Standardized Ruleset Development Idea

[LiteralGrill]

I was discussing some things in another thread, and it inspired me to make this post for possible discussion.

Fellow Smashers, let's face it: we've made mistakes with our rulesets over the years. We've banned things that maybe shouldn't have been, and there have been questionable decisions for sure. And it is very difficult to reverse decisions once made even if it is realized later that those decisions were bad.

So, I would like to propose a system to help avoid the pitfalls of the past. A standardized system where things would only be banned if the fit a prebuilt criteria. This would hopefully avoid bans based on disliking something or misconceptions and give us the best ruleset we can manage.

To do this, we would need to do two things.

1. Define things that need to be banned on a broad level. A possible example being "Anything that degrades play to a point where a fair match is no longer possible." Remember, this is an example, there are tons of ideas we would want to put down.

2. Write the criteria. We'd need to to lack loopholes we may use in moments of weakness. It must be hardcore and solid so that it will always hold and be a true standard.

So lets start the discussion, what would this standard be? Write up examples of your own, and we can all build off each other and possibly have a great system to work with. Get at it people!


Note: Please Do Not Let This Thread Devolve Into A Hateful Conversation. This Is Not The Place Either To Debate What The Rules Should Be/Should Have Been. The Point Is To Make A Standard To Compare Anything Smsh May Have To Offer Against.

 

[nessokman]

No matter what you do, you are of no match to my loophole finding skills!!!!!!

 

[LiteralGrill]

No matter what you do, you are of no match to my loophole finding skills!!!!!!

BRING IT ON!!!!!

I mean, I bet there's gonna be a few but still, maybe we could get closeish?

How's about starting with what inspired me to post this thread, their idea:

Yes! That's what we need to do, really. Collectively decide on an edict, and stick to it.

How's this for starters:
A facet of the game should be removed when it is found to nearly always grant a player an significant uncounterable advantage at random.

 

[BADGRAPHICS]

Haha, I was thinking of doing this myself. Guess you beat me to the punch.

Before we can do any of this, though, we first all need to agree what kind of tournaments will be held around Smash Bros. 4.
Next point of debate should be:
Will Smash Bros. continue to use No Items play as a main event, with other styles being sidelined, or will a variety of play styles be held in equal regard?

Personally, I'm a fan of the latter. As long as you can achieve consistent results, and determine the best players, the tournament is valid.
ISP (Item Standard Play) has shown consistent results, and should be a more prominent tournament format in Smash 4.

We definitely shouldn't throw out the standard format that everybody is used to (no items, fair stages, etc.). It's a great format that I hope will continue, but to me, it's obvious that any other valid format should be seriously considered by the community as well.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Haha, I was thinking of doing this myself. Guess you beat me to the punch.

Before we can do any of this, though, we first all need to agree what kind of tournaments will be held around Smash Bros. 4.
Next point of debate should be:
Will Smash Bros. continue to use No Items play as a main event, with other styles being sidelined, or will a variety of play styles be held in equal regard?

Personally, I'm a fan of the latter. As long as you can achieve consistent results, and determine the best players, the tournament is valid.
ISP (Item Standard Play) has shown consistent results, and should be a more prominent tournament format in Smash 4.

We definitely shouldn't throw out the standard format that everybody is used to (no items, fair stages, etc.). It's a great format that I hope will continue, but to me, it's obvious that any other valid format should be seriously considered by the community as well.

Side By Side Events would be best! :D

LiberaSmash / ConservaSmash

One with less taken out, one people are used too. If both sides treat eachother well it shouldn't be a problem.

 

[BaPr]

I always like the idea of Smash ball in tournaments, because it can be a major game changer. I mean, I know it could just spawn right next to one player and give them an advantage, but the Smash ball is sturdy enough to withstand until the other player gets close enough to break it too. Since small stages might stay in the tournaments, it won't be too far away from reach. Anyone agree, disagree? Also, should large stages be allowed? I personally don't mind the idea, but I can see why it would be banned because of stuff like stalling.

 

[nat pagle]

I always like the idea of Smash ball in tournaments, because it can be a major game changer. I mean, I know it could just spawn right next to one player and give them an advantage, but the Smash ball is sturdy enough to withstand until the other player gets close enough to break it too. Since small stages might stay in the tournaments, it won't be too far away from reach. Anyone agree, disagree? Also, should large stages be allowed? I personally don't mind the idea, but I can see why it would be banned because of stuff like stalling.

Firstly, I don't think Smash Balls will ever be allowed in tournaments. As you said, it is a major game changer and it can spawn right next to a player and give them the advantage. But the issue is, we do not want random factors in the tournaments because it takes away from the spirit of competition in favor of random chance results. That's why all items have always been banned from tournaments, because of their random nature and the constant possibility of benefiting one player over another simply because of chance.

And ya know, Sonic might be on the roster in Smash 4. Have fun getting a Smash Ball over him

And stage size in tournaments isn't necessarily why they are either legal or banned. It's mostly due to unfair mechanics, clear favor of a specific character, or something along those lines. For instance, Bridge of Eldin was banned from tournaments not because it was large, but because of walk off ledges, the bomb, and stalling. For more info on why each banned stage is banned, just click this link: http://super-smash-bros.wikia.com/wiki/Banned_stages

 

[T0MMY]

I was discussing some things in another thread, and it inspired me to make this post for possible discussion.

