The Unity Ruleset: Discussion

[Heartstring]

(emphasis added)

I'm sorry, but you're completely wrong. There are no "neutral stages" in ANY Smash game, and certainly not in Brawl. No stage treats every single character the same and gives no one any advantages over any other character. This is just a false statement. I don't know what you're trying to say here, but it's wrong. If you'd like to debate that, then present just one stage in Brawl that provides no benefits to any single character over any other character (although, to properly defend yourself, you'll need to present all 4 stages you claim to be Neutral and prove how they provide no polarized benefits).

i give you that, i know none are completely neutral, but i mean stages that are neutral enough to be counted as a starter stage
you get what i mean, we dont need to be pedantic about this XD

 

[ADHD]

Lol at everyone trying to change Alex Strife's mind or begging for reasoning. When you're a TO of that status he can do whatever the hell he wants.

And neutrals were never a proper term.. I don't even know why it stemmed from melee because many matchups in that game were heavily altered depending on the starting stage. It's been basically used to describe static stages though, so I guess.. neutral as in not changing?

 

[M@v]

Starters is the appropriate term for them. Its just the term neutrals carried over from melee.

 

[ADHD]

I mean static stages seemed to make sense but then that would leave ps1 out of the equation.

 

[Alex Strife]

^ Wyatt I do not have any status. Sometimes my ego gets unchecked for a bit and I think that way but I generally try to listen to people.

I am not doing this like some child saying "whatever I do what I want" I am doing this in conjunction with advice from both the pro and ban side of rc. It was a decision we made as a group.

 

[Jack Kieser]

...

Disagree with me, its ok , its your right to. I will not sit here and say your wrong or anything. Like I said it is a decision we made for now and we feel it is best for my tournament and the overall experience. If people do not come for stagelist reasons then I cannot agree with that. I think you come to apex for the overall greatness of an event such as this. For the fact that it makes history.


I guess I should not post much here anymore because I am worried that it is going to just get more hostile on both sides.

Alex, I have to ask, why do you not think that an event's ruleset should not be a determining factor in whether a player attends an event or not? If anything, don't you have it backwards? Isn't the ruleset, aside from travel expenses / entry fees / monetary reasons the most important factor in determining attendance? After all, the ruleset determines the entire tournament experience, if you think about it. The rules will, whether you like it or not or WANT it to or not, have a hand in determining the final ranking of players (imagine the differences in final bracket layout with just the addition of a LGL, if not the banning of a character or tactic like infinites entirely), and players participate in events in large part to have an effect on that final ranking.

Your ruleset, in the end, will have a large effect on how people play, why they play, and for how long they CAN play (i.e., taking away RC / Brinstar might be a determining factor for some MKs... not any good ones, but still, some player will be affected). Are you honestly telling us that it's not OK for a player to look at your ruleset, a ruleset that might, in their eyes, prevent them from either having fun or placing in the money, and then make a qualified decision about whether or not to attend APEX?

Because, I think you'll have to agree with me that, after giving it some thought, your original supposition is pretty ridiculous. Of course the ruleset is an OK reason not to attend APEX. If anything, it's one of the best reasons to either attend or not attend.

Also, ignore hostility. If things are going to get hostile, they will with or WITHOUT your presence in the thread. Don't stop posting just because you're worried about the resulting posts. Stop if you're tired or something, but not because you're worried about internet hostility.

 

[M@v]

^ Wyatt I do not have any status. Sometimes my ego gets unchecked for a bit and I think that way but I generally try to listen to people.

What I think he meant was your regarded as one of the top TOs in the entire smash community, if not THE top TO.

 

[ADHD]

No, I agree with you Alex. I don't think the Universal Ruleset should exist because it displeases many people just as it pleases them, and without varying stagelists in the tournament scene you will always have that unhappy group always unhappy.

And @ Jack pickles, any solid player should not have to rely on Brinstar or Rainbow Cruise to win. And that's bascially final. Yes, the tournament outcome might be affected slightly with minor alterations such as these, but in the end, most people are generally happy (except BPC who wasn't going to Apex probably to begin with).

