MKCentral Universal Ruleset Suggestion Thread

[SirBubbleChu]

Not sure if this is a rule or not but I couldn't find it. There should be a rule about watching their perspective/stream during a war. This can be used to say what items they have and can really benefit the team if they use it. Although it would be hard to detect if a team was doing this but I feel like it should not be allowed as it gives an unfair advantage. Idk though.

 

[MegaJkeezy]

Not sure if this is a rule or not but I couldn't find it. There should be a rule about watching their perspective/stream during a war. This can be used to say what items they have and can really benefit the team if they use it. Although it would be hard to detect if a team was doing this but I feel like it should not be allowed as it gives an unfair advantage. Idk though.

it's also why streamers put a delay on their streams to prevent a possible stream snipe. I make my streams for mku a 20 second delay

 

[Benjax]

This is something I thought about recently and I think it would be great if it was implemented. Don't you guys think it would be more comfortable for american teams (both NA and SA) if MKU matches were played at 20/21/22 EST when 1 or 2 matches is between 2 american teams?

Say, on a sunday, the schedule says an AME team plays an AME team and then an EUR team. In this case matches would be, respectively, at: 20 EST and 21 CET.
Say, on another sunday, the schedule says an AME team plays an EUR team and then an AME team. In this case matches would be, respectively, at: 20 CET and 21 EST
Say, on another sunday, the schedule says an AME team plays an AME team and then another AME team again. In this case matches would be both at 20 EST and 21 EST

This rule would not affect EUR teams, as they will always play at 20 CET and 21 CET no matter if they play 2 AME teams/1 AME team and 1 EUR team/2 EUR teams

I've heard many situations from AME teams that can't use their best LU because some of their best players have lunch, they aren't at home or they simply can't because other reasons. With this new schedule, american teams might be able to use their best LU on a much more comfortable time!

(I thought about this because I saw this rule on the CWL ruleset)

Spoiler: CWL Rule #3

Edit: This would only apply for teams that have a full AME roster or for teams whose best LU are made of americans only.

 

[David Jungo]

Hi, I have a suggestion to add for season 12 of the Mario Kart Universal.

As the relegation games have been removed from the 12 to 8 teams format. For the playoffs it would not be interesting to make a small final. Between the two losing semi-finals?

I propose this because I think it could be a good idea.

 

[Zorm]

tu proposes ça pcq t'as été éliminé en playoff

 

[David Jungo]

tu proposes ça pcq t'as été éliminé en playoff

non j’avais déjà l’idée durant la MKU j’ai attendu la fin avant de mettre.

 

[Athaway]

Hi, I have a suggestion to add for season 12 of the Mario Kart Universal.

As the relegation games have been removed from the 12 to 8 teams format. For the playoffs it would not be interesting to make a small final. Between the two losing semi-finals?

I propose this because I think it could be a good idea.

3rd place match never was made as an official thing (and was even removed from D1 this season), as most of the time at least 1 of the 2 teams wasn't really interested to play the said match. However if both teams are fine with playing a serie, nothing stops you from scheduling one at the same time as finals

 

[sinic]

I'm not sure if this was a suggestion already, but in my division there were problems with a disconnection rule. If I recall correctly, the specific rule is that for a race to not count, atleast 3 people and 1 from each team must have disconnected for the race to not be counted, and the latter part of the rule is my issue. A team losing 3 or more racers with the race counting is a problem and has occured this season (I believe it was Fenix and Noir). I understand that this can lead to staged disconnects, but at the same time a 6v1 or even 6v3 is detrimental to teams in an MKU war. Perhaps 3 people in total disconnect and there is proof for it, so the race isn't counted, but if there isn't proof then the race is counted anyways? Thanks guys, feedback would be great!

 

[Atlas64]

I'm not sure if this was a suggestion already, but in my division there were problems with a disconnection rule. If I recall correctly, the specific rule is that for a race to not count, atleast 3 people and 1 from each team must have disconnected for the race to not be counted, and the latter part of the rule is my issue. A team losing 3 or more racers with the race counting is a problem and has occured this season (I believe it was Fenix and Noir). I understand that this can lead to staged disconnects, but at the same time a 6v1 or even 6v3 is detrimental to teams in an MKU war. Perhaps 3 people in total disconnect and there is proof for it, so the race isn't counted, but if there isn't proof then the race is counted anyways? Thanks guys, feedback would be great!

I can confirm, that happened in the match between Fenix and Noir; 5 players of the latter team dcd before picking the track for race 10 (everybody had already selected a track, but the roulette hadn’t started yet) If you can prove somehow that a mass disconnection all inside one team wasn’t intentional, the result of that race shouldn’t count.

 

[Carty]

This is less so a rule and more so a general suggestion.

I have never liked this new format it feels too much like a tournament and less so a league which it should be. I have could never understand the decision to change from who ever gets most points wins - the core premise of a league system. Now you can win the league but not win the league because some team with less points managed to sneak there way into a playoff place. - Upsets can happen.