Fellow Smashers, let's face it: we've made mistakes with our rulesets over the years. We've banned things that maybe shouldn't have been, and there have been questionable decisions for sure. And it is very difficult to reverse decisions once made even if it is realized later that those decisions were bad.

So, I would like to propose a system to help avoid the pitfalls of the past. A standardized system where things would only be banned if the fit a prebuilt criteria. This would hopefully avoid bans based on disliking something or misconceptions and give us the best ruleset we can manage.

This is easy, please follow the Competitive Philosophy and you're good to go.

(note, it was my brother that pioneered the "standardized" ruleset in the early days of Brawl development)

 

[LiteralGrill]

This is easy, please follow the Competitive Philosophy and you're good to go.

(note, it was my brother that pioneered the "standardized" ruleset in the early days of Brawl development)

The think the problem with the Competitive Philosophy (which I have definitely looked at) is it's still interpreted differently by different people, so then you are stcuk with which interpretation is correct?

 

[T0MMY]

No, the Competitive Philosophy is well defined, there's no gray area to interpret.
May I ask where you have looked at it?

 

[LiteralGrill]

No, the Competitive Philosophy is well defined, there's no gray area to interpret.
May I ask where you have looked at it?

The problem comes when one person says something is competitive and the other doesn't. And both sides cite this system, but wont agree which is correct. Maybe you remember PS2 as a legal stage arguments back in the days of brawl. Something similar to this. That, or maybe list striking systems over a starter/cp system as another example. Or even liberal vs conservative stage lists. Both sides cited competitive play, but who was right?

 

[smashmachine]

ISP is fine
however, smash balls in their current form will never ever see the light of day in such a ruleset, at least in 1v1

 

[LiteralGrill]

ISP is fine
however, smash balls in their current form will never ever see the light of day in such a ruleset, at least in 1v1

Alright, outa no where but alright. ISP Item Standardized Play yes? Just to be sure.

 

[Aidebit]

If Sakurai implements items in a way that they have good randomness, (Smashville platform) then I don't see why we can't have item play alongside non-item play.
If something overcentralizes the game around itself, then I think it should be banned.

 

[T0MMY]

The problem comes when one person says something is competitive and the other doesn't. And both sides cite this system, but wont agree which is correct. Maybe you remember PS2 as a legal stage arguments back in the days of brawl. Something similar to this. That, or maybe list striking systems over a starter/cp system as another example. Or even liberal vs conservative stage lists. Both sides cited competitive play, but who was right?

Promoting the idea that competitive philosophy can be argued with rhetoric is exactly what is wrong with the competitive scene. It is not debatable. Anything that is reasonably debatable would not be promoted as competitive.
Stages like PS2 would not be up for argument. It would fall under gentleman's agreement: Any stage that is not explicitly banned by a TO can be played on during a counterpick round if all teams participating agree to use it (and demonstrate their agreement to the TO/referee).

 

[LiteralGrill]

Promoting the idea that competitive philosophy can be argued with rhetoric is exactly what is wrong with the competitive scene. It is not debatable. Anything that is reasonably debatable would not be promoted as competitive.
Stages like PS2 would not be up for argument. It would fall under gentleman's agreement: Any stage that is not explicitly banned by a TO can be played on during a counterpick round if all teams participating agree to use it (and demonstrate their agreement to the TO/referee).

The problem is, what if my TO bans a stage that is defined as competitive? I mean, then me an my opponent could in theory agree to play there, but why would an opponent let me play on a stage that I want? The problem comes when people let personal bias decide what should be competitive which is wrong. But stages have been banned "because I don't like it" in the past, and I fear this will happen again in the future. (And I'm not saying that lightly, some TOs have actually said they banned stages with dislike being the ONLY reason.) What happens then, when we eliminate parts of the game that should not be eliminated?

From what I know, something should only be banned if absolutely necessary, or if it completely ruins play yes? What happens when something is banned even when it is proven to not be either? Many would say it has. Personally, I've seen much proof for stages that have been banned over time that shows they should be legal and fit a competitive philosophy but were banned and still remain so regardless out of dislike alone.

So what do you do when things receive a ban or a ruleset isn't competitively based, or could be vastly improved when many refuse to do so simply out of personal preference? Call them a scrub? It wouldn't do much even if in theory that's the exact mentality they are using. What then?

 

[nat pagle]

The problem is, what if my TO bans a stage that is defined as competitive? I mean, then me an my opponent could in theory agree to play there, but why would an opponent let me play on a stage that I want? The problem comes when people let personal bias decide what should be competitive which is wrong. But stages have been banned "because I don't like it" in the past, and I fear this will happen again in the future. (And I'm not saying that lightly, some TOs have actually said they banned stages with dislike being the ONLY reason.) What happens then, when we eliminate parts of the game that should not be eliminated?

