Arguing against subjectivity: let's talk about planking

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Typically, whenever a ruleset argument gets started, the most common thing that happens is that the people in favor of any sort of ban which is a subjective addition claim, "All ban criteria is subjective" and use that to stymie any and all arguments against them.

Now, of course I realize that the criteria to ban almost anything is arbitrary. After all, it's not like Sirlin's principles for competitive gameplay apply to a party game that we decided to make competitive... Does this mean we could just ban whatever the hell we want? Essentially, yes.

Wait, what?

We could, essentially, ban every stage except FD. We could ban every character except ganondorf, or ban every character except Metaknight. We could (and do) remove items comepletely. HOWEVER, as the competitive community, should we do this? No. And there's a very simple reason for this. We, as the competitive community, are obligated to make the game competitive. And one of the key elements of competitivity is the skill requirement of the game. It is THE determining factor that ensures that Chess is a very competitive game, while solitaire and tic tac toe aren't. It is the difference between a game where the first player to press A wins and a game like Brawl. We should therefore aim for the highest possible competitive skill requirement possible in the game. I think just about everyone will agree on this-a higher skill level in-game leads to a higher competitive bar; it forces you to be a better player in order to compete at the highest level.

Now how does this tie in with what I said above? Well, let's see here... What requires more skill-ganondorf dittos on FD, or a version of brawl containing every possible character matchup with a massive selection of different stages?
This logic is the very best argument against banning a character who isn't shown to be absolutely pants-on-head ******** broken. A little excursion: by banning Metaknight, do we raise the overall skill level required at the top level of brawl? No. We lower it because people don't need to know how to fight against Metaknight, and Metaknight is not good to the extent that beating an opponent who doesn't main Metaknight with Metaknight is a walk in the park when both players are at an equal level-we don't have 100% MK top-8s. So of course we don't ban MK. Same as if we would ban Snake, or DDD.
It's also a good explanation as to why we don't ban DDD's infinites. DK, as a character, requires miles less skill if he doesn't have to worry about DDD's infinites.
"But with the infinites legal, DK is useless!"
With Sheik legal, Ganon is useless. And DK is not useless, he's just horrid in that matchup. You can still run up against DKs in bracket. You also can still run up against DDD's infinites in bracket as DK, which, again, requires a massive amount of skill to deal with (or a secondary character, another skill-increasing element).

A few common counter-arguments:
"All right, then how about we let people counterpick you to Street Fighter 4 or Mario Kart Wii?"
I hope everyone, including the person who originally posted this, realizes how ridiculous this is. We are playing brawl. Not street fighter, not mario kart, but Brawl. Why? Because we want to and because it's the game we want to play. Going beyond brawl may require more skill, but we're trying to compete to see who is the best at THIS video game. Although a pentathlon-esque iron-man tournament with something like Brawl, TvC, and MKW (best of 3; round one is one of the three games at random, round two is the loser's choice of one of the remaining two games, and round 3, if present, is the last of the 3 not chosen...) sounds like a very, very interesting tournament, we don't go to brawl tournaments to prove our prowess in other games. One thing I have not directly looked into is Damage Ratio and Items, but due to the fact that we know so little about the former and the latter is fairly random (sorry Jack), I'm going to leave them aside.

"And what about skill in the areas of Subspace Emissary, Home Run Contest, Brutal Brawl, etc.?"
Now here's the big issue here. What exactly are we trying to demonstrate? How good a player is at the vs. mode in super smash bros brawl. Now... what relevance does that player's ability to deal with the HRC have to what we actually want to test? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

"We don't want to force our players to have skill in (insert stage-based element X here)"
Primary example being "We don't want to force our players to have skill in adapting to stages".
See, this is where we hit the competitive/casual divide. In a casual community, you're perfectly justified to take a skill the game requires of you and that does not cheapen competition (like the ability to adapt to having all items on does, due to the extreme randomness allowing this skill to be tested allows for) or remove other skills (like the ability to circle camp; testing that skill negates virtually all other skills from the game, an extremely negative aspect), and simply remove it. In the competitive community? No way in hell. It's an in-game skill that the game requires of you that does not remove competitive viability or mitigate any other skills. Saying "We don't want to force our players to adapt to stages" is akin to saying "We don't want to force our players to be able to space" or "We don't want to force our players to be good at brawl". There is no justification whatsoever for a competitive community to purposefully remove or mitigate a skill which is critical for being good at the game in almost every version.

