A Final Destination Only Ruleset

[mimgrim]

You also didn't answer me about my analysis of the flawed stage selection system after I wrote it all over again. I am VERY disappoint

Yea, sorry. I kinda rushed that post and only quoted a few things I could reply to quickly. I don't get on much during the weekend. I'll try to get a more proper reply going later.

Using past games when discussing this one is almost always a HORRIBLE idea I agree. If we come at this game with "same old same old" we're going to make stupid mistakes that could hurt the scene of the game FOREVER.

Though, real quick thing.

We have nothing else to go on at this moment. It's hard to discuss something like this without having access to the game.

The only 2 things we can use to help us are what ifs and past history of the games.

The latter is the lesser of the two evils, because we can at least base things on stuff that has actually happened.

 

[LiteralGrill]

It seems the most logical path is to see what happened at the time of Brawl's release, there were a lot of problems because people thought it would be the same as Melee; so the most logical is, ironically, to look at the past and avoid looking at the past for future reference?

Yes, it's a tad confusing but yes.

Yea, sorry. I kinda rushed that post and only quoted a few things I could reply to quickly. I don't get on much during the weekend. I'll try to get a more proper reply going later.

I'll let you off the hook this time...

Though, real quick thing.

We have nothing else to go on at this moment. It's hard to discuss something like this without having access to the game.

The only 2 things we can use to help us are what ifs and past history of the games.

The latter is the lesser of the two evils, because we can at least base things on stuff that has actually happened.

Not necessarily, part of this is looking to the future, creating openness to new ideas, and not just sticking in the past. While looking back can sort of help, using it to make the decision is the wrong course of action no matter what. Yes, trying to create example like what I mentioned with viability and tiers is something to help visualize, but saying "it's always worked, or it worked in this game" isn't the way to go. I think there is a fine line to balance.

 

[Ravio_Yo]

As far as I can tell, there is nothing wrong with Battlefield. Battlefield is not broken, therefore it should not be banned.Battlefield should not be banned, therefore FD should not be the only stage.

Prove that Battlefield will be detrimental to tournament play, then we'll talk.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

As far as I can tell, there is nothing wrong with Battlefield. Battlefield is not broken, therefore it should not be banned.Battlefield should not be banned, therefore FD should not be the only stage.

Prove that Battlefield will be detrimental to tournament play, then we'll talk.

I don't think anybody here is trying to imply that battlefield is detrimental to tournament play.

 

[LiteralGrill]

As far as I can tell, there is nothing wrong with Battlefield. Battlefield is not broken, therefore it should not be banned.Battlefield should not be banned, therefore FD should not be the only stage.

Prove that Battlefield will be detrimental to tournament play, then we'll talk.

It wouldn't be. However, are you willing to allow EVERY SINGLE stage that isn't actually broken? If so, then we'll talk even more. Previously, that hasn't happened, and has outright even been ignored, banning stages for no real reason.

 

[Hong]

I actually like the fact that we have had to argue stage validity for as long as we have.

Corneria may be a banned stage, but the matches that happened there are eternal. Same with Poke Floats, and any other number of stages who have come and gone. It's not like the time there has been wasted. We have learned and evolved so much as a community, and many great memories will linger for all of Smash eternity.

I want us to grow and develop a pool of maps for Smash 4 together. Let us debate and argue. TOs will come up with their ideal set of maps and conditions, players will decide whether or not they like it with their words and their coin. Time, interest and money will evolve it into something stable.

I am perfectly okay with the characters being balanced around FD and this being the standard for online play with strangers, though. As the OP said, it is a brash but effective way of just getting people who want a competitive experience into the game. Most of us are going to establish a pool of people we play regularly with if we already haven't done so with Melee and PM. SmashBoards and social media is a GREAT way of finding people who want to play the game you want to play, and these options will always be here.

 

[LiteralGrill]

I actually like the fact that we have had to argue stage validity for as long as we have.

Corneria may be a banned stage, but the matches that happened there are eternal. Same with Poke Floats, and any other number of stages who have come and gone. It's not like the time there has been wasted. We have learned and evolved so much as a community, and many great memories will linger for all of Smash eternity.

I want us to grow and develop a pool of maps for Smash 4 together. Let us debate and argue. TOs will come up with their ideal set of maps and conditions, players will decide whether or not they like it with their words and their coin. Time, interest and money will evolve it into something stable.