From what I know, something should only be banned if absolutely necessary, or if it completely ruins play yes? What happens when something is banned even when it is proven to not be either? Many would say it has. Personally, I've seen much proof for stages that have been banned over time that shows they should be legal and fit a competitive philosophy but were banned and still remain so regardless out of dislike alone.

So what do you do when things receive a ban or a ruleset isn't competitively based, or could be vastly improved when many refuse to do so simply out of personal preference? Call them a scrub? It wouldn't do much even if in theory that's the exact mentality they are using. What then?

Unfortunately, tournament officials or organizers can just make up their own rules. And there's nothing you can do about, it's there tournament. There's no way to take over and say, "you're not allowed to ban such and such" based on rules made up on an internet forum. It's just like an unreasonable friend not wanting to let you use your favorite weapon or whatever because he thinks it's cheap.

Competitive Smash is far from conventionally organized. We have no legal body to say, "no, the smash rulebook says this and that". It's no more than a semi-organized group of Smashers making advanced rulesets to make the most competitive play possible. Anyone at anytime running a tournament can just say, "no".

 

[LiteralGrill]

Unfortunately, tournament officials or organizers can just make up their own rules. And there's nothing you can do about, it's there tournament. There's no way to take over and say, "you're not allowed to ban such and such" based on rules made up on an internet forum. It's just like an unreasonable friend not wanting to let you use your favorite weapon or whatever because he thinks it's cheap.

Competitive Smash is far from conventionally organized. We have no legal body to say, "no, the smash rulebook says this and that". It's no more than a semi-organized group of Smashers making advanced rulesets to make the most competitive play possible. Anyone at anytime running a tournament can just say, "no".

It's true, and it honestly sucks. It's kinda why I wanted to create a more definitive standard that fits Smash better so maybe TOs wouldn't make uninformed decisions or would be less likely to go "I don't like this" to ban things. Much has been lost in smash do to this, and the large TOs should be setting a standard to not allow this to happen, but I don't always see this happening. Maybe something like this they were held to would help. Maybe it's just a pipe dream and nothing will change. I dunno, but I wanted to try.

 

[nat pagle]

It's true, and it honestly sucks. It's kinda why I wanted to create a more definitive standard that fits Smash better so maybe TOs wouldn't make uninformed decisions or would be less likely to go "I don't like this" to ban things. Much has been lost in smash do to this, and the large TOs should be setting a standard to not allow this to happen, but I don't always see this happening. Maybe something like this they were held to would help. Maybe it's just a pipe dream and nothing will change. I dunno, but I wanted to try.

I'd assume big name tournaments that have thousands watching the live stream would have stringent rules and wouldn't be afraid to kick you off the premises. At each one of these big tournaments, the head honcho should be the master TO of sorts. If a ref is being an idiot, he should have the right to just say, "you're out".

But unfortunately this kind of thing is common, even in the NBA, NFL, MLB, etc. Just watch this clip of our friend Joey Crawford calling a foul on a player across the court, who didn't even get within 20 feet of the guy fouled.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaZIAXJJDKQ

If it can happen there, it can happen here.

 

[LiteralGrill]

I'd assume big name tournaments that have thousands watching the live stream would have stringent rules and wouldn't be afraid to kick you off the premises. At each one of these big tournaments, the head honcho should be the master TO of sorts. If a ref is being an idiot, he should have the right to just say, "you're out".

But unfortunately this kind of thing is common, even in the NBA, NFL, MLB, etc. Just watch this clip of our friend Joey Crawford calling a foul on a player across the court, who didn't even get within 20 feet of the guy fouled.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaZIAXJJDKQ

If it can happen there, it can happen here.

Yeah... Not like I can go and seriously protest. I just want to see this smash game be treated as it should, and not have competitive elements removed because someone doesn't like it. it's wrong, and to be blunt scrubby and it happened in the past. I wish there was a proper way to combat that but I can't think of one.

 

[SubparSmashBrother]

1) No Items
2) Fox Only
(3) Final Destination

 

[Johnknight1]

Items that are not a part of movesets should not be legal because they increase the randomness, which takes away from the skill aspect. On top of that, items are frequently way overpowered. For instance, the Ice Climbers have many zero to death combos with items in both Melee and Brawl, and several other characters do as well. And even if items were balanced and weren't random (say they spawned in the middle of FD every minute), it would induce camping and stalling in a way that would take away from the game.

Now if something like Final Smashes were balanced (but not an item), that could potentially be legal. But items, no... at least not as a real tournament that people go out of their way to go to. However, that doesn't mean that item-legal tournaments couldn't be fun side-tournaments, because they 100% could be. Heck, I wish there were side tournaments for everything, like FFA's, mid/low/bottom tier characters, etc.

This is easy, please follow the Competitive Philosophy and you're good to go.

(note, it was my brother that pioneered the "standardized" ruleset in the early days of Brawl development)

And your philosophy is right IMO. Back in the early Brawl days I was very liberal with what I felt was legal. I honestly thought Norfair, Green Hill Zone, and Skyworld should be legal. But now, looking back it, I was so wrong.