"Your last two arguments contradict each other!"
No, they don't. The key here is that we're trying to test the players in their capabilities in the versus mode. This gives us fair reason to completely ignore the skills that have nothing to do with the versus mode. Why we can't apply this argument to various other parts of the game is their direct relevance to the versus mode. Being able to deal with stages is ALWAYS relevant to the versus mode of gameplay. Being able to deal with the stages involved in the versus mode is also directly relevant to a player's skill in vs. mode. In fact, I'd say it's fair to say that every stage in the game is directly relevant to a player's skill in vs. mode; just that certain ones such as Temple or Warioware are severely skill-mitigating, as stated before, to the extent that they cannot be legalized. I've covered this already, I believe.
Either way, the point is that there is no true contradiction. Disregarding skills that have absolutely nothing to do with what we want to check in a player has no relation to disregarding skills that have a DIRECT CONNECTION to what we want to check in players.

"Yes, now what requires more or less skill is subjective, good luck dealing with THAT."
Nope. Sorry. More or less skill is not subjective. It is difficult to quantify, but by far not impossible or even improbable. In fact, especially in certain areas, you can see very clearly that this is the case-the game objectively requires more skill when PS2 is legal than when PS2 is banned. The game OBJECTIVELY requires more skill when Ganondorf is legal than when he is banned. It's not hard to figure out in most cases. How?

Here's what you do:
Quite simply, if an element which is necessary to test a skill mitigates many other critical in-game skills, then it should be banned, and the skill that it tests is reasonably mitigatable. Primary example for this is Circle Camping, because while circle camping is a part of the game, checking "who is the best at circle camping" means not checking a player on a multitude of other in-game skills-in fact, almost every other in-game skill. Walkoff camping works in almost the same way. Fin camping? Same ****. IDC? ...I'm seeing a pattern...
Circle camping-Broken, degenerate tactic
Walkoff Camping-Broken, degenerate tactic
Fin camping-Broken, degenerate tactic
IDC-Broken, degenerate tacti-



....





It appears we have found Sirlin's reasoning, and it also appears that we have found an almost ideal competitive backing for it. In other words? Sirlin is right, and his logic DOES apply to brawl, including stage selection. There is no competitive reason to not include stages, chaingrabs, or any other gameplay element in this.

This has, inherently, next to nothing to do with stages. Just FYI.

 

[Ripple]

"We don't want to force our players to have skill in (insert stage-based element X here)"
Primary example being "We don't want to force our players to have skill in adapting to stages".
See, this is where we hit the competitive/casual divide. In a casual community, you're perfectly justified to take a skill the game requires of you and that does not cheapen competition (like the ability to adapt to having all items on does, due to the extreme randomness allowing this skill to be tested allows for) or remove other skills (like the ability to circle camp; testing that skill negates virtually all other skills from the game, an extremely negative aspect), and simply remove it. In the competitive community? No way in hell. It's an in-game skill that the game requires of you that does not remove competitive viability or mitigate any other skills. Saying "We don't want to force our players to adapt to stages" is akin to saying "We don't want to force our players to be able to space" or "We don't want to force our players to be good at brawl". There is no justification whatsoever for a competitive community to purposefully remove or mitigate a skill which is critical for being good at the game in almost every version.

and with this paragraph alone, pierce's arguments about his 5 stage only game being more competitive than any other is deemed casual

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

This looks familiar.

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=290839

and with this paragraph alone, pierce's arguments about his 5 stage only game being more competitive than any other is deemed casual

To him it is.

To you it isn't.

People make things competitive by playing it, if more people play on one thing over another, then it's more competitive. Competitive is a tricky word from what I've noticed around debates about it.

 

[Ripple]

This looks familiar.

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=290839

familiar, but too bad this has nothing to do with stages

 

[AgentJGV]

First off id like to say that this was a great read and commend you for writing so much for this community.

Now a couple things id like to say about this. Firstly, something I got out of your talk on banning characters and such. It kind of dawns on me that we as smashers should start playing the game rather than characters. If DK sucks against DDD then just dont play that match up OR use it to your advantage. It seems to me that most smashers now-a-days just want to stick with one main.

Secondly, I agree with what you say about banning certain things making the game require less skill. At the time though I like how you recognize that there ARE some things (IDC, ect) that need banning. MK not being one of them.

Lastly, about subjectivity. Brawl in its nature is a subjective game. Its a game based on fun. And how do you measure fun? Now yes i know that we are making it a competitive game and trying to objectify certain things to make it fair. And I also know that many people claim, "you shouldn't be playing to have fun. you should be playing to win." Well i had super fun playing to win in melee. why cant we have that in brawl? (Dont mean to make a melee comparison but it works.)