Coin. Here's an issue. Not players going to events they like, but the fact that if you are a large TO you basically make the choice and NO ONE can change your mind. Are you going to skip Apex because you didn't like the stagelist, or skip it because the stagelist is broken or unfair? No, because it's Apex. We can pretend the average user and tournament goer has power and that the debates are helpful, the true fact is the popular TOs are the ONLY people that matter.

I don't mind stages going, I mind perfectly good stages going though and it happens a lot be it from lies (Brinstar... Jigglypuff.. contain my rage), personal bias (my character is bad there, I got whooped there by a worse player because I never practiced there) or in other words, banned because people are scrubs. I HATE to use that term and do that but it's true, a lot of stages just get banned because we are scrubs. And then we wonder why other communities don't give us respect. :/

 

[Oops!]

I'm fine with the FD only ruleset being enforced online, or in tournaments, because it would greatly extend the community's reach and make it easier for more people to get into competitive Smashing. However, FD does afford advantages to certain characters. So do all other stages, etc. etc. As someone who's been playing Smash Bros since I was 5 and recently decided to get into competitive play, the whole stage counter-picking thing is very confusing to me. I like simplicity and a FD only ruleset is, obviously, very simple, but also, as this thread has proved, very controversial and possibly unfair. Personally, I'm rooting for a FD and BF only at tournaments ruleset. I think the combination of the stages would provide enough variety and fairness in a "best 2 out of 3" matchup.

The participants would agree on which of the two to start with and just alternate from there. Obviously this could be problematic because people are just not chill sometimes, but I think it would work pretty well. I'm not sure what the usual tournament rules are concerning character changes, but if you're not happy with the way one of your mains performs on FD or BF, pick a different character. In a game with as simple controls as Smash, no one really has just ONE main.

No matter which way non-Nintendo-sponsored events decide to take their stage decisions, I am super excited for For Glory mode and the FD versions of the other stages.

 

[LiteralGrill]

I'm fine with the FD only ruleset being enforced online, or in tournaments, because it would greatly extend the community's reach and make it easier for more people to get into competitive Smashing. However, FD does afford advantages to certain characters. So do all other stages, etc. etc. As someone who's been playing Smash Bros since I was 5 and recently decided to get into competitive play, the whole stage counter-picking thing is very confusing to me. I like simplicity and a FD only ruleset is, obviously, very simple, but also, as this thread has proved, very controversial and possibly unfair. Personally, I'm rooting for a FD and BF only at tournaments ruleset. I think the combination of the stages would provide enough variety and fairness in a "best 2 out of 3" matchup.

I have heard from other brand new players that the counterpick system is confusing at first so you raise a good point there. But...

The participants would agree on which of the two to start with and just alternate from there. Obviously this could be problematic because people are just not chill sometimes, but I think it would work pretty well. I'm not sure what the usual tournament rules are concerning character changes, but if you're not happy with the way one of your mains performs on FD or BF, pick a different character. In a game with as simple controls as Smash, no one really has just ONE main.

No matter which way non-Nintendo-sponsored events decide to take their stage decisions, I am super excited for For Glory mode and the FD versions of the other stages.

It would be VERY hard to agree with two stages, and if they don't agree we'd have to randomize it again which could be a huge swing. If you had to go with just a very limited number of stages it would need to at least be an odd number to work.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

I actually like the fact that we have had to argue stage validity for as long as we have.

Corneria may be a banned stage, but the matches that happened there are eternal. Same with Poke Floats, and any other number of stages who have come and gone. It's not like the time there has been wasted. We have learned and evolved so much as a community, and many great memories will linger for all of Smash eternity.

I want us to grow and develop a pool of maps for Smash 4 together. Let us debate and argue. TOs will come up with their ideal set of maps and conditions, players will decide whether or not they like it with their words and their coin. Time, interest and money will evolve it into something stable.

I am perfectly okay with the characters being balanced around FD and this being the standard for online play with strangers, though. As the OP said, it is a brash but effective way of just getting people who want a competitive experience into the game. Most of us are going to establish a pool of people we play regularly with if we already haven't done so with Melee and PM. SmashBoards and social media is a GREAT way of finding people who want to play the game you want to play, and these options will always be here.

Posting just to say this is an excellent post.

 

[LiteralGrill]

You know, especially considering the fact that a lot of 3DS stuff is likely to happen online, and it would aid in Swiss Brackets going even faster, this might be a viable idea to push on competitive 3DS players. Something to keep it different from the Wii U and get the casual players who are likely to poor into here into the game faster as well.