AylasHero, the problem is Brawl is a game that is more induced to camping and staling than Melee and especially Smash 64. It also has lots of walk off kills via infinite/chain grabs, which obviously bans a lot of walk off stages. On top of that, any stage remotely big in Brawl is banned because again, camping. Oh, and because matches should be kept under 8 minutes, which is why there's a time limit, otherwise tournaments take forever. If many of the banned stages were made legal, they would make matches longer.

What we'll likely see with a faster, more offensive-based game is more liberalism with the stage choices. Yes, we'll still have no more than 5 neutral stages (most likely), and an extended amount of CP's, but nothing crazy.[collapse="Oh, and the Melee list is pretty good..."]
-Neutral: Battlefield, Final Destination, Dreamland 64, Fountain of Dreams, and Yoshi's Story (note: the last 2 are not for doubles)
-Counter-Pick: Pokémon Stadium
-Extended Counter-Picks 1: Rainbow Cruise, Mute City, and Congo Jungle (64) (note: Rainbow and Mute City are often banned in doubles, whereas Congo Jungle is nearly always neutral in doubles)
(past here is generally just speculation based on tournament usage in the past 5 years based upon what I have witnessed)
-Extended Counter-Picks 2: Mushroom Kingdom II, Corneria, and Brinstar.
-Extended Counter-Picks 3: Peach's Castle, Jungle Japes, and Kongo Jungle (Melee).
-Extended Counter-Picks 4: Yoshi's Island (Melee), Termania: Great Bay, and Green Greens.
Banned: Brinstar Depths, Onett, Fourside, and Flat Zone.
Super Banned: Hyrule Temple, Venom, Poké Floats, and Fourside.
Forever Banned: Yoshi's Island (64), Big Blue, Infinite Glacier.[/collapse]
I think we can expect the stage (ban) list to be more like Melee's list, except perhaps more legal stages (due to us just having more stages).

Heck, Smash 64's banned stage list is also generally very liberal, generally allowing Peach's Castle, Congo Jungle, Hyrule Castle, and Dreamland 64 (4 of the 9 stages; all of them neutral). If Battlefield, Final Destination, and the Metal Mario stage were stages you could choose without hacks, those 3 stages would be totally legal, too.

Also AylasHero, if you really want to experiment with banned stages, I suggest you have a random lottery/player picked lottery for which one (or two, heck maybe 3) stages to unban for a tournament, and see how it goes. I went to a tournament ones in San Jose once and the awesome TO (Miles) randomly unbanned one stage, which happened to be IMO the worst smash stage ever (Yoshi's Island 64). I was so considering picking it!

 

[LiteralGrill]

Items that are not a part of movesets should not be legal because they increase the randomness, which takes away from the skill aspect. On top of that, items are frequently way overpowered. For instance, the Ice Climbers have many zero to death combos with items in both Melee and Brawl, and several other characters do as well. And even if items were balanced and weren't random (say they spawned in the middle of FD every minute), it would induce camping and stalling in a way that would take away from the game.

Now if something like Final Smashes were balanced (but not an item), that could potentially be legal. But items, no... at least not as a real tournament that people go out of their way to go to. However, that doesn't mean that item-legal tournaments couldn't be fun side-tournaments, because they 100% could be. Heck, I wish there were side tournaments for everything, like FFA's, mid/low/bottom tier characters, etc.

I'm no arguing for items as a requirement in tournament play, unless they did somehow come out on a timer and had predictable spawning points. I get why people might still consider them competitive even without that, but also realize that too is a losing battle and people should just play them side by side.

And your philosophy is right IMO. Back in the early Brawl days I was very liberal with what I felt was legal. I honestly thought Norfair, Green Hill Zone, and Skyworld should be legal. But now, looking back it, I was so wrong.

AylasHero, the problem is Brawl is a game that is more induced to camping and staling than Melee and especially Smash 64. It also has lots of walk off kills via infinite/chain grabs, which obviously bans a lot of walk off stages. On top of that, any stage remotely big in Brawl is banned because again, camping. Oh, and because matches should be kept under 8 minutes, which is why there's a time limit, otherwise tournaments take forever. If many of the banned stages were made legal, they would make matches longer.

Now on longer matches, prove it. Is there truely data to show certain stages make matches go longer? Was it even done or where they banned because people thought it would happen? I understand with chaingrabbing a lot of stages unfortunately had to be cut, that's reasonable.

What we'll likely see with a faster, more offensive-based game is more liberalism with the stage choices. Yes, we'll still have no more than 5 neutral stages (most likely), and an extended amount of CP's, but nothing crazy.
I think we can expect the stage (ban) list to be more like Melee's list, except perhaps more legal stages (due to us just having more stages).

Heck, Smash 64's banned stage list is also generally very liberal, generally allowing Peach's Castle, Congo Jungle, Hyrule Castle, and Dreamland 64 (4 of the 9 stages; all of them neutral). If Battlefield, Final Destination, and the Metal Mario stage were stages you could choose without hacks, those 3 stages would be totally legal, too.