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

We're not out for fun. We're out for competition. That's the issue. Fun is subjective, "most competitive" is not. And seeing as we are aiming for exactly that, fun is of no object beyond "get people to play the game at all" (i.e. not really an issue).

EDIT: @RR: I dunno, I don't really see the comparison. That thread had so much to do with stages that it had to be moved. This has next to nothing to do with stages. Fun fact: the original version of this actually was far more relevant to most things and had a far more critical discussion topic in it, but it got moved to the stages forum for absolutely no reason. I asked about a week ago as to why, but nobody really answered...

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

familiar, but too bad this has nothing to do with stages

False, The moment he mentioned banning via being subjective, he is bringing in not only characters but stages, he could have avoid this by not talking about stages however,

He Even in his example he brought in Fin camping, walk offs, etc.

He talked about playing only on FD, stage skill, and other factors.

So, how does the OP have nothing to do with stages?

EDIT: @RR: I dunno, I don't really see the comparison. That thread had so much to do with stages that it had to be moved. This has next to nothing to do with stages. Fun fact: the original version of this actually was far more relevant to most things and had a far more critical discussion topic in it, but it got moved to the stages forum for absolutely no reason. I asked about a week ago as to why, but nobody really answered...

I don't see why you had to remake it, if you wanted to remake it so it has nothing to do with stages, then why did you talk about fin camping, walk off, circle camping, FD only, stage skill, etc. If you wanted to talk about banning CGs, game modes, etc instead of stages, then you could have reworded the OP so it only applied to those.

The OP is edited version of the previous one only to try and focus less on stages. If it were me I would have not even talked about stages at all and only about the rulesets, only talking about the other aspects.

Also did you ask in forum support why it was moved? I doubt they didn't answer if you did.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I asked about a week ago, and got no reply whatsoever.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I asked about a week ago, and got no reply whatsoever.

Your other OP while making other elements, seemed to focus a lot more on stages. I'm guessing this is why it was moved.

But I'll ask about this.

 

[SuSa]

Lastly, about subjectivity. Brawl in its nature is a subjective game. Its a game based on fun. And how do you measure fun? Now yes i know that we are making it a competitive game and trying to objectify certain things to make it fair. And I also know that many people claim, "you shouldn't be playing to have fun. you should be playing to win." Well i had super fun playing to win in melee. why cant we have that in brawl? (Dont mean to make a melee comparison but it works.)

Just because a game is part of a series doesn't make it more fun, even if it has a currently larger userbase.

Great personal example:
Blazblue CT
Blazblue CS

I find CT a thousand-fold times better than CS. Not only can I use my favorite characters (Noel, Nu, Rachel) and they're actually viable, but their playstyles match how I want to play the game! In CS Noel's playstyle is changed drastically. Making her unusable by me. Almost reminds me of a few Melee-->Brawl transitions....

Then there are characters who were broken like Rachel, who were nerfed to a mere fraction of what they once were. This kind of reminds me of Captain J. Douglas Falcon. Does it remind you?

Needless to say, I refuse to play CS because I find CT both more enjoyable - and more competitive. However it's userbase is much smaller now that CS is out.

Likewise for Melee - it's inherently a more competitive game (not to spark debate..) but as far as fighters go, it is. It's faster paced, combos exist, you have to make fast reads, and you have to really know your character to do well. It's techskill was challenging - and it was more balanced than Brawl would lead you believe!

However Brawl, being the newcomer in the SSB series, stole the spotlight away from Melee. When it was first released, everyone flocked to it in hopes of another awesome competitive game. They were wrong. While still vastly competitive, it's on a completely different level than Melee.

In Brawl - very few combos exist. The ones that do are either infinites by mashing a button or two; or chaingrabs. Maybe 2-3 hit combos tops otherwise. Brawl is a very, very "wait and punish" sort of game. The gameplay is far slower, you can punish more things on mere reaction, mobility is reduced due to this slower gameplay, and it's naturally unbalanced. But that's what you get when you add more character's to the game. It's really hard to continually add characters and expect there to be a balance among the cast.

So what's my point you're asking?

You had more fun in Melee. To you, it's the better competitive game. This view is actually shared by a large group of people - yet they continue to play Brawl.

Why?

Brawl has a larger userbase, not because it's actually "more competitive AND fun" - but by having a larger userbase, it's technically "more competitive".

So yes. In a competitive community, you want to play to win. Fun is a side-effect that may occur depending on the game.

If I played BlazBlue CS - I wouldn't be having any fun, but I'd be playing to win. In Brawl - I don't have any fun. This game blows, but I know I can actually place in the money in this game. It has a larger userbase than Melee, meaning there are more frequent tournaments. The payouts are higher, and it's more rewarding to play.