The fact MKU feels too much like a tournament makes other tournaments feel less important or less worthwhile -at least to me. If MKU was league type format, had more teams per division and one winner based on who can be first in the table after so many matches, I have a feeling that more people would want to play the other tournaments.

-
Divisions should have 10-20 teams per division and play 2 matches per week.

A 10 team division would last 10 weeks
A 20 team division would last 20 weeks .


- Also can casting of MKU include another alternative match or have another choice of language at the least.

 

[Javi01]

This is less so a rule and more so a general suggestion.

I have never liked this new format it feels too much like a tournament and less so a league which it should be. I have could never understand the decision to change from who ever gets most points wins - the core premise of a league system. Now you can win the league but not win the league because some team with less points managed to sneak there way into a playoff place. - Upsets can happen.

The fact MKU feels too much like a tournament makes other tournaments feel less important or less worthwhile -at least to me. If MKU was league type format, had more teams per division and one winner based on who can be first in the table after so many matches, I have a feeling that more people would want to play the other tournaments.

-
Divisions should have 10-20 teams per division and play 2 matches per week.

A 10 team division would last 10 weeks
A 20 team division would last 20 weeks .


- Also can casting of MKU include another alternative match or have another choice of language at the least.

I agree with you, the winner of the league must be the team who score more points I never liked conference format because they could win the league without winning the league.
10 teams per division is also my idea and I would eliminate conference format, the tournament would last 9 weeks and the winner is the team with more points. However, if this is league format there would be teams playing nothing so I would make the second leg different than the first leg to avoid that.
I have more ideas but I will post it apart.

 

[Aria_7]

This is probably not happening, but I know for a fact many people agree with me on this one, so I'll have a shot at it.
I'd like a rule added that bans Baby Park. Which would be enforced by handing out a score penalty if it does get picked by the random track selector. (repick-esque) There are pros and cons to banning it, and I'd like to go over some.

So why should we ban this track? First and foremost, A majority of the community straight up dislikes the track. There have been several threads on MKC that support this claim. Shiiguy's Rank your favourite tracks! puts Baby Park at 40th average with a sample size of 45. I made a frecuency distribution of all the results on his thread as of 19/03/2019. Nato's mk8 track tier list maker also show Baby Park towards the bottom on most posts. Many agree that the track is meant for a casual audience, and I'd say MKU in general just isn't meant to be casual. People picking Baby Park intent it as a troll pick 9/10 times, either because they're winning by a lot, losing by a lot, or just want to spite.

Secondly, I'd like to address the fact that the track is uncompetitive. Teamplay becomes a grey area, because it is hard to communicate and observe everyone's current position on a track this size. There's a lack of team strategy, and most people go into the track with their own individual strategy, be it running or bagging, hoping for the best. The itemspam this track brings is fun for nobody, you can chain 4 itemboxes per lap, and on a track this small, it's gonna be a big mess. Bombs, Triple Items, Super Horns, Fire Flower are all items that you want to get rid of asap, but in doing so you're actually bound to hit someone, be it your teammates or enemies. This is something that I think goes against the element of being a team, especially in MKU, where you want to compete and win as a team.

Something a ban would hurt is the freedom in trackpicks. There has never been a track ban in any vanilla Mario Kart game across the series in competitive play. However, I don't think that should completely wipe out the idea of a ban. In MKW and MK7, Glitch variants of certain tracks were banned because of their uncompetitive nature. This is the closest we ever got to a track ban, and even though it isn't a full track ban, it is at least something. One thing I'd like to bring up is that in other games' their competitive scene, single bans on certain elements happen. For example, in Pokemon's Uber Tier, Mega Rayquaza is the first and only banned Pokemon, starting in generation 6, after allowing every Pokemon to compete for 5 and a half generations. Furthermore, Akuma has been the only banned character in Super Street Fighter II Turbo in North American tournaments, with a soft-ban in Japanese ones. This alone shows that some communities favor a ban over full inclusiveness.

I hope the staff will actually consider this topic. Maybe put a poll out there for the whole community through either posting it in the MKC or the MKU discord channel. The voice of the community counts and I'd say a 60% supermajority in favor of ban would hopefully be enough to convince you all to at least try it in the next MKU season, which is already going to experiment with a newer format.

Thanks for taking your time to read this.

The reason i disagree with this is because if you are in the situation where all the enemy needs to do is **not** top 4(or 5 or 6) then this track is a good pick because of the chaos of the track it is very anti top 4 meaning its more likely that one of your players will break their potential top spots.

 

[Teeples]

This is less so a rule and more so a general suggestion.

I have never liked this new format it feels too much like a tournament and less so a league which it should be. I have could never understand the decision to change from who ever gets most points wins - the core premise of a league system. Now you can win the league but not win the league because some team with less points managed to sneak there way into a playoff place. - Upsets can happen.