3 stages... Really? Those three stages are defined as fair and competitive? That stage list allows many characters to play on a counterpick stage GAME ONE. How is that the most fair? It also skews the game in favor of such characters, It's been proven time and time again that larger stagelists are more fair and provide greater depth and more viability for more characters, so more character variety (which people want yes?) And that's for that Brawl list.

5 stages has also been proven in the past over and over again to be unfair as a starter list and holds more bias to certain characters. Anyone remember how well MLG's list worked for Brawl? What's wrong with that list?
Playing only on static stages is just plain WRONG. There is a reason Sakurai specifically said he would not have a hazards off option and kinda made fun of PSASBR for doing so. Part of his game is interacting with stages, and character strengths in doing so is part of the balance in the end. You nerf characters with such static and conservative lists, and many times stages banned never have definitive proof they cause they problems they are banned for. And there are many double standards as well in terms of stage bans where a more liked stage gets a bit more lenience then one that isn't as loved. You eliminate a core part of the game the creator himself says is important. I know Sakurai doesn't really go out of his way to support the competitive scene, but when we go to try and make smash competitive the person who made the game's vision should be taken into account as in the end he is more of an expert then us in how it should be played. And it seems we've denied that.
Our starter/cp system was designed around having many CPs for it to be effective and fair as well, taking the list down a ton makes it unfair. If we're only going to play on a couple stages, you need to develop a new system.

Also AylasHero, if you really want to experiment with banned stages, I suggest you have a random lottery/player picked lottery for which one (or two, heck maybe 3) stages to unban for a tournament, and see how it goes. I went to a tournament ones in San Jose once and the awesome TO (Miles) randomly unbanned one stage, which happened to be IMO the worst smash stage ever (Yoshi's Island 64). I was so considering picking it!

A lot of other countries have had liberal stage lists to AMAZING success and shown time and time again how well they work. A lot of experimenting has been done for people, but they refuse to see it or don't like stages and ban them BECAUSE OF THAT. And that would define a scrub wouldn't it?

Sure, some stages really did need banning, but so many didn't. Smash is P v P v S, not just P V P. If people want that kind of game they should play it instead of deforming smash to fit a standard that it was never meant to have.

 

[Johnknight1]

I'm no arguing for items as a requirement in tournament play, unless they did somehow come out on a timer and had predictable spawning points. I get why people might still consider them competitive even without that, but also realize that too is a losing battle and people should just play them side by side.

Agreed on the items, except on the predictable spawning points. That causes more camping and zoning, which leads to worse quality of matches.

Now on longer matches, prove it. Is there truely data to show certain stages make matches go longer? Was it even done or where they banned because people thought it would happen? I understand with chaingrabbing a lot of stages unfortunately had to be cut, that's reasonable.

The proof is in the pudding: watch high or mid-level play competitively on nearly every banned stage, and they either make matches longer or more prone to stage interference playing a huge role (and by a huge role, I don't mean like someone not knowing the stage, but rather, the stage leading to an early kill that shouldn't happen).

Also, watch older matches. Stages like Jungle Japes had matches that were routinely timed out. Heck, Delfino Plaza isn't in most mid-level Brawl tournaments because the transformations lead to positional camping and stalling. I went to a tournament (back in 2009, mind you) where 3 matches on Delfino Plaza were timed out, on a TEN MINUTE TIMER!!! I'm say that, and Delfino Plaza is my favorite (new) stage in Brawl.

3 stages... Really? Those three stages are defined as fair and competitive? That stage list allows many characters to play on a counterpick stage GAME ONE. How is that the most fair? It also skews the game in favor of such characters, It's been proven time and time again that larger stagelists are more fair and provide greater depth and more viability for more characters, so more character variety (which people want yes?) And that's for that Brawl list.

If it is proven, then prove it by providing evidence.

Our starter/cp system was designed around having many CPs for it to be effective and fair as well, taking the list down a ton makes it unfair. If we're only going to play on a couple stages, you need to develop a new system.

Initially, yes. Now, not really. The starter/counter-pick list is designed to create a balance between the two, without giving the top tiers a gigantic advantage. The reason why we see a lot of stages banned in Brawl is because they favor Meta Knight. Rainbow Cruise, Delfino Plaza, Lylat Cruise, etc all favor Meta Knight.

A lot of other countries have had liberal stage lists to AMAZING success and shown time and time again how well they work.

And much of Japan's Melee scene plays Final Destination only. I can't speak for Brawl, but in Melee, the top tournaments always allow the same 7 stages, whereas the tier below that we have a lot more diversity in rules, allowing all the way up to over a dozen stages. The same I am fairly sure is true with Brawl tournaments.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Agreed on the items, except on the predictable spawning points. That causes more camping and zoning, which leads to worse quality of matches.

I can see that. The spawning points thing is just mentioned by many people during legalize items threads so I figured they are worth mentioning.

The proof is in the pudding: watch high or mid-level play competitively on nearly every banned stage, and they either make matches longer or more prone to stage interference playing a huge role (and by a huge role, I don't mean like someone not knowing the stage, but rather, the stage leading to an early kill that shouldn't happen).