I play to win. This is why I don't main Yoshi. I don't main Ganondorf. I don't main Link. I main Snake.

This game would be x10 funner if Sheik was viable, but due to our counterpick system and starter stage list, she isn't. She might be. But it's currently improbable to place in the money with her.

So as of now, I don't have fun playing Brawl. I play to win. That's what you do in a competitive game. Fun is a side effect, usually from what you choose to do.

Many people in professional sports chose the sport they chose because they find it more fun. Take that same theory and apply it to professional gaming. You should choose the competitive game you find most fun. Then you can play to win and have fun doing it.

 

[Staco]

Ive found some error in your logic.
The problem about some stages and also the DDD infinite:
If a stage gives some characters a huge advantage against some other characters, which make the MU unplayable, the people wont play that "unplayable" characters on that stage any more.
This means you are taking skill out of the game by making some characters unplayable when getting counterpicked.
Same for the DDD infinite.
If a character gets almost unplayable against DDD, because of the infinite, he wont get picked against DDD any more.
So you are forced to change your character, which takes out some general skill out of the game (=the DK vs. DDD MU wont ever happen; its just an example, Im not sure, if the DK vs. DDD MU is unplayable, but Im sure some MUs on weird counterpicks are at least close to unwinnable = unplayable).

 

[Albert.]

Still waiting for a point to be made....

 

[rPSIvysaur]

So what's the point of this thread BPC?

 

[SuSa]

Ive found some error in your logic.
The problem about some stages and also the DDD infinite:
If a stage gives some characters a huge advantage against some other characters, which make the MU unplayable, the people wont play that "unplayable" characters on that stage any more.
This means you are taking skill out of the game by making some characters unplayable when getting counterpicked.
Same for the DDD infinite.
If a character gets almost unplayable against DDD, because of the infinite, he wont get picked against DDD any more.
So you are forced to change your character, which takes out some general skill out of the game (=the DK vs. DDD MU wont ever happen; its just an example, Im not sure, if the DK vs. DDD MU is unplayable, but Im sure some MUs on weird counterpicks are at least close to unwinnable = unplayable).

I can actually argue a sentiment about why the DDD infinite should be removed from the game, but it's really arguable - because it's not exactly over-centralizing. However it is somewhat degenerate.

Unlike locks in this game, which you can SDI out of.
Unlike Ice Climbers chaingrabs, which you can kill Nana.

What can you do to DDD to avoid the infinite? Not get grabbed?

That's like saying "Don't get hit first on Temple, and you won't get circle camped. "

That's my only argument against DDD's standing infinite, without a wall assist. (It's possible to you know.. stay away from the wall or be on a side where DDD cannot CG you against a wall..)


That's just my take on it. If we're not going to ban DDD's infinites, we should unban Temple. *thumb up*

 

[AgentJGV]

Ive found some error in your logic.
The problem about some stages and also the DDD infinite:
If a stage gives some characters a huge advantage against some other characters, which make the MU unplayable, the people wont play that "unplayable" characters on that stage any more.
This means you are taking skill out of the game by making some characters unplayable when getting counterpicked.
Same for the DDD infinite.
If a character gets almost unplayable against DDD, because of the infinite, he wont get picked against DDD any more.
So you are forced to change your character, which takes out some general skill out of the game (=the DK vs. DDD MU wont ever happen; its just an example, Im not sure, if the DK vs. DDD MU is unplayable, but Im sure some MUs on weird counterpicks are at least close to unwinnable = unplayable).

Again I stress that we need to look at sets rather than matches. It doesn't take skill out. If anythibn it adds more because you can't just play one character.

In starcraft, 4 zerglings against 1 tank is un winnable for the lings. So u don't ban tanks instead you send a muta and u win. Derp.

 

[rPSIvysaur]

I can actually argue a sentiment about why the DDD infinite should be removed from the game, but it's really arguable - because it's not exactly over-centralizing. However it is somewhat degenerate.

Unlike locks in this game, which you can SDI out of.
Unlike Ice Climbers chaingrabs, which you can kill Nana.

What can you do to DDD to avoid the infinite? Not get grabbed?

That's like saying "Don't get hit first on Temple, and you won't get circle camped. "

That's my only argument against DDD's standing infinite, without a wall assist. (It's possible to you know.. stay away from the wall or be on a side where DDD cannot CG you against a wall..)


That's just my take on it. If we're not going to ban DDD's infinites, we should unban Temple. *thumb up*

I actually agree with this.