The fact MKU feels too much like a tournament makes other tournaments feel less important or less worthwhile -at least to me. If MKU was league type format, had more teams per division and one winner based on who can be first in the table after so many matches, I have a feeling that more people would want to play the other tournaments.

-
Divisions should have 10-20 teams per division and play 2 matches per week.

A 10 team division would last 10 weeks
A 20 team division would last 20 weeks .


- Also can casting of MKU include another alternative match or have another choice of language at the least.

Longer seasons is something that is out of our control sadly. We are given timeslots we can run seasons and we don't have time to run anything longer than the length of what is happening at the moment. 20 weeks would be way too long though imo way too many teams would die. I don't think more than two matches per week would make many people happy either as well. The largest option would be 15 team divisions single rooms robin twice a week, well 14 since odd numbers are terrible with only one Match last week. More teams per divisions would be nice be something like that would be extremely boring imo and teams would be out from being able to win after week 1. Too many matches would mean nothing and motivation would be lower. Way more memorable matches and community moments have come during the last few seasons. I can't even think if a single crazy match during WCL type formats because nothing rarely matters going into the last week.

 

[Teeples]

I agree with you, the winner of the league must be the team who score more points I never liked conference format because they could win the league without winning the league.
10 teams per division is also my idea and I would eliminate conference format, the tournament would last 9 weeks and the winner is the team with more points. However, if this is league format there would be teams playing nothing so I would make the second leg different than the first leg to avoid that.
I have more ideas but I will post it apart.

Playoffs are part of the league the winner of then wins the league. I'm interested in what your proposal is at the end because the old WCL is objective the most stale and dry format and was ran for over a decade straight. Barely any matches matter and teams are out after week 1/2 and there's rarely "title matches" in the ending games.

We are in a state of the community where teams can't even get motivation to scrim teams two divisions higher than them once so bigger divisions with losing twice means auto out and playing teams a lot better doesn't sound to appealing given this. (Although I like the idea of larger divisions personally)

 

[Teeples]

I'm not sure if this was a suggestion already, but in my division there were problems with a disconnection rule. If I recall correctly, the specific rule is that for a race to not count, atleast 3 people and 1 from each team must have disconnected for the race to not be counted, and the latter part of the rule is my issue. A team losing 3 or more racers with the race counting is a problem and has occured this season (I believe it was Fenix and Noir). I understand that this can lead to staged disconnects, but at the same time a 6v1 or even 6v3 is detrimental to teams in an MKU war. Perhaps 3 people in total disconnect and there is proof for it, so the race isn't counted, but if there isn't proof then the race is counted anyways? Thanks guys, feedback would be great!

Sorry for triple posting don't know how to multiquote ln phone.

We will look into this to prevent cases like reddos post. I don't think we can make it if three plus DC in any situation the race won't count as that will be abused. But there should be situations where it's obvious that there was zero chance it was intentional so we will try and edit these to include situations like that.

 

[Jazzy]

I have never liked this new format it feels too much like a tournament and less so a league which it should be. I have could never understand the decision to change from who ever gets most points wins - the core premise of a league system. Now you can win the league but not win the league because some team with less points managed to sneak there way into a playoff place. - Upsets can happen.

I'm not sure how it is in the rest of the world but in America/Canada virtually ALL professional team sports follow a playoff format. Your team plays for points throughout a season and tries to qualify for a playoff bracket. This is the case in NHL, NBA, MLB, NFL, etc. The dividing line between a tournament and a league is length. In MKU teams at least play some other teams twice before heading to playoffs. In a tournament like Amplify you'd only face each opponent once in the pre-bracket phase.

One could argue that MKU is quite short. At 10 matches per season, that may be the case, but I believe that it creates the most stable league with teams not dropping halfway. MKU used to have a lot of drops mid season but we see that less now. Big reason is 5 weeks is little time for a team to die off vs 10 weeks in WCL format. Which brings me to my next point, there are still 10 matches pre-playoffs in both the current MKU format and classic WCL format. The difference is solely schedule wise (1 match a week vs 2). And as I just explained, the current system is working out better for us. Plus, we get the excitement of playoffs: upsets may happen, but at least the best of 3 format means a team has to win 4 matches in playoffs and lose no more than 1 or 2 vs the other top teams, so it is more favorable to the stronger teams than a classic tournament where rounds are single wars and not best of 3.

 

[TSM8]

Time for a controversial suggestions for Season 7 that can make Mario Kart Universal even better.

As rule 3.5, d
d. Players must use a Mii name which makes them easily recognizable as their alias on the MKCentral registry. Failure to do so will result in a -10 (-7 in a 5v5) points penalty for the match.

What I think this should be changed to, is
d. Players must use a Mii name that makes them easily recognizable as their alias in the community. For example, Z Daxx is Z Dxx (Not saying that would happen but just an example). Failure to do so will result in a -10 penalty (-7 in 5v5) in the match.