Also, watch older matches. Stages like Jungle Japes had matches that were routinely timed out. Heck, Delfino Plaza isn't in most mid-level Brawl tournaments because the transformations lead to positional camping and stalling. I went to a tournament (back in 2009, mind you) where 3 matches on Delfino Plaza were timed out, on a TEN MINUTE TIMER!!! I'm say that, and Delfino Plaza is my favorite (new) stage in Brawl.

Some stages taking much longer I definitely saw and understand. But some stages were banned before people could possibly learn how to stop the strategies that timed them out. And as much as I hate time out matches if that's the strategy a player uses it's legit as doing so on any other stage isn't it? And what about characters not picking a stage just to time someone out, they must suffer for the few who would just run forever? Unless it's like certain stages where detailed diagrams and much videos and testing have shown a player is uncatchable via something like circle camping, then yes, ban away. But if that isn't the case, players need to step up and stop the run away.

If it is proven, then prove it by providing evidence.

This involves a lot of typing, and I'm rocking a baby at the moment. However, with some time I will respond to this point with a detailed essay on the matter, I just don't want to rush it and have it look terrible or miss points.

Initially, yes. Now, not really. The starter/counter-pick list is designed to create a balance between the two, without giving the top tiers a gigantic advantage. The reason why we see a lot of stages banned in Brawl is because they favor Meta Knight. Rainbow Cruise, Delfino Plaza, Lylat Cruise, etc all favor Meta Knight.

Well, to be honest it now provides that service as it now buffs top tiers. And if Meta Knight breaks the system you either need a new system, or look at the real source of the problem and deal with it. I'd suggest a list striking system. I'll mention that in my write up mentioned previously.

And much of Japan's Melee scene plays Final Destination only. I can't speak for Brawl, but in Melee, the top tournaments always allow the same 7 stages, whereas the tier below that we have a lot more diversity in rules, allowing all the way up to over a dozen stages. The same I am fairly sure is true with Brawl tournaments.

And Japan has a different tier list then we do. FD only is honestly a terrible system when you look at it, a stage that skews matchups a lot as the only choice, but I doubt I'll be changing the standard of play in Japan. And I know many tournaments have a decent stage list size wise, but more and more are taking more and more out as time goes on. And it's very hard to unban something once it has been banned.

I remember an old discussion about stages were the BBR with their recommendations and voting on what the legality of said stages should be. One member of the backroom came out and admitted many people abstained from voting because they had never even played on certain stages ever, or voted no just because they didn't play them in their region. No study, some refused to study enough to have an opinion, and then stages get banned. Then they go into the zone where no matter how much people fight and try to prove they are good they will never be unbanned. And this was the elite players and TOs who passed this down at the time.

And I want to stop such things if possible.

 

[lordvaati]

-Neutral: Battlefield, Final Destination, Dreamland 64, Fountain of Dreams, and Yoshi's Story (note: the last 2 are not for doubles)
-Counter-Pick: Pokémon Stadium
-Extended Counter-Picks 1: Rainbow Cruise, Mute City, and Congo Jungle (64) (note: Rainbow and Mute City are often banned in doubles, whereas Congo Jungle is nearly always neutral in doubles)
(past here is generally just speculation based on tournament usage in the past 5 years based upon what I have witnessed)
-Extended Counter-Picks 2: Mushroom Kingdom II, Corneria, and Brinstar.
-Extended Counter-Picks 3: Peach's Castle, Jungle Japes, and Kongo Jungle (Melee).
-Extended Counter-Picks 4: Yoshi's Island (Melee), Termania: Great Bay, and Green Greens.
Banned: Brinstar Depths, Onett, Fourside, and Flat Zone.
Super Banned: Hyrule Temple, Venom, Poké Floats, and Fourside.
Forever Banned: Yoshi's Island (64), Big Blue, Infinite Glacier.

switch floats with Melee YI and Brinstar with Mute and you got it 100% dead on.

 

[T0MMY]

If you are interested in Competitive Philosophy, please read my blog:
http://allisbrawl.com/blogpost.aspx?id=152476

http://www.ssbwiki.com/Competitive_philosophy

The problem is, what if my TO bans a stage that is defined as competitive?

That's not a problem, that's a theoretical and fringe concept that in all my years of competitive playing has never happened (it's always been the opposite in my exp).

But going along with the extreme of the what-if situation we'll see how this exercise would work out. If you have a scrubby TO you have the choice to:

• Play by their rules
• Talk some competitive sense into them
• Don't attend their tournament.

The beauty about the Smash scene right now is it's so free-market styled. Anyone can start their own events promoting Casual Rules or Competitive Rules (or anything between). Start your own event styled the way you want and see the response.*
(* hint: scrubby events eventually turn into playing Smash with your Little Sister in your mom's garage).

The problem comes when people let personal bias decide what should be competitive which is wrong.

There is no "problem" with personal bias, we all have personal bias, that's what makes us unique.
It's more accurate to say that there arises a "conflict" between the interest Scrubs and Pros.