 

[Oops!]

It would be VERY hard to agree with two stages, and if they don't agree we'd have to randomize it again which could be a huge swing. If you had to go with just a very limited number of stages it would need to at least be an odd number to work.

I guess I've just never really had a preference when it comes to picking stages, even the few times I've been to tournaments, so I don't fully understand why everyone gets so worked up about them, but you make a very good point.

 

[LiteralGrill]

I guess I've just never really had a preference when it comes to picking stages, even the few times I've been to tournaments, so I don't fully understand why everyone gets so worked up about them, but you make a very good point.

Some people really don't mind playing on any stage so don't worry too much about feeling that way. The main reason people care is that certain stages can help their character win more then others and they want every advantage they can get in a tournament match.

 

[Canuckduck]

As far as I can tell, there is nothing wrong with Battlefield. Battlefield is not broken, therefore it should not be banned.Battlefield should not be banned, therefore FD should not be the only stage.

Prove that Battlefield will be detrimental to tournament play, then we'll talk.

I personally regard Battlefield as being the most viable map for tournament play. Final Destination, however, is flat, lacks variety, and can give advantages to certain characters/

 

[wafflini]

There are a few things i think should be brought up.

While i agree For Glory could mean characters all preform relatively well on FD, however, we do not know this yet, and thus cannot assume it is that way. To do so is illogical, it is merely an assumption. As far as we have seen from past games, not all characters can hold up to Fox, Final Destination (lol). For now, lets assume it will stay that way. For that reason, FD becomes unbalanced, and it is exactly the lack of diversity that makes it so.

I personally believe that having more diversity in maps (though still banning reasonably), tests the true strength of a player. Its one thing to practice and master a character and his particularly playstyle on a single map, but a completely different thing to be able to adapt to all different sorts of environments and terrains. Including learning how to deal with your weaknesses on other maps.

 

[LiteralGrill]

I personally regard Battlefield as being the most viable map for tournament play. Final Destination, however, is flat, lacks variety, and can give advantages to certain characters/

Battlefield doesn't have much variety either. both stages are completely static. And Battlefield can give advantages to certain characters. You argument isn't very compelling.

There are a few things i think should be brought up.

While i agree For Glory could mean characters all preform relatively well on FD, however, we do not know this yet, and thus cannot assume it is that way. To do so is illogical, it is merely an assumption. As far as we have seen from past games, not all characters can hold up to Fox, Final Destination (lol). For now, lets assume it will stay that way. For that reason, FD becomes unbalanced, and it is exactly the lack of diversity that makes it so.

But what if our diversity is still unfair and unbalanced? I've mentioned that our currently system also holds quite a few unfair biases. what then?

I personally believe that having more diversity in maps (though still banning reasonably), tests the true strength of a player. Its one thing to practice and master a character and his particularly playstyle on a single map, but a completely different thing to be able to adapt to all different sorts of environments and terrains. Including learning how to deal with your weaknesses on other maps.

I agree it takes more to master the game when there are more stages. It adds to the depth of the game and is something I do enjoy. However it is fair to say that advancing the meta faster and making us all better players could be a good thing too.

 

[mimgrim]

Not necessarily, part of this is looking to the future, creating openness to new ideas, and not just sticking in the past. While looking back can sort of help, using it to make the decision is the wrong course of action no matter what. Yes, trying to create example like what I mentioned with viability and tiers is something to help visualize, but saying "it's always worked, or it worked in this game" isn't the way to go. I think there is a fine line to balance.

No no no, not what I meant.

Everything in this topic is speculation and is based on what ifs.

There are 2 types of reasoning you can use in this kind of speculation.

Going fully "what if" and saying things could be like this instead without really having anything to base it on

or

Drawing similarities from the past that happened through out the time period to help draw reasonable and likely conclusions that the next game may, and probably will, have.

The latter is the lesser of the 2 evils as it is a more stable process.

 

[LiteralGrill]

No no no, not what I meant.

Everything in this topic is speculation and is based on what ifs.

There are 2 types of reasoning you can use in this kind of speculation.

Going fully "what if" and saying things could be like this instead without really having anything to base it on

or

Drawing similarities from the past that happened through out the time period to help draw reasonable and likely conclusions that the next game may, and probably will, have.

The latter is the lesser of the 2 evils as it is a more stable process.