 

[Jack Kieser]

And @ Jack pickles, any solid player should not have to rely on Brinstar or Rainbow Cruise to win. And that's bascially final. Yes, the tournament outcome might be affected slightly with minor alterations such as these, but in the end, most people are generally happy (except BPC who wasn't going to Apex probably to begin with).

@ADHGay (did I spell that right? ): I already said it wouldn't affect anyone good:

...taking away RC / Brinstar might be a determining factor for some MKs... not any good ones, but still, some player will be affected...

The point was that the ruleset is still a valid reason to either go or not go to a tournament, and that's not something you've even come close to refuting. So... try again?

 

[WindMajor]

I'm most likely going to Apex but I'm still displeased with the stage list. I'm more unsatisfied with the 5 starters though, but I don't expect to win or get too far in the tournament, so idc. I'm just going for the experience.

 

[Alex Strife]

You mentioned after

aside from travel expenses / entry fees / monetary reasons

that it was the most important reason. With that I will say it can be to some but not to me. Again I was thinking of those reasons since it was not said, at least in my reading might have skipped it, that those are more important than a stagelist.

If you want a personal view as to how I feel about people attending or not an event based on a stagelist I'll say that Mute City being banned for being considered an Auto-Win had a positive effect on Pound 4 melee ( it was the largest melee event ever IIRC ). So with that conservatism benefited the community.

At the same time you can easily say " MLG Columbus had this and that on " and I cannot disagree with what is fact. But if you look at MLG it had so much MORE to offer than just a tournament. It had a great experience that was once in a lifetime for some. It had free stuff, Merch, a feeling of greatness to it that tournaments only try to reach. I am one of those people that believes we can reach out and have those "nice things" and that is what makes a person more incline to go. Like I said before to another I disagree with someone not going because of RC being removed. If that is their sole reason I still have to respect it but I do not agree with something like that.


I hope that answers it if not I'll try better to do so.

 

[Heartstring]

Isn't the ruleset, aside from travel expenses / entry fees / monetary reasons the most important factor in determining attendance?

surely the experience is the biggest reason? the chance to see and meet people who youve formed friendships with over the internet? because thats the biggest reason as to why im going.
that, and to take part in a double team with supreme dirt (hoping for namesearch)

 

[ADHD]

@ADHGay (did I spell that right? ): I already said it wouldn't affect anyone good:



The point was that the ruleset is still a valid reason to either go or not go to a tournament, and that's not something you've even come close to refuting. So... try again?

Okay

I wasn't trying to argue with that point that the ruleset is a deciding factor in attendance, just that Metaknight players shouldn't have Rainbow or Brinstar as a sole victory card. If it would be affecting "bad players," then they shouldn't be going to Apex with the intention of winning if they were bad anyway, and should rather just go for the fun of the event.

 

[AlphaZealot]

If you want to protest/talk about the Apex stagelist, do it in the Apex thread:
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=298262

Not here.

 

[Heartstring]

Okay

I wasn't trying to argue with that point that the ruleset is a deciding factor in attendance, just that Metaknight players shouldn't have Rainbow or Brinstar as a sole victory card. If it would be affecting "bad players," then they shouldn't be going to Apex with the intention of winning if they were bad anyway, and should rather just go for the fun of the event.

the mans just summed me up in one paragraph lol
yeah surely you have to be gonig to enjoy yourself unless youre uber high calibur. in which case i suppose you have a reason to complain, and seeing as ive never heard of the people who are complaining about it i guess that settles the problem ^^

 

[Alex Strife]

If you guys wanna talk about it. Just make a thread in Brawl Disc and I'll try to answer all and any questions you have.


I'll just leave it from that.

 

[Jack Kieser]

You mentioned after ... that it was the most important reason. With that I will say it can be to some but not to me. Again I was thinking of those reasons since it was not said, at least in my reading might have skipped it, that those are more important than a stagelist.

(emphasis added)

I think I get what you're saying here. What's important is the bolded section; that's all I was trying to get you to say. You had said, pretty clearly in previous posts, that the ruleset was not something to base attendance off of, and all I wanted to prove to you was that it was a valid reason. Not for everyone, but that it was valid, nonetheless.

