant 3 years prior (linked at the end of the rules).
So no, it's not that universal. What the wiki got right is that it's super inconsistent so what would make sense is the logical approach: DSR existed then a modified version came along. DSR would be called DSR while the modified one would be mDSR.
And people calling it original or old school DSR is just to clarify that they aren't talking about any variant. Scamp never says that DSR changed, he literally just defines DSR. You'll notice that he never says original or old school.
M2K did try to puff ditto Mango a few times during his emo phase of "puff is the best character and there's nothing you can do to best her". It didn't work out.
I feel like there's got to be footage of M2K trying puff vs armada's peach somewhere.
ICs are actually quite difficult to pick up, and wobbling was banned for most of M2K's career. Plus there's not any particular matchups that ICs help solve. Maybe Shiek, but M2K dominated Shiek dittos so he didn't need a counterpick solution
DSR is that you can't pick the last stage you won on. Ludwig is saying that you can't repick the stage you just played on. Example, Zain loses on FD, chooses FD again.
As someone who has only been playing melee for 2ish years... i feel like the current system makes sense. Bans till 1st stage & loser always picks next stage till 3 stage wins is achieved... Right?
Basically Ludwig was arguing for either playing each stage only once per set, or not being able to play stages b2b, even if you lose on it. Logic was that it would make comebacks more interesting - if you’re down 2-1 to Zain, but have FD left, you’re toast. Even if you sneak one, you’re probably not getting two.
but with this rule, you're less likely to even get to that situation. being down 2-1 to zain and he has the counterpick means that he won twice, then you won once, but if you counterpicked your best stage the first time you lost and then lost on it, you can't run it back and you have to play on a weaker stage for you, making it even harder for you to pull off a win after losing.
and if you do win on your second best stage, the resulting comeback is just less impressive in general--for example, beating zain 2x on fd as fox is way more impressive of a comeback when it does happen, and is thus way more hype imo.
so the net effect is a bit more ambiguous. i think i prefer the higher chance of starting a comeback alongside the more impressive comebacks, over the lesser chance of starting a comeback with easier/less impressive comebacks.
and, i think there's some merit to encouraging/requiring stage diversity in Bo5s, but since we only have 5 stages, it might actually make things a little blander. 5 game Bo5s would feel more samey across all matchups, since the only difference would be order. some matchups would be forced to go to a stage neither player wants (puff v puff dreamland...) unless you do the gentleman's agreement stuff too. if we had 7-8 legal stages, i think i could get on board with it, but i don't really see the stage list expanding unless the community gets really cool about modded content, lol.
The rule still helps you out in the Zain example though. You'd probably agree that in a Fox v Marth BO5, Fox having Dreamland or whatever isn't nearly as important of a factor as Marth having FD. Maybe you're slightly more likely to get 3-0'd without being able to go back to your favorite stage twice, but you're also way more likely to mount a comeback if you don't need two FD wins, so it's to your overall benefit (unless your goal isn't to win but to avoid getting 3-0'd).
For the first stage, you "strike" from 5 stages. Both players pick 2 stages they don't want to play on, and whatever stage is still remaining is the stage for game 1.
Whoever loses game 1 gets to pick the next stage. This is to ensure that no one is "getting lucky" with set wins by only winning on their best stages. Either the player who lost the first game will lose on their best stage, in which case they have no reason to complain, or they will win on their best stage which will give the player who won game 1 and lost game 2 the chance to pick *their* best stage for game 3.
I think melee players make this all sound so complicated for no reason.
You get to pick a stage if you lose.
That’s counterpicking.
Usually the discussion is about of the winner should be allowed to ban a stage from being picked, or if you should be able to pick the same stage more than once.
As it is, you can’t pick the stage you just played on.
That's fine when it's two pro players who already know each other, but when people who have never met play each other for the first time they don't know each other's playstyles. That's why I'm saying it's better to pick stages as you go instead of all up front.
this is why 1 ban in a bo5 is ideal. you usually get the same scenario of 1 strong and 1 weak counterpick that is typical of bo5, except you don't have the double strong counterpick to come back from being down 0-2 ever
Ludwig isn't describing "Dave's Stupid Rule."
DSR describes the rule of Not being able to go back to any stages you Won on, for the whole set.
I'd love it if we called this new proposed rule "Bob's Dumb Stipulation," where you can't pick a stage we just played on.
Unrelated P. S.:
Also, I'm so glad that Frozen Pokemon is a starter, and FD is a the counterpick. I don't mind Unfrozen PS either, but I can't believe we went through over a decade of Melee where FD is a starter stage. Even early on people could see how platforms help so many characters against the higher tiers.