I think this change is needed because name changes can easily by MKU Staff, can be biased saying that name wasn't good enough. Having this would allow the other team to know what player it is, but not to the point where it's like you have no idea who it is. The current role I think can be abused by MKU Staff, you can call one person out on it and the other would get a slip bye.

Another example is, DY Togepi, the full name cannot be fit, and that doesn't get a penalty? That's just an example of how staff can be biased when it comes to making penalties.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Instances of lag will be evaluated and considered either Major or Minor offense by MKU staff. Major offenses will give 2 warning points and minor offenses will give 1 warning point. Accumulating warning points will have the following consequences:

- 1 warning point: player put on a private watchlist
- 2 warning points: player officially flagged and put on the public list of flagged players
- 4 warning points with at least one major offense: player banned from MKU

What I think this should be changed to, is
c. Instances of lag will be evaluated and considered either Major or Minor offence by MKU staff. Major offences will give 2 warning points and minor offences will give 1 warning point. Accumulating warning points will have the following consequences:

- 1 Warning Point: Player asked to sit out next MKU match for their respective team.
- 2 Warning Points: Player asked to sit out 5 matches and put on a private watch list.
- 4 Warning Points: Player must sit out the remainder of the season and put on a public watch list.
- 6 Warning Points: Player will be banned from playing in Mario Kart Universal.

The change is needed in my opinion, how is the player supposed to know when his internet is starting to lag. This new system with the sit outs and an extra fail safe with the 6 Warning Points allows the player a little more time to fix the lag and can still play in MKU.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


ii. Banned players may only appeal once. If an appeal is rejected, the respective player will remain banned permanently. If an appeal is accepted and a player is unbanned, they regain the right to appeal once again in case of a future ban from MKU.

What I think this should be changed to, is
ii. Banned players may only appeal once, if the appeal is rejected they must wait 2 seasons of MKU to appeal again, if they get banned again if their appeal is accepted after the long wait. They will be banned perm.

This give players a chance to realize what they did wrong, such as custom music unaware of how it affects gameplay, or not being able to fix lag and thinking it was fixed so they played a match and got banned. This one is the most controversial but, I think it may be needed.

In a thread where people deadass argued about a tracks legality how is this the worst take.
The only name you could even get close to arguing is Stevens but even then if you can’t recognize ARC J Stev then idk what to tell you
Also on the point of Alfie what else do you want him to do? It’s either DY Togepi, directly taking from his registry name Togepilovesnug or some shit like DY Tgplvsn, pick your poison, mans name doesn’t fit not his fault, as long as the name is recognizable it should be absolutely fine since who else in DY let alone the entire comm could be taken as DY Togepi.
A lot of lag for some people is either on and off or full on, and most people with full on lag will try to sit out of mku to be respectful. Nobody can do anything about peoples lag that depends on luck and penalizing them hard for that is just unfair, I think a better point to raise is that if someone’s net is being bad the person should be responsible enough to sub themselves out, but at the same time most people that have net issues do this already.
MKC have said themselves they are trying to be more respectful of bans and be more open with those that are banned so why would they drill in more stuff that can only be described as pointless dwaddle so when someone asks about their ban they get blocked out for 2 seasons which is 6 months, 6 MONTHS. That’s longer than most bans. Now obviously I could be bias as I was banned before but a large portion of the bans are just single time things at this point in time. And if someone truly doesn’t believe they should be banned then they’re at least showing consideration and likely won’t offend again.

Tl:dr
Name thing is dumb
Lag thing is dumb
Ban thing is funny
Of every rule on the site that could be changed these are honestly 3 of the most strong and uncontested of them all. Pointless to change any.

 

[Jack]

In a thread where people deadass argued about a tracks legality how is this the worst take.
The only name you could even get close to arguing is Stevens but even then if you can’t recognize ARC J Stev then idk what to tell you
Also on the point of Alfie what else do you want him to do? It’s either DY Togepi, directly taking from his registry name Togepilovesnug or some shit like DY Tgplvsn, pick your poison, mans name doesn’t fit not his fault, as long as the name is recognizable it should be absolutely fine since who else in DY let alone the entire comm could be taken as DY Togepi.
A lot of lag for some people is either on and off or full on, and most people with full on lag will try to sit out of mku to be respectful. Nobody can do anything about peoples lag that depends on luck and penalizing them hard for that is just unfair, I think a better point to raise is that if someone’s net is being bad the person should be responsible enough to sub themselves out, but at the same time most people that have net issues do this already.
MKC have said themselves they are trying to be more respectful of bans and be more open with those that are banned so why would they drill in more stuff that can only be described as pointless dwaddle so when someone asks about their ban they get blocked out for 2 seasons which is 6 months, 6 MONTHS. That’s longer than most bans. Now obviously I could be bias as I was banned before but a large portion of the bans are just single time things at this point in time. And if someone truly doesn’t believe they should be banned then they’re at least showing consideration and likely won’t offend again.