If you want a personal view as to how I feel about people attending or not an event based on a stagelist I'll say that Mute City being banned for being considered an Auto-Win had a positive effect on Pound 4 melee ( it was the largest melee event ever IIRC ). So with that conservatism benefited the community.

At the same time you can easily say " MLG Columbus had this and that on " and I cannot disagree with what is fact. But if you look at MLG it had so much MORE to offer than just a tournament. It had a great experience that was once in a lifetime for some. It had free stuff, Merch, a feeling of greatness to it that tournaments only try to reach. I am one of those people that believes we can reach out and have those "nice things" and that is what makes a person more incline to go. Like I said before to another I disagree with someone not going because of RC being removed. If that is their sole reason I still have to respect it but I do not agree with something like that.

If you don't agree, that's fine. But, it's different to say, "I don't agree" then it is to say "It's not a good reason"; of course, it's a good reason (to some). Yes, semantics, but semantics are important.

Also, I think you're Mute City example proves my point, doesn't it? After all (if I'm reading you right), you banned MC, and it helped convince people to come to P4 Melee, resulting in what you remember being the largest Melee event ever. So, by your own admission, the ruleset affected some people's decision to come to P4 Melee. But... is that OK? Are you trying to say that the ruleset is an OK reason to decide to attend a tournament, but NOT an OK reason not to attend a tournament?

I hope that answers it if not I'll try better to do so.

No worries, you did a fine job.

 

[Alex Strife]

I think I get what you're saying here. What's important is the bolded section; that's all I was trying to get you to say. You had said, pretty clearly in previous posts, that the ruleset was not something to base attendance off of, and all I wanted to prove to you was that it was a valid reason. Not for everyone, but that it was valid, nonetheless.

It can be a valid reason for some but I do not think it is a determining factor. Can it be a factor, based on what your saying and me thinking it through, ya it can be but you mentioned it would be a huge factor. I do not think that is true.

If you don't agree, that's fine. But, it's different to say, "I don't agree" then it is to say "It's not a good reason"; of course, it's a good reason (to some). Yes, semantics, but semantics are important.

Ya thats the thing what I say might satisfy some and might not others. At the same time if I am talking directly to you it should be enough or I need to explain it better.

Remember that I wrote that in my personal view I feel this. I had many in my staff weigh in on the things that you are making valid points on. Sorry if I did not clearly state that.

Also, I think you're Mute City example proves my point, doesn't it? After all (if I'm reading you right), you banned MC, and it helped convince people to come to P4 Melee, resulting in what you remember being the largest Melee event ever. So, by your own admission, the ruleset affected some people's decision to come to P4 Melee. But... is that OK? Are you trying to say that the ruleset is an OK reason to decide to attend a tournament, but NOT an OK reason not to attend a tournament?

I was responding to people about how I personally feel. I was explaining that people will come to a tournament regardless of how conservative or liberal a stage list is. Mute City caused a huge outroar for a bit but people saw that big names and such were coming and people came ( btw plank made the decision not me I just was basic staff ). I also wanted to express on the flipside that MLG had an opposite direction and people came for the experience. I think that Apex will reach 300 melee and 300 brawl regardless of how conservative or how liberal a stagelist is. It is about proper marketing and knowing your audience enough.




Before AZ throws a chair for us still debating this. I am on aim if anyone wants to talk about it. I enjoy talking when I can.

 

[AlphaZealot]

resulting in what you remember being the largest Melee event ever.

Just pointing out that Pound 4 was indeed the largest Melee event ever.

 

[Heartstring]

lol, i only remember pound 4 for the epic chudat vs. larry/dehf match in brawl
then again i didnt follow melee back then XD

 

[stingers]

CHU S A

lol was so hype

 

[john!]

i know next to nothing about competitive brawl, but i'd just like to say that disrespectfully giving the best brawl player in the world, someone who has been here since the beginning and helped immeasurably to grow the competitive scene that you all enjoy today, one of your imaginary "red cards", and not allowing him to play in your tournaments, is a great way to start killing brawl's competitive scene. which is fine by me! i play melee. so, carry on, Head of Smash Community Growth.

and yes, pound 4 was amazing.