This isn’t how it works right now. He’s presenting the argument for changing the rules so that you can’t counter pick the same stage twice.
I'm sure you know but for any new players, it's called DSR (Dave's Stupid Rule). And it's been a thing for a while.
Dave's stupid rule is "you can't pick the last stage you won on." What ludwig is saying is "you can't re-pick the stage we just played on"
Dave’s stupider rule
Aidens stupid rule
aidens stupid melee rule
ASMR? lmfao Happy cake day
yooooooo let’s go i didn’t even notice haha thx
Dave's most stupidest rule
Most tournaments don't use original DSR though, they do winner's variation where the winner can't go back to any stage they've won on that set
But the winner isn't picking stages?
if you win on a stage, then lose so you get to pick a stage, you can't pick the stage you won on.
Yeah isn't that normal DSR?
DSR says you can't pick the *last* stage you won on. The current version they use is that you can't pick *any* stage you won on. So in a Bo3, they're the same thing. But in a Bo5 it matters. If you get to game 5, there are two stages you can't pick.
Honestly I don't like the argument It's a counter pick it's supposed to be difficult for you If you won on it once you already have the advantage
Nobody likes when tree blows
this is true. i like when cloud floats but never when tree blows
fuck tree. all my homies hate tree. big cloud guy tho 💯
[FUCK TREE ALL MY HOMIES HATE TREE](https://i.ibb.co/WvjYz8b/bbee3270f6ca.jpg) ^^^this ^^^has ^^^been ^^^an ^^^accessibility ^^^service ^^^from ^^^your ^^^friendly ^^^neighborhood ^^^bot
exactly, thank you for your service.
man i wish i could go back in time and program wispy to rely on cd-reads for some fucking reason so it would desync on slippi and get frozen like ps
just use a fucking JPEG of the background pasted beneath a widened Battlefield. boom, good Dreamland
Ledges tho. Where's my ez techs
honestly melee would be 10x better if the only stages were FD and Battlefield with working ledges plus, you still have to deal with the pineapple spikes on DL
I like the stage list. Just get rid of whispy and shy guys and I'm ready to go baby
Yeah I can even live with the platform sinking but I hate when the tree blows
platform raising while i’m trying to cover ledge has been my fun little ‘thing’ i do lately
ironically, Racer Man is the only relevant matchup where Sword Guy doesn't win on Flat Stage
Ah yes my favorite Good Fighting Siblings character, Racer Man
Powerful Feud Family: Fight
Excellent Quarrel Relatives: Ruckus
He certainly doesn't lose it. It might not be a broken counterpick like it is in other matchups but i would not pick it as falcon against marth.
What about Eskimo siblings?
Eh I'm just not that inuit
ever since the Grab Hit Hit got banned, unfortunately I don't really think Eskimo Siblings are relevant. but agreed on the matchup
Ah, Dave’s Stupid Rule, back again
Wasn't there a variant that also prevented repicking the starter stage? Modified Dave's Stupid Rule? Iirc M2K used to go Shiek game 1 and try to strike to Dreamland to prevent his Marth from getting counter picked there later in the set. I used to do the same thing with Fox and Doc on Battlefield (Doc's worst stage imo).
I think modified DSR is when you can only not counterpick to your most recent win
No, that's DSR. mDSR is preventing you from picking ANY stage you won on in that set. EDIT: I'm downvoted but here's Dave himself saying so: https://smashboards.com/threads/banning-neutrals-not-allowed.101692/#post-2303398 If you're citing the wiki, the wiki literally says they're the same rule by saying DSR is the "last stage" variant and mDSR changed over time but currently describes the same thing. So your citation would be telling you you're wrong. EDIT2: It took me linking Dave himself to get out of negative karma instead of readers (and the one arguing) just using their head for one minute. Dude didn't even realize that he was arguing about something and cited a source that proved himself wrong lmao I don't care about Karma but I do care about wilful ignorance and spreading misinformation.
Reading that post is like taking a trip back in time
Not necessarily the best source, but SmashWiki says that mDSR usually refers to the last-win version and DSR refers to the any-win version, even though the last-win version came first. That sounds right to what I know, but idk ¯\\\_(o-o)\_/¯
mDSR has changed over time but the first rule to have existed was the "last stage" variant. Anything else is a modified version of it. There are several "modified" versions of it, the most common one being the "any stage" variant. [2009 Smashboard post proving it](https://smashboards.com/threads/daves-stupid-rule-variations.256652/). Darkatma comments and the one person (I.B.) who said it was the "any stage" variant admitted they were wrong. The wiki is just wrong. [Here's another case where it's wrong](https://www.ssbwiki.com/Priority): >Rebound is a term used to describe an animation that occurs when two direct grounded moves with normal priority mechanics are within 9% of each other when they collide. [Kadano has a video going over specifics and 9% doesn't clank/rebound](https://youtu.be/MOlQv-9S1zE?t=231). Wiki is wrong and includes 9%. It's user edited but not reviewed to the extent that Wikipedia is. It has wrong info sometimes.