The conflict arises when Scrubs demand a casual rules in a Competitive Arena, or viceversa if Pros demand competitive rules in a Casual Arena).
To avoid these conflicts it must be decided which Arena an event will have and communicated properly to those attending. Anyone who has a problem at that point is confused or trying to be a problem.

But stages have been banned "because I don't like it" in the past, and I fear this will happen again in the future. What happens then, when we eliminate parts of the game that should not be eliminated?

Follow these instructions:

1. Find out who your TO is
2. Contact them
3. Ask if their event is Casual or Competitive ("tournament = Competitive)
4. If a tournament violate this standard, (politely) express your opinion as a competitive player that you did not enjoy the event and will only be attending tournaments that adhere to the Competitive Philosophy.
5. If the tournament satisfies your expectations, praise your TO (and leave a nice tip).

From what I know, something should only be banned if absolutely necessary, or if it completely ruins play yes?

Following a "Playing to Win" attitude, yes.

What happens when something is banned even when it is proven to not be either?

If it is banned in a Casual Arena, don't use it, unless you want to make your friend's Little Sister cry.
If it's in a Competitive Arena: Use it anyway.

The Scrubs will complain, but they won't be able to do anything about it because chances are if it is unwarranted, it is unenforceable.

Many would say it has. Personally, I've seen much proof for stages that have been banned over time that shows they should be legal and fit a competitive philosophy but were banned and still remain so regardless out of dislike alone.

If you claim this, please provide the evidence.

So what do you do when things receive a ban or a ruleset isn't competitively based, or could be vastly improved when many refuse to do so simply out of personal preference? Call them a scrub? It wouldn't do much even if in theory that's the exact mentality they are using. What then?

You don't have to do anything.
Scrubs eventually die, the Competitive Arena endures.

This is why EVO 2013 had over 600 entrants for a 12 year old game, because competition drives it.
But before the test of time weeds out the Scrubs, the best weapon is education. Find out who your local TO's are, educate them. Thank them when they do things right. Be patient and polite when they don't do things you want. If anything, TO's listen to polite and reasonable people (and if they don't, they're not going to last long).

Simply put: Ask your TO why their event is not aligned with the Competitive Philosophy.

 

[LiteralGrill]

A Lot Of Stuff

This is a very good read. It seems that I must respond to it with the essay I mentioned to Johnknight1 above. I do not wish to rush my response as I want it to be sure that it covers all points possible. This means it may take me a few days to answer, but I promise at the time it will be worth it. I will be focusing on Brawl during the essay as it is my particular area of expertise, it's not that I do not know Melee or 64 it's just that I can use Brawl to better show my examples to the world.

Hopefully, this essay will be able to show a proper method for tackling the next smash game when it comes to the things we ban, especially stages. I will not be arguing for items or anything else, it is mostly stage selection I have issues with. Some of this will point out when mistakes were made to help avoid them in the future as well. Hopefully it will be a worthwhile read.

Edit: Thinking on this, what would be your personal definition on what makes a stage legal, and what would your stagelist be for Brawl?

 

[T0MMY]

Thinking on this, what would be your personal definition on what makes a stage legal

Legal is any rule, principle, or regulation set forth by the TO as established by his attendees.

and what would your stagelist be for Brawl?

My stage list for Brawl is:
Players agree to play on a stage that is not banned.

If players cannot agree to stage, a random stage is chosen by pressing start on the stage select menu.

Note1: Stages identified as "banned" have been identified in the rule set.
Note2: Battlefield, Final Destination, and Smashville have been toggled "ON" in the rule set.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Legal is any rule, principle, or regulation set forth by the TO as established by his attendees.




My stage list for Brawl is:
Players agree to play on a stage that is not banned.

If players cannot agree to stage, a random stage is chosen by pressing start on the stage select menu.

Note1: Stages identified as "banned" have been identified in the rule set.
Note2: Battlefield, Final Destination, and Smashville have been toggled "ON" in the rule set.

So to make this clear, as I may be right or wrong here and want to be sure, you advocate for a three stage list of Battlefield, Final Destination, and Smashville?

 

[T0MMY]

So to make this clear, as I may be right or wrong here and want to be sure, you advocate for a three stage list of Battlefield, Final Destination, and Smashville?

No, I advocate for a fair and competitive stage selection.

When all players can agree to a stage to be played on, then it is fair; they agreed to it.
As long as the stage is not explicitly banned, they may use it.

What the 3 stages Toggled "ON" represent is when all players cannot come to an agreement. This is when the referee (or TO acting as referee) steps in and has to make a decision or the event cannot go on. Since a referee must make as fair of a decision as possible only a random stage choice can be made of the most competitively viable stages available (e.g. BF, FD, SV).

 

[LiteralGrill]

No, I advocate for a fair and competitive stage selection.

When all players can agree to a stage to be played on, then it is fair; they agreed to it.
As long as the stage is not explicitly banned, they may use it.

What the 3 stages Toggled "ON" represent is when all players cannot come to an agreement. This is when the referee (or TO acting as referee) steps in and has to make a decision or the event cannot go on. Since a referee must make as fair of a decision as possible only a random stage choice can be made of the most competitively viable stages available (e.g. BF, FD, SV).