 

[Ussi]

He's not helping the community grow by spliting

 

[Nidtendofreak]

Okay, seriously, this is getting stupid.

>Rule is clearly stated in Unity Ruleset that anybody splitting will be punished
>M2K is caught/ratted out/admitted to splitting bracket manipulation.
>M2K falls under the definition of "anybody", and thus gets punished like the rule says he would. A rule he has been punished before for breaking, AND punished by MLG for breaking prior.
>Community thinks M2K shouldn't get punished for breaking a clearly stated rule

Are you all dense or something? It doesn't matter if you think it should be a rule or not. It's a part of the Unity ruleset. If a TO is using the Unity ruleset (which is now the majority), this means they agree with that rule, or at least are willing to have it in their tournament. If there was truly that much of an outcry against the rule, TOs wouldn't be using the Unity ruleset. M2K knew that the tournament would be using the Unity ruleset. The splitting/bracket manipulation rule (one he has been ding'd with before), is a part of that ruleset. He ignored it. He's getting punished like the rule said he would be.

It's not "targeting" M2K. It's not treating him differently. In fact, it would be treating him differently if he wasn't carded. BBR-C shouldn't, and thankfully didn't, baby him by letting him off with just a warning. Quit acting like a bunch of toddlers mad that their friend got punished for breaking a rule. Don't want to see him banned from tournaments? Tell him to smarten up and keep his money to himself/stop throwing matches, or at least keep his deals under the table.

Welcome to the real world. It doesn't matter if you think the rule is stupid or not: you get caught, you get punished.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Banning RC for Apex was a great idea. A moving stage like RC messes with a player's spacing.You take away a players ability to properly space, you take away a huge part of competitive Smash.

 

[Zankoku]

When did M2K admit to splitting during Genesis 2?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Banning RC for Apex was a great idea. A moving stage like RC messes with a player's spacing.You take away a players ability to properly space, you take away a huge part of competitive Smash.

No, it doesn't.

The movement is 100% predictable, so you can still space.

 

[Allin]

When did M2K admit to splitting during Genesis 2?

I was about to say the same thing. I thought he got red carded for 'bracket manipulation' because he went Ganon in his match with Sade.

 

[Ussi]

When did M2K admit to splitting during Genesis 2?

He admitted to intensionally losing a set in pools. Oh just reread Niddo's post..

Niddo he got carded for what i just said, not spliting :x

 

[Bizkit047]

i know next to nothing about competitive brawl, but i'd just like to say that disrespectfully giving the best brawl player in the world, someone who has been here since the beginning and helped immeasurably to grow the competitive scene that you all enjoy today, one of your imaginary "red cards", and not allowing him to play in your tournaments, is a great way to start killing brawl's competitive scene. which is fine by me! i play melee. so, carry on, Head of Smash Community Growth.

and yes, pound 4 was amazing.

That same player you hold so highly also is a major part of the reason why Brawl did not return to MLG, due to openly splitting. What he did got our community a gigantic amount of backlash around the competitive gaming community and made us look incredibly bad. What? Didn't you get the memo?

He's not helping the community grow by spliting

This.

When did M2K admit to splitting during Genesis 2?

Not splitting, intentional forfeiting.

 

[Zankoku]

Why didn't Sade get yellow-carded, since her forfeit was both intentional AND overrode M2K's "forfeit"?

 

[Bizkit047]

Why didn't Sade get yellow-carded, since her forfeit was both intentional AND overrode M2K's "forfeit"?

That was the TO call to switch the pools result, apparently. She was the one that came forth and said M2K forfeited first to the TO.

 

[Allin]

That same player you hold so highly also is a major part of the reason why Brawl did not return to MLG, due to openly splitting. What he did got our community a gigantic amount of backlash around the competitive gaming community and made us look incredibly bad. What? Didn't you get the memo?



This.



Not splitting, intentional forfeiting.

At the moment I think the card system, and splitting are bad for community growth as a whole. Especially when new players come to tournaments to see the big names banning one of them can, and probably will, affect some tournaments in the area of that certain player (Not just saying this for M2K). I think a black-list where TO's can choose wether to ban the player is a lot more lenient along with the ability for them to be on a sort of 'watch list' so that TO's can make sure splitting doesn't make place. i think the harsher thing would be to kick them out of the tournament itself that the action takes place, but I know thats hard because most of the time the TO doesn't know it happened till afterward.