Fair enough. Now answer that writup about how cps are flawed! I've been waiting all weekend!

 

[mimgrim]

Point me to the exact post you want me to reply to. I forgot where it was.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

There are a few things i think should be brought up.

While i agree For Glory could mean characters all preform relatively well on FD, however, we do not know this yet, and thus cannot assume it is that way. To do so is illogical, it is merely an assumption. As far as we have seen from past games, not all characters can hold up to Fox, Final Destination (lol). For now, lets assume it will stay that way. For that reason, FD becomes unbalanced, and it is exactly the lack of diversity that makes it so.

I personally believe that having more diversity in maps (though still banning reasonably), tests the true strength of a player. Its one thing to practice and master a character and his particularly playstyle on a single map, but a completely different thing to be able to adapt to all different sorts of environments and terrains. Including learning how to deal with your weaknesses on other maps.

So let me get this straight, you start off by saying that we cannot assume, and to do so would be illogical because it's an assumption, and yet not but a sentence later within the same paragraph, you feel it's justified to assume the opposite? A past game doing something might be a precedent, but it is not a tale of things to come, as has been proven by other transitions from iteration to iteration. Fighting game players have been honing their skills on nothing but flat surfaces for decades.

The fact of the matter is, which Capps has been attempting to nail on in an absurdly passionate attempt to get you to understand, is that stage variation, in-directly, creates character imbalance. You're worried about balance which is understandable, your heart is in the right place, but you don't seem to see that your point of view flies in the face of balance.

No no no, not what I meant.

Everything in this topic is speculation and is based on what ifs.

There are 2 types of reasoning you can use in this kind of speculation.

Going fully "what if" and saying things could be like this instead without really having anything to base it on

or

Drawing similarities from the past that happened through out the time period to help draw reasonable and likely conclusions that the next game may, and probably will, have.

The latter is the lesser of the 2 evils as it is a more stable process.

An assumption is an assumption, no matter how you attempt to validate it. There's plenty of evidence (in the past) to support the fact that the past is not a valid source to assume balance issues on. Your speculation isn't any more special than the other side in this case.

Wait to play the game, then we can really talk about this, until then...we should talk about how characters are going to up their game to compete on a FD-only rule-set in online matches, because it's coming whether you like it or not.

 

[popsofctown]

The stage CP system has a dampening effect on the amount of variety in actual competitive play. At the very best it has a null effect. The stage counterpick system is frequently used as a substitute for the character counterpick system, the latter of which is much more interesting (especially for spectators).

In Japan, a Diddy loses to an Ice Climbers on a mostly flat stage, and game two will be playing on a mostly flat stage again. He is forced to use his counterpick opportunity to play a different character than Diddy that has a better matchup. He can't just roflofl Rainbow Cruise and play the same character like stateside.

That's an extreme case, but there's a subtle impact across the board. Game two offers players a chance to correct the pattern that lost them game 1 by trying a stage that tilts the matchup more in their favor, while requiring minimal additional practice on their part, or try a completely different character with a better matchup that requires hundreds of hours of practice to bring to the same competitive level as their main. One of those is the exception and one is the rule.

I think Battlefield is a better stage than FD, but an online standard is a good enough reason to pick FD instead. In principle, I think one stage stagelists are the best. As a spectator, I would rather get to see players switching characters every game to take advantage of weaknesses than see the same characters fighting on different stages, with the occasional ground game character getting stage counterpicked so hard that he switches to an easy to use character like Marth or MK. As a player, I'd like to enjoy the more balanced character variety that naturally brings.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Point me to the exact post you want me to reply to. I forgot where it was.

You know the saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", right? You need to prove the current system is broken first. ]You've discussed it, but you haven't really explained why or how it is flawed, in all honesty.

Which brings us back here. I'll try to sit down and do this again but go into extreme detail to hopefully not miss anything and help it be clearer, let me know where I can clarify anything.

Currently, we have certain types of stages as starter stages and others as counterpick stages.

Game one is the most important game in an entire set as the winner has the most control in terms of counterpicking stages, it's a serious advantage. In theory this means the first match should be played on as equal ground as possible to ensure the system is as fair as possible for most players. The problem is it isn't.

Currently, starter stages are general stages with no special effects of any kind and are flat with possibly a few platforms of varying number and positions. This favors characters stronger on "flat/plat" stages. (This is the meta we currently live in where they are stronger, it is of our own creation.) Let's look at characters that have more adaptability and can function in other kinds of stages and stages with special effects, movement, or any other gimick better. They are put at a disadvantage by having these as the stage they must play on first as the most important game.

