The vast majority of player who play Brawl play under a conservative rule set, consequently the best player from a much, much, much larger pool are on average going to be better than the pool of players from a smaller one. I mean how many Liberals are there? 100 or so at most, or even a lot less than that? then compare that to the rest of the world. Perhaps playing with a more conservative rule set does yield better results but you cannot realistically derive such a truth when you have no good data to base it on...
Sure, correlation =/= causation, but you're really going to say it doesn't mean anything when every player who does very well at nationals (afaik) seems to have a conservative view?
The growth of the metagame? Is that what we should base our rule set on? Why does this have any value whatsoever?
So you're saying it's better to stunt our metagame just for the sake of symantics?
I'll reply to the rest of your post, Veel, when I have more time. It's a good post, haha.
David Sirlin's principles and writings DO NOT apply to only Street fighter. Nowhere in any of his articles does he say that they do. David sirlin is a game balancer and philosopher. His principles and writings are DESIGNED to apply to ALL COMPETITIVE GAMING.
My OP was a lie? Where did I state a lie? Is it not true that Sirlin is primarily a fighting game player? Is it not true that he doesn't really play smash?
I never said that Playing to Win ONLY applied to Street Fighter, and you'd be a liar for saying that I did. I pointed out that his primary game was street fighter, as it's the game he references the most, and it's the game he was really good at.
Irrelevant. Whether it was DESIGNED to be competitive or not is in no way indicative of competitive depth and potential. My proof? Melee. Wasn't designed to be competitive, and it had a competitive following for over 8 years.
Should I go and point out how much the commonly used Melee rules contradict Sirlin's philosophies on banning?
Show me where my post was wrong. I said that he doesn't have much experience with smash, and seemingly all the top players have a different opinion than his on this game. Same with Melee, atleast if we look at the ruleset and stagelist.
Saying "the best players have the best ideas" is still pretty much ad hominem, as it implies that if you're not the best, your ideas are irrelevant.
That implication wasn't intended :/
It just seems worth noting that all the top players seem to have mindsets different than the liberals on this site, and they tend to have far better results.
Underlined is something I want to touch on: what makes "best for learning"="best for competing"? FD/SV/BF are awesome for learning your character, sure, but are they the most competitive stages in the game?
True, and again, I'm personally fine with nationals having more diverse stages, as then it would really test players on everything. But, for the sake of progress, wouldn't it make sense to use a stagelist in locals and regionals that promotes improvement at the more important things in the game?
The first thing you underlined in that quote isn't ad hominem, although it is slightly implying that correlation=causation. He said his mentality is better, I gave a response that implies other mentalities garner better results. That's not a personal attack.
Yeah that last thing you underlined, though, was ad hominem. It's an observation, and is a bit relevant, but is ad hominem.
Sirlin's principles are global, you know.
The Melee community has lasted a while from ignoring Sirlin's principles.
I wonder how well they would've lasted if they'd kept on items.
Because his principles have logic and reason backing them up, as well as hundreds of years of human history. If you can disprove them, go for it. People have tried, and failed... because they are, in a general sense, logically and practically correct.
I'm not saying that they are wrong, I'm saying that some of it doesn't apply to smash well. Give me the names of some top players (the players who get top 5 at nationals) with liberal opinions.
Let's not overlook the fact that someone from a region with MK banned, just about beat you anyway, and I TWO STOCKED you on Pictochat. (Since you want to bring our match into this)
I had 4 hours of sleep the night before and had trouble keeping my eyes open for most of the day. And anyone who knows me and watched me play knew I was playing way worse. The people from my carpool that I was two stocking were beating me bad on that Saturday.
You can tell that I played like **** that set (and the one after it, as well) because it took me TWO entire games to adapt to your horrible short hop habits, and to not **** up my tornado auto cancel (you did punish my auto pilot tornado ending lag well).
Good job, you took an unranked player whose pretty much only experience is level 3 CPUs, to third game, and lost the set on a stage that's generally a counterpick for your character in that matchup, while your opponent was playing on auto pilot with 4 hours of sleep. (Since you want to talk about our match more)
I'm seriously getting sick and tired of people claiming that because the best players don't always follow our principles, that our principles are wrong.
I guess the best players are wrong about the best methods on what rulesets cause you to get better, and faster. I guess you're better in that aspect than TKD.
After having been super liberal like some of you, and having changed after going to a major tournament and seeing for myself how much improvement can be made by not wasting your time with stupid **** (TKD talks a bit about this in one of his blogs), I can see why TKD stopped debating with you people.
w/e I'm going with the mindset and attitude of the players who do really well, and I'm going to advocate for tournaments in my region to have more conservative rulesets so that my region, and myself, can improve at the game faster.