Tl:dr
Name thing is dumb
Lag thing is dumb
Ban thing is funny
Of every rule on the site that could be changed these are honestly 3 of the most strong and uncontested of them all. Pointless to change any.

you're bored

 

[Arti]

Hey, this post is going to be longer than I expected when I started to write this so I'll put each of the things I wanted to mention in a spoiler.

Suggested Rule Updates / Additions

Spoiler: Rule 1.2. Player Registration

Part d. | Add: If a player can prove that they are playing on a separate Switch FC on the same console, they will receive a warning that lasts indefinitely. The second time or more that it happens, the player will receive the desired punishment from staff.

Explanation:
I understand that it is the responsibility of the player themself to be playing on a registered friend code; however, I think it is reasonable to be a little more lenient with the players, especially newer players, since they can simply forget that they are playing on a different account on the same switch and accidentally use it in the match instead of switching to their registered friend code account.

In a competition, I would rather not force such a drastic penalty on another team, especially if it’s something like this which can influence a match in a way that is essentially redundant since it is the player’s account.

How could a player prove that it was them? Simply just going to their main FC account, showing the FC on their Switch and then going onto the account they accidentally played on.

Spoiler: Rule 1.2 Player Registration

Part d. | Edit iii.

From​

Switch FC changing or update requests made after 11:59 pm EST on Fridays will not be considered valid for the current weekend’s MKU matches.

To​

Switch FC changing or update requests made after 11:59 pm EST on Saturday will not be considered valid for the current weekend’s MKU matches.
Explanation:
Gives players more room to use a different FC if needed and not get screwed over if they absolutely need to update their fc.

Spoiler: Rule 1.5. Mixed Teams

Add:

A player from the secondary Team may play for the primary Team during an MKU match. If this results, the player on the secondary Team may not play for the secondary Team for the remainder of the season and is considered registered for the main Team (even if it’s not on the registry). The Division Admin of the primary team must be notified 5 minutes prior to the match time in order for the player to be eligible to play.
If the player plays for the secondary Team afterwards, they will be considered an unregistered player.
A Primary Team may only use 1 player from the Secondary Team for the entirety of the Season (including playoffs). The Secondary Team player will be considered on the Secondary Team for future seasons unless a transfer has been made during the transfer period.

Explanation:
Currently, having a Secondary Team is redundant (they may as well have whatever name they want) apart from allowing more players to play during the season. It’s pretty much having 2 separate teams but they’re labelled as part of the same “organization” (for lack of better word).

I’m sorry if something like this is already in the ruleset. I know that it’s been there before, but I couldn’t find it anywhere.

Spoiler: Rule 2.4.1. MKU Conferences - General

Part d. | Edit

d. In the case of a tie between two or more teams within a conference, there will be a set of checks to determine the higher placing team (Tiebreakers):
1. W-D-L Record
2. Most amount of wins vs tied opponents
3. Conference Record
4. +/- between tied opponents
5. Overall +/-

Change To

d. In the case of a tie between two or more teams within a conference for the first position, there will be a set of checks to determine the higher placing team (Tiebreakers):
1. W-D-L Record
2. Most amount of wins vs tied opponents
3. +/- between tied opponents
4. Conference Record
5. Overall +/-

Explanation:

First off, any position within a conference is redundant since the only position that matters is the first place position since the rest of the teams will be fighting within the Wild Card standings.

If you have any questions, let me know either here or on discord Arti#0071.
Cheers.
Secondly, the reasoning behind +/- against tied opponents should be higher than conference wins is due to teams not always bringing out their strongest LU against every team in the conference. Teams are seeded in conferences based on rankings from staff of the team’s best LU / previous season results; however, with the Conference Record being above the ± between tied opponents, it leads tiebreakers in the fate of the other teams within the conference. Team A can bring out their best LU against Team B and C; however, they use a weaker LU vs Team D which allows Team D to have better odds at winning the tiebreakers between teams. The current tiebreaker system makes it fall into the other team’s hands within the conference rather than your own team’s hand. With the suggested system, it makes everything rely on your own team to do well in all of their matches and puts it on your team rather than having it based on the other teams choices.

In an ideal case where every match has every team using their best LU, the conference record is a good way to deal with tiebreakers since the stronger you are in your conference, the better the chance at your team winning the tiebreakers, but if that’s the case, then you should be winning each of your matches regardless. This just makes it less RNG on whether the other teams will use their best LU against the other teams after using it against your team.

Spoiler: Rule 3.4. Match Results

Part b. | If matches remain incomplete due to a team, not having enough players left to finish, that team will forfeit the match by default.
i. Should both teams be unable to finish, the war may be scored as a 0-0 tie.

Edit it to
i. Should both teams be unable to finish, the war may be scored as a 0-0 tie and both teams will not receive any points towards the “games back” column in the standings.

Explanation:
If a team cannot start or finish a war, they should not be any points whatsoever. Regardless if it is counted as a tie, they should receive 0 points instead of 0.5 points (or games back).
It is currently a rule for double forfeits from each team; however, if it midway through the match and both teams cannot finish then both teams should not be awarded anything in the end.