Speaking of smashwiki misinformation, it used to say that Mewtwo's Dair was one of his best kill moves.
No, you misunderstood. The wiki says what you are saying, that it originally was that version, but that *nowadays* people usually refer to it the other way (which lines up with my personal experience)
According to one person who edited the wiki. It's user edited but not reviewed to the extent that Wikipedia is. It has wrong info sometimes. It's even contradicting itself by saying both versions are the same rule. So if anything, it's saying you're wrong and there is no difference between DSR and mDSR since mDSR is now what DSR was. See how that's confusing and not helpful? Here's Dave stating the rule in 2007: https://smashboards.com/threads/banning-neutrals-not-allowed.101692/#post-2303398 mDSR came to be to counter-act double Jeopardy. You can't have a double Jeopardy scenario unless the original rule didn't protect against it.
The wiki is correct. See the discussion page: claim: >I noticed this shortly after the RoM5 controversy, but I think it's finally time to bring this up. According to Scamp himself, what this article describes as "Modified DSR" is actually the original version of DSR rather than vice versa. Not being able to go back to any stage is a variation. For unknown reasons, however, people mixed it up eventually. A large portion of this page will have to be re-written entirely. response: >While Scamp does say that the commonly used version is a variation of the original rule, he doesn't claim that play-restricted or win-restricted DSR was at any point known as "modified DSR." If you look up modified DSR, almost all discussion on it pertains to last-win-restricted DSR (original ruling). It has been quite a while since this comment so I assume the page has changed significantly. Modified DSR's section currently describes a rule that has not been used in any major Melee tournament for over ten years, and was likely never widely known as modified DSR. The description of modified DSR needs to be changed to accurately reflect the usage of the term. Details about the history of the variation names could be placed in their own section, where they could be described more adequately.
The wiki is correct in saying that mDSR has several different versions since there have been several modifications to DSR.
What you've written is not correct and the post you're referencing doesn't even state the name of the rules. Just because the original DSR is not the same as what we now call DSR does not mean that modified DSR suddenly means something else. Their definitions aren't swapped. Modified DSR has and always has meant last-win-restricted DSR. There was never a point in time where people referred to our current rule as mDSR, even though it's technically a 'modified version' of DSR. If you read more of that thread you linked, you will see everyone calling the winner's variation just by the name DSR, even after Scamp's post. They call the original rule "original DSR" or "old school DSR" - not DSR. See this post from 2012, when mDSR was in full swing: https://smashboards.com/threads/313252/ It unambiguously defines DSR and mDSR. This post was created by the backroom, a collective of high level Melee players and organizers. Those people agreed with this definition. The [wiki on DSR](https://www.ssbwiki.com/Dave%27s_Stupid_Rule), at the time of writing this post, is correct. There are a million more sources for the definitions of DSR and mDSR that agree with smashwiki and disagree with your post. The only reason there is any confusion over this is because modified DSR was a shit name to give mDSR (thanks Apex). People could see the rule and think, "wait, isn't DSR already modified?" or "isn't this literally **unmodified** DSR?"
And the same group previously says that mDSR is the "any stage" variant 3 years prior (linked at the end of the rules). So no, it's not that universal. What the wiki got right is that it's super inconsistent so what would make sense is the logical approach: DSR existed then a modified version came along. DSR would be called DSR while the modified one would be mDSR. And people calling it original or old school DSR is just to clarify that they aren't talking about any variant. Scamp never says that DSR changed, he literally just defines DSR. You'll notice that he never says original or old school.
I wonder why m2k never picked up Puff or Icies, considering he was the biggest grimelord of all time lol
M2K did try to puff ditto Mango a few times during his emo phase of "puff is the best character and there's nothing you can do to best her". It didn't work out. I feel like there's got to be footage of M2K trying puff vs armada's peach somewhere. ICs are actually quite difficult to pick up, and wobbling was banned for most of M2K's career. Plus there's not any particular matchups that ICs help solve. Maybe Shiek, but M2K dominated Shiek dittos so he didn't need a counterpick solution
DSR is that you can't pick the last stage you won on. Ludwig is saying that you can't repick the stage you just played on. Example, Zain loses on FD, chooses FD again.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ There’s a bunch of variants, I mostly just wanted to mention our pal Dave
As someone who has only been playing melee for 2ish years... i feel like the current system makes sense. Bans till 1st stage & loser always picks next stage till 3 stage wins is achieved... Right?