Alright, so in terms of stages, what has to be proven for them to be a competitively viable stage? An answer of player opinion wont suffice for this as it is MUCH too subjective. How about what do YOU think as a player would be a fair and competitive list for stage selection? This is a personal opinion and can also be answered. Unless you just will blindly follow whichever stage lists some TO puts out, you must have somewhat of an idea on what you personally consider fair, or would you go to a tournament where the only legal stage is Mario Bros. as long as it was agreed to play upon?

 

[SmasherP82]

Half of the stages I COULD. Probably agree on but it would be fair to pick a stage that is well I just said it Fair and competitive but I barely know much cpause this would be my first time wanting to do a tournament.

 

[T0MMY]

Alright, so in terms of stages, what has to be proven for them to be a competitively viable stage?

Stages that are aligned within reason of Competitive Philosophy are not banned.
This is TO's decision (ultimately EVERYTHING is the TO's decision, it's their event).

When the greater community can give us a competitively viable rules guideline then it will help the TO's greatly.

The Competitive guidelines should be this simple:

Pools: Round Robin Bracket
Bracket: Double-elimination Bracket.

Stocks: 3
Friendly Fire: ON
ITEMS: OFF
PAUSE: OFF

Stages toggled ON: Battlefield, Final Destination, Smashville
Banned Stages (list of suggested banned stages)
All other stages must be agreed on by all (all) competitors.

1) (all) Competitors agree to stage
2) (all) Competitors agree to characters
3) Winner of a set is first to win 2 rounds of 3, as determined by the game's results screen.*

*Finals/GF may be best 3 of 5 wins if TO so chooses.

 

[SmasherP82]

Stages that are aligned within reason of Competitive Philosophy are not banned.
This is TO's decision (ultimately EVERYTHING is the TO's decision, it's their event).

When the greater community can give us a competitively viable rules guideline then it will help the TO's greatly.

The Competitive guidelines should be this simple:

Oh Ok its the TO's decision but I was thinking if YOU were able to choose a stage idk it would have to be fair at least but now it makes a little more sense.

 

[T0MMY]

Everything ultimately comes down to the TO's decision; it is their event, afterall.

I have been hosting both competitive and casual events for years now, I've got plenty of experience in the field. In fact, I am actually hosting at a game lounge every week, so I am a professional video game tournament host now. And the once-dead Brawl scene is back up to 20-30 per month and a dozen per week, both casual and competitive players are enjoying the events I host. So, I think I might be doing this right :^]

 

[SmasherP82]

Everything ultimately comes down to the TO's decision; it is their event, afterall.

I have been hosting both competitive and casual events for years now, I've got plenty of experience in the field. In fact, I am actually hosting at a game lounge every week, so I am a professional video game tournament host now. And the once-dead Brawl scene is back up to 20-30 per month and a dozen per week, both casual and competitive players are enjoying the events I host. So, I think I might be doing this right :^]

LOL k this would be my first time playing Smash Competitively and I'd love to go to those tournements If I ever knew where they were >.< but playing Smash competitively on the 3DS.....Oh boy it's going to be h*ll of a fight xD

 

[T0MMY]

If you are looking for competitive Smash tournaments, you've come to the right place :^)
And I'm excited for the first portable Smash game, it'll make long carpools to tournaments much easier.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Stages that are aligned within reason of Competitive Philosophy are not banned.
This is TO's decision (ultimately EVERYTHING is the TO's decision, it's their event).

When the greater community can give us a competitively viable rules guideline then it will help the TO's greatly.

The Competitive guidelines should be this simple:

You dance around my question again.

You are TO in the gaming area you mentioned, what is the stage list?

Edit:

I also really wanted to sit down and go: you are a bad person and should feel bad. I read over again, the blog post you linked to and saw the comments. The amount of stereotyping you do to players who are new, or like a larger stage list is atrocious. I doubt any amount of convincing even through logical points would change your mind on anything if this is the attitude you take.

Also, the way you seem to argue in other posts might confirm this:

After everything typed above in said post (for reference: click here) that being your only response instead of speaking directly to the points made above is ridiculous. And the fact you showed your ignorance of the stage in your response, yet still believe you should be an authority on its legality is troubling.

So now I shall attempt to demand an answer. Name the list you as a TO run for your events. I want to look at each and every stage and the fairness of design in choosing such stages and see if it is remotely competitive or fair, or simply made of bias. I look forward to dissecting your ruleset.

And I REALLY want to see how your ruleset let's you play the game "as is" as you mentioned in your blog post.

(P.S. I expect an actual list of stages, not this dancing around TO Decides stuff you keep feeding me. Take a stand and tell me what is right to you, or you have no right to try and tell others what to do.)

 

[T0MMY]

You dance around my question again.

Sorry, I answered your question, and I don't engage in argue with unreasonable people.
Your post is full of mere rhetoric and fallacy (ad hominem), therefore not reasonable. I didn't waste my time reading past the first paragraph.

Now if you are really interested in me explaining my answer to the stagelist, please ask nicely. Otherwise the conversation is over.