Spoiler: Rule 3.5. Mii Names

Add: If a team’s registered tag contains a symbol as their last character in their tag, they are permitted to not have a symbol (or space) as the next character in their mii name.

EX. Team Tag: JX° ; Players may use JX°Hikaru instead of needing JX°★Hikaru or
Team Tag: Ho; ; Players may use Ho;Hikaru instead of Ho; Hikaru.

Spoiler: Rule 4.1 Intentional Cheating

b. If a team member is found to be spectating the room to obtain an advantage, the offending team will receive an automatic loss.
i. Substantial and foolproof evidence must be needed for a case to be considered.
ii. Examples of "Substantial and foolproof evidence" include but are not limited to: Multiple instances of the track roulette countdown starting much quicker than usual, more than 6 (or +1 of the number of subs used by a team in a match) players from the same team on the Users You've Played With screen.

Change the penalty from an automatic loss to either of the following:

1. an automatic disqualification for the player from the rest of the season and an automatic loss, or
2. an automatic disqualification for the team for the season.

As well, if a player who is not registered for their team but is registered for another team is the player who is spectating and gaining the advantage, that player will be banned from MKU for the remainder of the season.
If the match is held on Week 5 and the team will not make playoffs, then the player will be banned for the following season.

Explanation:
Any malicious intent of cheating should be punished severely. With the current punishment, if you are up against a team that is stronger than your team and you know you need to win the match, the current punishment does not really punish the offending team since they are going into the match at a disadvantage and have nothing to risk by maliciously cheating.

Some new rules / formats that I think should be considered

Spoiler: Neutral Starting Tracks

I believe that this is a must have. Tracks at the start of the match are not really fair considering there isn’t really a fair way of joining a room / having “fair” starting spots since players that are closer in distance to the host will have a higher chance at joining the room quicker than players who live farther away. This results in teams who all live close to each other to have an advantage when their team is hosting since they can easily get top spots in the room and pretty much have a strong race 1 without any competition (Team starts in Top 4 and gets rWS, pretty much get a guaranteed Top 3 which can easily shift the match into their hands by gaining momentum off of race 1).

The following tracks imo are considered to be Neutral for starting spots and won’t fluctuate the entire match for race 1:

• Mario Kart Stadium
• Twisted Mansion
• Dolphin Shoals
• SNES Donut Plains 3
• N64 Royal Raceway
• N64 Yoshi Valley
• DLC Exitebike Arena
• DLC Animal Crossing
• DLC Ribbon Road

This list has 9 tracks so you can remove 1 if you want (or entirely change the list). These are just suggestions.

These tracks are not tracks that are used when teams get into the room with Top 4 and can instantly get a good race 1, as well as tracks that are not used to completely reset the spots (teams won’t be denied the chance to use a reset track during the match). These tracks remove the chance of a team cheesing an instant top 4 just by getting their track pick at the start of the match.

An alternative that I think can fit is having the first race be Random Only, but that adds the random factor into matches for race 1 which can really fluctuate the match but the odds of broken running tracks being chosen is less than the odds of a team actually picking it.

Spoiler: Allowing repicks of tracks that your team has not chosen yet

Pretty much, if Team A picks rWS, Team B is allowed to pick rWS in a later race. The reasoning behind this is that there are some pretty broken tracks in the game depending on the spots your team is in, and some of the wars are ultimately decided on which team gets which of the broken tracks when they are in the spots they need it for. This is mainly an issue for the running tracks, and allowing both the teams the opportunity to pick it for themselves makes it a more balanced match.

Alternative to this: Allowing each team to ban 2(?) tracks per match, maybe 3.

Spoiler: Ban Lap Trolling

I was surprised when I didn’t see this in the ruleset already. Essentially this just hurts the competition. Trolling is unhealthy for matches. It allows players who aren’t able to play at the level of the division to stay behind and intentionally hit the other team’s top spots out without actually being in the front.

This entails being ¾ or more of a lap behind the first place person and intentionally hitting the players in the front with items. This does not include players using blue shells, bloopers, coins or shocks.

 

[Athaway]

Hey, this post is going to be longer than I expected when I started to write this so I'll put each of the things I wanted to mention in a spoiler.

Suggested Rule Updates / Additions

Spoiler: Rule 1.2. Player Registration

Part d. | Add: If a player can prove that they are playing on a separate Switch FC on the same console, they will receive a warning that lasts indefinitely. The second time or more that it happens, the player will receive the desired punishment from staff.

Explanation:
I understand that it is the responsibility of the player themself to be playing on a registered friend code; however, I think it is reasonable to be a little more lenient with the players, especially newer players, since they can simply forget that they are playing on a different account on the same switch and accidentally use it in the match instead of switching to their registered friend code account.