Now, this could easily be argued against as "this is the meta, some characters will be good and others wont" but there is another problem: this style of stage selection gives ANOTHER advantage to those flat/plat characters.

We'll look at two scenarios. With stage striking, the flat/plat character get's a flat/plat stage since those are the only ones available (HUGE advantage getting one of your top 5 best stages if we're looking at Brawl right?). Let's say the flat/plat character won the first round. Now, the more adaptable character picks a counterpick stage to help them boost that adaptable quality they have, thus beating the flat/plat character (which there are VERY few of now a days since most just get banned even if they are perfectly good for play as I've pointed out in too many threads by TOs just because they don't personally like them and/or get beaten on them making this even more of a disadvantage). So game three comes along! Even with a ban, a flat plat character can go to optimally their 2nd best stage for game 3 and is likely to do so giving them an INSANE advantage that shuts down a lot of characters.

Now maybe that adaptable character manages to snag game one by luck. The flat/plat character can easily go to any flat/plat they want, there is NO way that banning the stages can effect this, there are so many legal. They WILL get at a minimum their second best stage for the second match, while the adaptable character may be stuck with anywhere from their 3rd to 4th best stage if they were in this position.

In short, just like in having an all FD ruleset our current ruleset favors heavily a certain type of character with a huge bias and is no better then an FD only ruleset in that manner.

The better solution comes in striking from a full list of legal stages. This allows for the most neutral stage possible for match one and keeps match one as fair as possible eliminating many of these issues. When I say neutral, I mean the stage closest to their actual matchup ratio, a stage that favors neither in a hugely significant way.

For this to work you need to have a decent number of stages, and the best part is certain stages that can't be legal because a few characters can exploit them in some way CAN be legal for all of the matchups it doesn't effect, as players can strike those stages in the relevant matchups. This allows not only for more variety, but a fairer ruleset as well.

Quoted for you!

The stage CP system has a dampening effect on the amount of variety in actual competitive play. At the very best it has a null effect. The stage counterpick system is frequently used as a substitute for the character counterpick system, the latter of which is much more interesting (especially for spectators).

In Japan, a Diddy loses to an Ice Climbers on a mostly flat stage, and game two will be playing on a mostly flat stage again. He is forced to use his counterpick opportunity to play a different character than Diddy that has a better matchup. He can't just roflofl Rainbow Cruise and play the same character like stateside.

That's an extreme case, but there's a subtle impact across the board. Game two offers players a chance to correct the pattern that lost them game 1 by trying a stage that tilts the matchup more in their favor, while requiring minimal additional practice on their part, or try a completely different character with a better matchup that requires hundreds of hours of practice to bring to the same competitive level as their main. One of those is the exception and one is the rule.

I think Battlefield is a better stage than FD, but an online standard is a good enough reason to pick FD instead. In principle, I think one stage stagelists are the best. As a spectator, I would rather get to see players switching characters every game to take advantage of weaknesses than see the same characters fighting on different stages, with the occasional ground game character getting stage counterpicked so hard that he switches to an easy to use character like Marth or MK. As a player, I'd like to enjoy the more balanced character variety that naturally brings.

I can agree, seeing lots of different characters is WAY more exciting then just seeing a stage switch. It is also true that our system does kinda make things silly at times where a player can just win the second set because they got their awesome stage where they'll just be crushed in game 3 when they are off that stage again.

 

[ryuu seika]

How many characters do you see in competitive play now? Is it more than one?
Then restricting stages to one would reduce variation as a whole.

It is a terrible idea that kills a large portion of what makes Smash unique (items are already gone).

If you really want to avoid players relying on stage counterpicks that badly, consider having legal stages random selected. Players could strike one each at the start and one after every loss, with character changes allowed after the stage is decided.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

How many characters do you see in competitive play now? Is it more than one?
Then restricting stages to one would reduce variation as a whole.

Can you elaborate on how this point is justified because there's almost no evidence to suggest smash 4's roster viability will be negatively affected by FD-only yet.

 

[LiteralGrill]

How many characters do you see in competitive play now? Is it more than one?
Then restricting stages to one would reduce variation as a whole.

It is a terrible idea that kills a large portion of what makes Smash unique (items are already gone).

If you really want to avoid players relying on stage counterpicks that badly, consider having legal stages random selected. Players could strike one each at the start and one after every loss, with character changes allowed after the stage is decided.