 

[SuSa]

Glad you agree.

 

[Staco]

I can actually argue a sentiment about why the DDD infinite should be removed from the game, but it's really arguable - because it's not exactly over-centralizing. However it is somewhat degenerate.

Unlike locks in this game, which you can SDI out of.
Unlike Ice Climbers chaingrabs, which you can kill Nana.
Unlike DDDs infinites, which you can get DDD into the air or offstage.

What can you do to DDD to avoid the infinite? Not get grabbed?

That's like saying "Don't get hit first on Temple, and you won't get circle camped. "

That's my only argument against DDD's standing infinite, without a wall assist. (It's possible to you know.. stay away from the wall or be on a side where DDD cannot CG you against a wall..)


That's just my take on it. If we're not going to ban DDD's infinites, we should unban Temple. *thumb up*

I added one sentence, marked in red.

Circle Camping isn´t allowed, because the game would then be based on doing so.
Almost every character is able to circle camp or getting circle camped in almost every MU.
So circle camping would be the only staying legit strategy. It´s unwanted by the community, and it also would decrease the needed skill, because gameplay will just be based on this single strategy.
DDDs Infinite actually just influences a few MUs. Don´t get grabbed actually is a legit argument, how to work against the infinite.
You also can´t compare DDDs infinite to circle camping, because there is a big difference between it.
I could also say: "Get DDD into the air or offstage before getting grabbed".
Thats also a legit startegy against the infinite, which can be compared to sth. such as "kill Nana before getting grabbed".

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

So what's the point of this thread BPC?

Still waiting for a point to be made....

The point is that there's one correct ruleset which is the most competitive. Also that Sirlin is completely right, even in reference to brawl. It also contains the sub-point that there is one correct stagelist, and that banning stages is generally a ****ty idea. But there's a thread for that, in particular, in the stages forum. I welcome you to read it.

Ive found some error in your logic.
The problem about some stages and also the DDD infinite:
If a stage gives some characters a huge advantage against some other characters, which make the MU unplayable, the people wont play that "unplayable" characters on that stage any more.
This means you are taking skill out of the game by making some characters unplayable when getting counterpicked.
Same for the DDD infinite.
If a character gets almost unplayable against DDD, because of the infinite, he wont get picked against DDD any more.
So you are forced to change your character, which takes out some general skill out of the game (=the DK vs. DDD MU wont ever happen; its just an example, Im not sure, if the DK vs. DDD MU is unplayable, but Im sure some MUs on weird counterpicks are at least close to unwinnable = unplayable).

You can use that unusable character, but just shouldn't. I mean, Ganon isn't banned, is he? He's quite clearly the worst possible choice anyone can take in this game, but he still sees play. He's not banned, and neither are the many, many things that invalidate him. And while going DK against DDD is a bad idea, you'll still run into DKs. While allowing the chaingrab the mutilate the matchup like that does lead to there being less skill required from the DDD when DK faces off against DDD, there is almost infinitely more skill required from the DK, as he either has to win an 80-20 matchup, or he has to have a second character. It's also perfectly demonstratable that these rules are bad without resorting to this philosophy, and merely through analogizing (mostly with ganon).
As far as stages go, while if some stages give characters problems, there's, again, a prerogative to adapt a secondary. While in the short term, it may look like having RC legal lowers the skill level of the game in cases of matchups like MK-Diddy, in the long term it raises the depth of the game considerably-you have less character centralization among certain groups of characters, and you're forced, more and more often, to know how to use two very different characters at a high level. Although MK incurs a slight issue with this idea, it's still present due to the massive number of people who don't main MK.

@SuSa: Staco beat me to it.

 

[teluoborg]

Stopped reading at

We could (and do) remove items comepletely.

I guess the whole thing is classic BPC stuff, and somewhere in the wall of text must be a "PS2 is totally legit" if it isn't the conclusion.

This thread has no point besides except trying to transform tactical disc into another stage disc.

PS : just read the last paragraph to find

-the game objectively requires more skill when PS2 is legal than when PS2 is banned.

lol

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

So... If MK's planking really is so nigh-impossible to beat, couldn't you potentially use this criteria to, explicitly, ban MK's (and ONLY MK's) planking, without automatically opening the door to further modifications?

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Some TO's have done that already, Xyro being a notable one who has.

The BBR on the other hand thinks that they should put the rule on him, if they think need to they would rather ban the character than recommend that.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Done what, banned planking somehow, or justified it like this?

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Placing a limit on only MK.

 

[John12346]

Someone's going to mention it at some point, so I'll get it out of the way now.