In a competition, I would rather not force such a drastic penalty on another team, especially if it’s something like this which can influence a match in a way that is essentially redundant since it is the player’s account.

How could a player prove that it was them? Simply just going to their main FC account, showing the FC on their Switch and then going onto the account they accidentally played on.

Spoiler: Rule 1.2 Player Registration

Part d. | Edit iii.

From​

Switch FC changing or update requests made after 11:59 pm EST on Fridays will not be considered valid for the current weekend’s MKU matches.

To​

Switch FC changing or update requests made after 11:59 pm EST on Saturday will not be considered valid for the current weekend’s MKU matches.
Explanation:
Gives players more room to use a different FC if needed and not get screwed over if they absolutely need to update their fc.

Spoiler: Rule 1.5. Mixed Teams

Add:

A player from the secondary Team may play for the primary Team during an MKU match. If this results, the player on the secondary Team may not play for the secondary Team for the remainder of the season and is considered registered for the main Team (even if it’s not on the registry). The Division Admin of the primary team must be notified 5 minutes prior to the match time in order for the player to be eligible to play.
If the player plays for the secondary Team afterwards, they will be considered an unregistered player.
A Primary Team may only use 1 player from the Secondary Team for the entirety of the Season (including playoffs). The Secondary Team player will be considered on the Secondary Team for future seasons unless a transfer has been made during the transfer period.

Explanation:
Currently, having a Secondary Team is redundant (they may as well have whatever name they want) apart from allowing more players to play during the season. It’s pretty much having 2 separate teams but they’re labelled as part of the same “organization” (for lack of better word).

I’m sorry if something like this is already in the ruleset. I know that it’s been there before, but I couldn’t find it anywhere.

Spoiler: Rule 2.4.1. MKU Conferences - General

Part d. | Edit

d. In the case of a tie between two or more teams within a conference, there will be a set of checks to determine the higher placing team (Tiebreakers):
1. W-D-L Record
2. Most amount of wins vs tied opponents
3. Conference Record
4. +/- between tied opponents
5. Overall +/-

Change To

d. In the case of a tie between two or more teams within a conference for the first position, there will be a set of checks to determine the higher placing team (Tiebreakers):
1. W-D-L Record
2. Most amount of wins vs tied opponents
3. +/- between tied opponents
4. Conference Record
5. Overall +/-

Explanation:

First off, any position within a conference is redundant since the only position that matters is the first place position since the rest of the teams will be fighting within the Wild Card standings.

If you have any questions, let me know either here or on discord Arti#0071.
Cheers.
Secondly, the reasoning behind +/- against tied opponents should be higher than conference wins is due to teams not always bringing out their strongest LU against every team in the conference. Teams are seeded in conferences based on rankings from staff of the team’s best LU / previous season results; however, with the Conference Record being above the ± between tied opponents, it leads tiebreakers in the fate of the other teams within the conference. Team A can bring out their best LU against Team B and C; however, they use a weaker LU vs Team D which allows Team D to have better odds at winning the tiebreakers between teams. The current tiebreaker system makes it fall into the other team’s hands within the conference rather than your own team’s hand. With the suggested system, it makes everything rely on your own team to do well in all of their matches and puts it on your team rather than having it based on the other teams choices.

In an ideal case where every match has every team using their best LU, the conference record is a good way to deal with tiebreakers since the stronger you are in your conference, the better the chance at your team winning the tiebreakers, but if that’s the case, then you should be winning each of your matches regardless. This just makes it less RNG on whether the other teams will use their best LU against the other teams after using it against your team.

Spoiler: Rule 3.4. Match Results

Part b. | If matches remain incomplete due to a team, not having enough players left to finish, that team will forfeit the match by default.
i. Should both teams be unable to finish, the war may be scored as a 0-0 tie.

Edit it to
i. Should both teams be unable to finish, the war may be scored as a 0-0 tie and both teams will not receive any points towards the “games back” column in the standings.

Explanation:
If a team cannot start or finish a war, they should not be any points whatsoever. Regardless if it is counted as a tie, they should receive 0 points instead of 0.5 points (or games back).
It is currently a rule for double forfeits from each team; however, if it midway through the match and both teams cannot finish then both teams should not be awarded anything in the end.

Spoiler: Rule 3.5. Mii Names

Add: If a team’s registered tag contains a symbol as their last character in their tag, they are permitted to not have a symbol (or space) as the next character in their mii name.

EX. Team Tag: JX° ; Players may use JX°Hikaru instead of needing JX°★Hikaru or
Team Tag: Ho; ; Players may use Ho;Hikaru instead of Ho; Hikaru.

Spoiler: Rule 4.1 Intentional Cheating

b. If a team member is found to be spectating the room to obtain an advantage, the offending team will receive an automatic loss.
i. Substantial and foolproof evidence must be needed for a case to be considered.
ii. Examples of "Substantial and foolproof evidence" include but are not limited to: Multiple instances of the track roulette countdown starting much quicker than usual, more than 6 (or +1 of the number of subs used by a team in a match) players from the same team on the Users You've Played With screen.