 

[Zankoku]

That was the TO call to switch the pools result, apparently. She was the one that came forth and said M2K forfeited first to the TO.

Now I'm completely confused. Did the match get played or not? Was Ganondorf involved, or did M2K literally just forfeit the set altogether?

 

[Nidtendofreak]

He admitted to intensionally losing a set in pools. Oh just reread Niddo's post..

Niddo he got carded for what i just said, not spliting :x

Eh, close enough. Both falls under "bracket manipulation".

 

[Allin]

Now I'm completely confused. Did the match get played or not? Was Ganondorf involved, or did M2K literally just forfeit the set altogether?

He did play Sade, but it was considered forfeiting because he didn't use one of his mains or secondaries and intentionally meant to pick an unwinnable mu

 

[Ussi]

At the moment I think the card system, and splitting are bad for community growth as a whole. Especially when new players come to tournaments to see the big names banning one of them can, and probably will, affect some tournaments in the area of that certain player (Not just saying this for M2K). I think a black-list where TO's can choose wether to ban the player is a lot more lenient along with the ability for them to be on a sort of 'watch list' so that TO's can make sure splitting doesn't make place. i think the harsher thing would be to kick them out of the tournament itself that the action takes place, but I know thats hard because most of the time the TO doesn't know it happened till afterward.

You'd rather leave this poisonous behavior unchecked? People coming into the community... Sometimes are coming from another community! They see spliting an think "okai, this community is bad/nubbish/uncompetitive"

 

[Bizkit047]

Now I'm completely confused. Did the match get played or not? Was Ganondorf involved, or did M2K literally just forfeit the set altogether?

M2K intended to forfeit to her. Ganon/Falco were the characters used, but that didn't matter, as after Sade 2-0'd M2K in pools, she went to the TO, who then switched the results to say M2K 2-0'd her so that 2nd and 3rd pool seeds were not messed with. She said that M2K forfeited the set by throwing it. M2K said many times he did not see a problem with the intentional forfeit.

At the moment I think the card system, and splitting are bad for community growth as a whole. Especially when new players come to tournaments to see the big names banning one of them can, and probably will, affect some tournaments in the area of that certain player (Not just saying this for M2K). I think a black-list where TO's can choose wether to ban the player is a lot more lenient along with the ability for them to be on a sort of 'watch list' so that TO's can make sure splitting doesn't make place. i think the harsher thing would be to kick them out of the tournament itself that the action takes place, but I know thats hard because most of the time the TO doesn't know it happened till afterward.

Yes, I agree, it should be a blacklist instead. The BBR-RC will look into re-discussing the system.

He did play Sade, but it was considered forfeiting because he didn't use one of his mains or secondaries and intentionally meant to pick an unwinnable mu

Character choice was not the reason. Admitting it to the TO, and in an interview, was.

 

[Allin]

Character choice was not the reason. Admitting it to the TO, and in an interview, was.

Yeah that's what I mean't wasn't clear enough I guess.

Happy to hear the BBRC is considering a black-list, I personally would never wanna ban anyone from my tournaments because the big names bring in more players and I feel it kinda discourages the unity rule set to an extent.

 

[ADHD]

M2K intended to forfeit to her. Ganon/Falco were the characters used, but that didn't matter, as after Sade 2-0'd M2K in pools, she went to the TO, who then switched the results to say M2K 2-0'd her so that 2nd and 3rd pool seeds were not messed with. She said that M2K forfeited the set by throwing it. M2K said many times he did not see a problem with the intentional forfeit.


Character choice was not the reason. Admitting it to the TO, and in an interview, was.

Lol, but doesn't that mean she manipulated the bracket by allowing 2nd and 3rd seeds to go unharmed? I assumed she worked pretty hard to beat M2k's ganondorf and falco

*SHRUG*









And in other news, in AZ's poll on allisbrawl the vote (about 80%) seems to be this:
Brinstar: Removed
Rainbow Cruise: Removed
PSII: Removed
Delfino: Kept