Some people argue that if MK's planking is broken enough to warrant a rule to restrict it, then he's good enough to be banned.

I'm staying neutral on this topic for now, but I do recall this point being brought up multiple times in the past.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Someone's going to mention it at some point, so I'll get it out of the way now.

Some people argue that if MK's planking is broken enough to warrant a rule to restrict it, then he's good enough to be banned.

I'm staying neutral on this topic for now, but I do recall this point being brought up multiple times in the past.

This is the stance I beleive the BBR is taking on the issue.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Placing a limit on only MK.

Ah, I see. Forgot that most people have lgls on everyone.

Someone's going to mention it at some point, so I'll get it out of the way now.

Some people argue that if MK's planking is broken enough to warrant a rule to restrict it, then he's good enough to be banned.

I'm staying neutral on this topic for now, but I do recall this point being brought up multiple times in the past.

It's an opinion, but try to take that in context of this thread. Which, overall, leads to the game having more competitive depth-removing MK completely, or removing a tactic which makes him broken? We did it before with IDC.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Well with IDC, it's pretty obvious someone is doing it to stall.

Planking is a lot harder since it's not a glitch.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Well yeah, that's true. But still...

 

[Exdeath]

We should therefore aim for the highest possible competitive skill requirement possible in the game. I think just about everyone will agree on this-a higher skill level in-game leads to a higher competitive bar; it forces you to be a better player in order to compete at the highest level.

A high level of in-game skill does not necessarily raise the competitive bar; it raises the competitive ceiling.

A little excursion: by banning Metaknight, do we raise the overall skill level required at the top level of brawl? No. We lower it because people don't need to know how to fight against Metaknight, and Metaknight is not good to the extent that beating an opponent who doesn't main Metaknight with Metaknight is a walk in the park when both players are at an equal level-we don't have 100% MK top-8s. So of course we don't ban MK. Same as if we would ban Snake, or DDD.

Your evidence against Meta Knight is not inherently related to how good Meta Knight is for better or worse. Not seeing Meta Knight in the top 8 doesn't mean that any number of the cast is good enough to defeat Meta Knight. It simply means that Meta Knight is viable enough of a character that he can make it to the top 8. We don't know what effect Meta Knight has in conjunction with the ability of players, due to the inability to truly quantify skill/experience/the character/MU/etc.

It's also a good explanation as to why we don't ban DDD's infinites. DK, as a character, requires miles less skill if he doesn't have to worry about DDD's infinites.
"But with the infinites legal, DK is useless!"
With Sheik legal, Ganon is useless. And DK is not useless, he's just horrid in that matchup. You can still run up against DKs in bracket. You also can still run up against DDD's infinites in bracket as DK, which, again, requires a massive amount of skill to deal with (or a secondary character, another skill-increasing element).

As match-ups become increasingly favorable toward one player's character, that player will hold more control over the match and the player using the disadvantaged character will hold less control over the match. If this continues, there will eventually become a point when it is no longer a competition of Character A vs. Character B, but something else. In the case of King Dedede vs. Donkey Kong, the burden of the match becomes almost entirely upon the DDD. DK can make the match-up more difficult for Dedede, but he ultimately can not win without outside interference or the inability of Dedede. Basically, there is a point in which a player requires a tremendous amount of skill in order to defeat his opponent, but past that point the match's outcome will be decided by the other player/chance/etc.

"And what about skill in the areas of Subspace Emissary, Home Run Contest, Brutal Brawl, etc.?"
Now here's the big issue here. What exactly are we trying to demonstrate? How good a player is at the vs. mode in super smash bros brawl. Now... what relevance does that player's ability to deal with the HRC have to what we actually want to test? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

"We don't want to force our players to have skill in (insert stage-based element X here)"
Primary example being "We don't want to force our players to have skill in adapting to stages".
See, this is where we hit the competitive/casual divide. In a casual community, you're perfectly justified to take a skill the game requires of you and that does not cheapen competition (like the ability to adapt to having all items on does, due to the extreme randomness allowing this skill to be tested allows for) or remove other skills (like the ability to circle camp; testing that skill negates virtually all other skills from the game, an extremely negative aspect), and simply remove it. In the competitive community? No way in hell. It's an in-game skill that the game requires of you that does not remove competitive viability or mitigate any other skills. Saying "We don't want to force our players to adapt to stages" is akin to saying "We don't want to force our players to be able to space" or "We don't want to force our players to be good at brawl". There is no justification whatsoever for a competitive community to purposefully remove or mitigate a skill which is critical for being good at the game in almost every version.