Change the penalty from an automatic loss to either of the following:

1. an automatic disqualification for the player from the rest of the season and an automatic loss, or
2. an automatic disqualification for the team for the season.

As well, if a player who is not registered for their team but is registered for another team is the player who is spectating and gaining the advantage, that player will be banned from MKU for the remainder of the season.
If the match is held on Week 5 and the team will not make playoffs, then the player will be banned for the following season.

Explanation:
Any malicious intent of cheating should be punished severely. With the current punishment, if you are up against a team that is stronger than your team and you know you need to win the match, the current punishment does not really punish the offending team since they are going into the match at a disadvantage and have nothing to risk by maliciously cheating.

Some new rules / formats that I think should be considered

Spoiler: Neutral Starting Tracks

I believe that this is a must have. Tracks at the start of the match are not really fair considering there isn’t really a fair way of joining a room / having “fair” starting spots since players that are closer in distance to the host will have a higher chance at joining the room quicker than players who live farther away. This results in teams who all live close to each other to have an advantage when their team is hosting since they can easily get top spots in the room and pretty much have a strong race 1 without any competition (Team starts in Top 4 and gets rWS, pretty much get a guaranteed Top 3 which can easily shift the match into their hands by gaining momentum off of race 1).

The following tracks imo are considered to be Neutral for starting spots and won’t fluctuate the entire match for race 1:

• Mario Kart Stadium
• Twisted Mansion
• Dolphin Shoals
• SNES Donut Plains 3
• N64 Royal Raceway
• N64 Yoshi Valley
• DLC Exitebike Arena
• DLC Animal Crossing
• DLC Ribbon Road

This list has 9 tracks so you can remove 1 if you want (or entirely change the list). These are just suggestions.

These tracks are not tracks that are used when teams get into the room with Top 4 and can instantly get a good race 1, as well as tracks that are not used to completely reset the spots (teams won’t be denied the chance to use a reset track during the match). These tracks remove the chance of a team cheesing an instant top 4 just by getting their track pick at the start of the match.

An alternative that I think can fit is having the first race be Random Only, but that adds the random factor into matches for race 1 which can really fluctuate the match but the odds of broken running tracks being chosen is less than the odds of a team actually picking it.

Spoiler: Allowing repicks of tracks that your team has not chosen yet

Pretty much, if Team A picks rWS, Team B is allowed to pick rWS in a later race. The reasoning behind this is that there are some pretty broken tracks in the game depending on the spots your team is in, and some of the wars are ultimately decided on which team gets which of the broken tracks when they are in the spots they need it for. This is mainly an issue for the running tracks, and allowing both the teams the opportunity to pick it for themselves makes it a more balanced match.

Alternative to this: Allowing each team to ban 2(?) tracks per match, maybe 3.

Spoiler: Ban Lap Trolling

I was surprised when I didn’t see this in the ruleset already. Essentially this just hurts the competition. Trolling is unhealthy for matches. It allows players who aren’t able to play at the level of the division to stay behind and intentionally hit the other team’s top spots out without actually being in the front.

This entails being ¾ or more of a lap behind the first place person and intentionally hitting the players in the front with items. This does not include players using blue shells, bloopers, coins or shocks.

We removed your 1.5 suggestion last season, as it basically allowed mixed teams to have an advantage no other teams could, as in transferring new players.

Your opinion on the tiebreaker system is instresting, I'm sure we'll talk about it, but I personnally believe basing a tiebreaker on 6 matches with 2 (3) possible outcomes (Win / Loss / (Tie) ) than on 2 matches with hundreds of possible outcomes (+2/-2 / +4/-4 etc...) is less RNG, but I get your point.

Your 3.4 suggestion is indeed somewhat of a loophole, we'll also probably discuss about it, but I can't really think of a realistic scenario where both teams suddenly at the same time don't have enough players to finish the match.

I might be wrong, but I think we're already dealing with clan tags that have a separator as their last character already like you mentionned. The mii names eligibility decisions are usually on the DA's discretion though, so I can't 100% confirm everyone's dealing with this that way, but at least I do.

4.1 is already technically dealt with like your first proposition, as anyone using hacks in MKU is banned from mkc. Because it is a mkc decision and not a MKU one, it's not in the ruleset.


We already tested neutral starts in one of mkc Agility tournaments (I believe it was the 4th?). Overall feedback is that it didn't make that great of a difference, as with the 8 tracks pool, variety was enough for teams to find the "track pick advantage" by just getting a track they practiced more. We also tested the track ban system in Agility 3, and once again, most people (to my knowledge) thought it was a fun gimmick but it shouldn't become a stable of the competition.

Lastly, as MK8d laptrolling is way less punishing for runners, and the teams that gave it a try didn't really meet that big of a success, we don't really think laptrolling is (on the current way of playing the game) breaking competition as a whole, and therefore should be banned