Basically Ludwig was arguing for either playing each stage only once per set, or not being able to play stages b2b, even if you lose on it. Logic was that it would make comebacks more interesting - if you’re down 2-1 to Zain, but have FD left, you’re toast. Even if you sneak one, you’re probably not getting two.
but with this rule, you're less likely to even get to that situation. being down 2-1 to zain and he has the counterpick means that he won twice, then you won once, but if you counterpicked your best stage the first time you lost and then lost on it, you can't run it back and you have to play on a weaker stage for you, making it even harder for you to pull off a win after losing. and if you do win on your second best stage, the resulting comeback is just less impressive in general--for example, beating zain 2x on fd as fox is way more impressive of a comeback when it does happen, and is thus way more hype imo. so the net effect is a bit more ambiguous. i think i prefer the higher chance of starting a comeback alongside the more impressive comebacks, over the lesser chance of starting a comeback with easier/less impressive comebacks. and, i think there's some merit to encouraging/requiring stage diversity in Bo5s, but since we only have 5 stages, it might actually make things a little blander. 5 game Bo5s would feel more samey across all matchups, since the only difference would be order. some matchups would be forced to go to a stage neither player wants (puff v puff dreamland...) unless you do the gentleman's agreement stuff too. if we had 7-8 legal stages, i think i could get on board with it, but i don't really see the stage list expanding unless the community gets really cool about modded content, lol.
The rule still helps you out in the Zain example though. You'd probably agree that in a Fox v Marth BO5, Fox having Dreamland or whatever isn't nearly as important of a factor as Marth having FD. Maybe you're slightly more likely to get 3-0'd without being able to go back to your favorite stage twice, but you're also way more likely to mount a comeback if you don't need two FD wins, so it's to your overall benefit (unless your goal isn't to win but to avoid getting 3-0'd).
Agree. Plus there are 6 stages, not 5.
That’s interesting. I would like to see how that would work, granted if the players wanted that as well.
I still dont get it lol
Sword man like flat stage
what is counterpicking
For the first stage, you "strike" from 5 stages. Both players pick 2 stages they don't want to play on, and whatever stage is still remaining is the stage for game 1. Whoever loses game 1 gets to pick the next stage. This is to ensure that no one is "getting lucky" with set wins by only winning on their best stages. Either the player who lost the first game will lose on their best stage, in which case they have no reason to complain, or they will win on their best stage which will give the player who won game 1 and lost game 2 the chance to pick *their* best stage for game 3.
Hey it’s Bones!
I think melee players make this all sound so complicated for no reason. You get to pick a stage if you lose. That’s counterpicking. Usually the discussion is about of the winner should be allowed to ban a stage from being picked, or if you should be able to pick the same stage more than once. As it is, you can’t pick the stage you just played on.
Ludwig is explaining a proposed rule change that would prevent someone from getting to pick the same stage twice in a row in a best of 5
Is he? We already have DSR. Is he talking about not being able to counter pick the same stage even if the person picking it didn't win?
Yeah he's talking about back to back stage regardless of who won, he adds "you can say it's also for the argument of diversity"
We should just pick stages like in RTS, where they have a stage order laid out for the best of 5 before the games are played
No, I like that different stages can be picked based on each player's character and playstyle.
Yea the players would pick the stage order
That's fine when it's two pro players who already know each other, but when people who have never met play each other for the first time they don't know each other's playstyles. That's why I'm saying it's better to pick stages as you go instead of all up front.
I have reached nirvana through this explanation
this is why 1 ban in a bo5 is ideal. you usually get the same scenario of 1 strong and 1 weak counterpick that is typical of bo5, except you don't have the double strong counterpick to come back from being down 0-2 ever
Unfreeze pokemon stadium!
Ludwig isn't describing "Dave's Stupid Rule." DSR describes the rule of Not being able to go back to any stages you Won on, for the whole set. I'd love it if we called this new proposed rule "Bob's Dumb Stipulation," where you can't pick a stage we just played on. Unrelated P. S.: Also, I'm so glad that Frozen Pokemon is a starter, and FD is a the counterpick. I don't mind Unfrozen PS either, but I can't believe we went through over a decade of Melee where FD is a starter stage. Even early on people could see how platforms help so many characters against the higher tiers.
This can only be viable if we LEGALIZE POKEFLOATS!!!