The reason that Home Run Contest, SSE, etc. aren't used as a competitive standard is because they do not directly present the opponent as being another person. It isn't directly related to what type of competition it is in terms of stages. It's not to say that SSE can't be competitive, though. Games like Super Mario Bros. and Super Metroid are still played competitively though speed-runs, despite the random and static factors in both games.

This is often why fighter depth is valued over stage depth; not because stage depth doesn't exist, but because stage depth is a different kind of competition than fighter depth, and when one's depth increases, the other often decreases (although not in a set variable; there very well could be a particular stage that measures the best possible balance between depths while holding the highest overall depth).[/quote]

"Yes, now what requires more or less skill is subjective, good luck dealing with THAT."
Nope. Sorry. More or less skill is not subjective. It is difficult to quantify, but by far not impossible or even improbable. In fact, especially in certain areas, you can see very clearly that this is the case-the game objectively requires more skill when PS2 is legal than when PS2 is banned. The game OBJECTIVELY requires more skill when Ganondorf is legal than when he is banned. It's not hard to figure out in most cases.

Some cases may be obvious, however it isn't always so, and one of my earlier points addresses how skill is not practically quantifiable.

Quite simply, if an element which is necessary to test a skill mitigates many other critical in-game skills, then it should be banned, and the skill that it tests is reasonably mitigatable. Primary example for this is Circle Camping, because while circle camping is a part of the game, checking "who is the best at circle camping" means not checking a player on a multitude of other in-game skills-in fact, almost every other in-game skill. Walkoff camping works in almost the same way. Fin camping? Same ****. IDC? ...I'm seeing a pattern...
Circle camping-Broken, degenerate tactic
Walkoff Camping-Broken, degenerate tactic
Fin camping-Broken, degenerate tactic
IDC-Broken, degenerate tacti-

The problem with this is how you're considering what a degenerate tactic is. How do you know that Brawl would not be a better game if every match took place on Temple with a 2 minute time limit? Could most of the cast be invalidated? Certainly they would, but many more characters could be near top-tier status/viable than they are now. The game could still have considerable amounts of depth. Some characters may be able to safely keep other characters away at certain places while others may have a projectile that is good in certain areas while they're chasing their opponent. Sonic might be good in some areas and Wario might be better in others. There could be unique strategies for these different areas. You didn't test and simply assumed that it is a lesser game because it would be centered around something that is different from the accepted standard.

 

[John12346]

Well yeah, that's true. But still...

I'm gonna state my reasoning behind IDC being easily bannable and PPlanking... not so much.

As Red Ryu said, IDC is very easy to detect, as it avoids all conflict, and makes the game unplayable. A player would deliberately have to input Usmashes during the IDC to perform it.

Normal old planking involves exploiting invincibility at the ledge. Best done by Metaknight, obviously, but it doesn't break the game to the point that it's unplayable... it's just a really overpowered strategy. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this and it's certainly not bannable in any way.

Perfect Planking has been proven to be unbeatable for while now, or at the very least, forces you to jump off the stage against Metaknight; essentially a death wish. This is an entirely bannable strategy as it can make the game unplayable.

The issue is that we can't differentiate between planking and PPlanking. At the very least, MK could time all of his Uairs in a way that he has ONE frame in which he could be punished each time, thereby changing it from PPlanking to planking.

This is where the split comes in. Some people argue MK's planking and PPlanking should be banned in a set, and others argue that MK himself should be banned.

Obviously I'm pro-ban, but I'm gonna run through this entire discussion open-mindedly.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Discreetly banning the broken tactic is impossible, so we have a choice. Ban the tactic and all resembling tactics by enforcing some form of rule (like LGLs), or banning the character. Using the reasoning in the OP, it should be clear which is correct.

...This is, of course, assuming that pplanking is actually broken enough to be banworthy.

 

[Ghostbone]

There is also the option of banning every stage with a permanent ledge >.> (similar to how we ban stages with walk-offs due to walk-off camping, corneria due to fin camping, the precedent is to ban all the stages with the broken tactic, not the tactic itself)
But yea, MK's Planking hasn't been proven banworthy.

 

[Pierce7d]

Discreetly banning the broken tactic is impossible, so we have a choice. Ban the tactic and all resembling tactics by enforcing some form of rule (like LGLs), or banning the character. Using the reasoning in the OP, it should be clear which is correct.

...This is, of course, assuming that pplanking is actually broken enough to be banworthy.

Nerfing the tactic is also a viable option. Whether it is or is not the most preferable option is debatable (I'm not going to debate it with you now though) but please acknowledge all options, or you seem close-minded.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

How would you propose to nerf the tactic?

Also, the only difference between just normally banning MK's planking with MK-only LGLs and using this rule to justify the exact same thing is the justification...

 

[SuSa]

Nerfing the tactic is also a viable option. Whether it is or is not the most preferable option is debatable (I'm not going to debate it with you now though) but please acknowledge all options, or you seem close-minded.

By nerfing the tactic, you so so in a highly - highly subjective manner.

With any LGL's, how many LG's are enough to "nerf" the tactic? 40? 30? 25? 45? 43? 37? 35? 29?

You either leave it because it isn't broken. Or you remove it entirely.

Unless you want to go down the Yu-Gi-Oh route. They limit cards to 1/2 a deck (instead of the standard 3) - apply that to a set.

Now you can only use MK to plank 1 time a set.

 

[Life]

/offtopic

Susa plays Yugimonz? 0.o

However, I should point out stuff:
1. Banlists are made by Konami and therefore unalterable by community input like the BBR is
2. YGO's meta changes violently every three months when a new set is released, sometimes more. Smash changes gradually as players pick up new tactics, but the game itself is unaltered (unless you count PAL vs. NTSC)
3. YGO is a TCG and has far more of a luck element than Brawl.

Probably more.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

By nerfing the tactic, you so so in a highly - highly subjective manner.

With any LGL's, how many LG's are enough to "nerf" the tactic? 40? 30? 25? 45? 43? 37? 35? 29?

You either leave it because it isn't broken. Or you remove it entirely.

Unless you want to go down the Yu-Gi-Oh route. They limit cards to 1/2 a deck (instead of the standard 3) - apply that to a set.

Now you can only use MK to plank 1 time a set.

Any number of LGLs in a certain median area (I'd say something like 30-50 or so), where it has to be enough that it won't usually come into play if the MK isn't actively planking, but not enough that MK can stall excessive portions of the match out with perfect planking (which we are "assuming" is broken if it can be done for more than the number of grabs). That's the nerf. A flat-out ban is simply not possible.

 

[SuSa]

/offtopic

Susa plays Yugimonz? 0.o

However, I should point out stuff:
1. Banlists are made by Konami and therefore unalterable by community input like the BBR is
2. YGO's meta changes violently every three months when a new set is released, sometimes more. Smash changes gradually as players pick up new tactics, but the game itself is unaltered (unless you count PAL vs. NTSC)
3. YGO is a TCG and has far more of a luck element than Brawl.

Probably more.

1) Everything is always subject to being altered by the community. To think otherwise is foolhardy. I've been to tournaments that allowed three Man Eater Bugs (back when the limit was 1, I've been to tournaments that allowed 2 Cyber Jars (the limit was one), I could go on and on, but yeah.

2) YGO's meta is stupid. Everytime I see the ban card list it's different. lol

3) Agreed. Wasn't saying it wasn't, but the point still stands. When somethings broken they limit it's use in a non-arbitrary way. "Use it once if at all and no more."

I also don't play Yu-Gi-Oh. It's just.. you know.. I have basic knowledge of a lot of competitive things. (Contrary to popular belief... I just don't always know the specifics of reasons of some changes, and blah blah blah)

Any number of LGLs in a certain median area (I'd say something like 30-50 or so), where it has to be enough that it won't usually come into play if the MK isn't actively planking, but not enough that MK can stall excessive portions of the match out with perfect planking (which we are "assuming" is broken if it can be done for more than the number of grabs). That's the nerf. A flat-out ban is simply not possible.

Being able to stall excessive portions of the match regardless. Also - does it apply if the match goes to time and the MK is a stock up?

Because, if PPlanking is broken and can be used to stall, the game gives me a win because I was a stock up. But a LGL would make me lose it?

If it's only for same-stock timeouts, then you're saying it's okay if I use this tactic if I have the lead by a stock?

If you apply it across the board - you're further altering the game's criteria to win.

 

[Ghostbone]

The problem with a LGL, if it's needed, is that, planking would have to be the best tactic in the game, and be unbeatable. All a LGL does is, instead of planking for the whole match being the best tactic, planking until the LGL runs out becomes the best tactic.
People would still be able to plank the last 2-3 minutes of a match, (or for however long the LGL allows) and be untouchable, so it really doesn't help. So basically a LGL is not really a viable option because of that.
(planking is not discretely bannable without banning the character or every stage that allows it)

There's also the problem that only MK's planking is broken (and even that only in theory) so you're arbitrarily nerfing a character, and by doing that you acknowledge that he's broken, and therefore ban worthy.