Can you elaborate on how this point is justified because there's almost no evidence to suggest smash 4's roster viability will be negatively affected by FD-only yet.

Plus the Japanese meta that ran FD didn't have any viability issues did it? There was still character variety including more characters then we have even.

 

[Road Death Wheel]

As far as i can see in terms of people thinking this is a worthless topic. About 25% of our community so far if for FD we should be discussing this.
(obviously i know its not the whole community but yeah so far.)

 

[mimgrim]

Quoted for you!

I thought I already replied to that. Meh. Whatever.

Currently, we have certain types of stages as starter stages and others as counterpick stages.

I am going to assume the Apex stage list + Delfino and Frigate (since those stages still show up at other things often enough).

Game one is the most important game in an entire set as the winner has the most control in terms of counterpicking stages, it's a serious advantage. In theory this means the first match should be played on as equal ground as possible to ensure the system is as fair as possible for most players. The problem is it isn't.

How about we instead look at what the community defines as fair instead?

We don't really define fair in terms of character fairness, but rather interaction fairness.

The first stage is meant to be as not distracting as possible, no hazards or transformations or anything like that, only stages that are constant and don't have any huge variables to them.

Currently, starter stages are general stages with no special effects of any kind and are flat with possibly a few platforms of varying number and positions.

That's why they are starters.

We'll look at two scenarios. With stage striking, the flat/plat character get's a flat/plat stage since those are the only ones available (HUGE advantage getting one of your top 5 best stages if we're looking at Brawl right?). Let's say the flat/plat character won the first round. Now, the more adaptable character picks a counterpick stage to help them boost that adaptable quality they have, thus beating the flat/plat character (which there are VERY few of now a days since most just get banned even if they are perfectly good for play as I've pointed out in too many threads by TOs just because they don't personally like them and/or get beaten on them making this even more of a disadvantage). So game three comes along! Even with a ban, a flat plat character can go to optimally their 2nd best stage for game 3 and is likely to do so giving them an INSANE advantage that shuts down a lot of characters.

Now maybe that adaptable character manages to snag game one by luck. The flat/plat character can easily go to any flat/plat they want, there is NO way that banning the stages can effect this, there are so many legal. They WILL get at a minimum their second best stage for the second match, while the adaptable character may be stuck with anywhere from their 3rd to 4th best stage if they were in this position.

This isn't the problem of the CP system. That's the problem of the stages that are legal. Do something with more stages and then tell me the system is unfair.

In short, just like in having an all FD ruleset our current ruleset favors heavily a certain type of character with a huge bias and is no better then an FD only ruleset in that manner.

Except our ruleset allows for more viable characters overall still.

The better solution comes in striking from a full list of legal stages. This allows for the most neutral stage possible for match one and keeps match one as fair as possible eliminating many of these issues. When I say neutral, I mean the stage closest to their actual matchup ratio, a stage that favors neither in a hugely significant way.

See above.

Plus the Japanese meta that ran FD didn't have any viability issues did it? There was still character variety including more characters then we have even.

I've already gone over this. The Japan have a totally different culture and way for playing from us. They firstly don't play for money, but rather "honor", and thus there isn;t as much pressures and encourages them to play out other characters.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

I've already gone over this. The Japan have a totally different culture and way for playing from us. They firstly don't play for money, but rather "honor", and thus there isn;t as much pressures and encourages them to play out other characters.

What the heck? Did you learn your collective knowledge of Japan through a combination of YouTube and magazine articles? What is this "honor" nonsense, it's like some comedy bit I've heard off of 4chan. You have no idea what you're even talking about.

Japanese gaming is incredibly competitive. Players arguably care more about winning any given match than western players do.

Go to any arcade, you will see hundred and hundreds of people practicing all day, any fighting game you can think of known to man. Sparring with other players. Practicing their combos and inputs, challenging players they don't even know.

Japanese players are *committed* son-of-a-guns to their game of choice. Even casual games, and rhythm game, you're always bound to see someone on the machine, moving their hands like you never even thought was possible.

It has nothing to do with "honor" (like seriously it makes me laugh out loud just reading this rubbish). That's not even an element. Japanese gamers want to win just as much as you do.

What would that have anything to do with balance on FD anyway? Your laughable, ignorant reasoning isn't even a logical explanation for why FD is the accepted meta here.

A logical explanation would be that the earth will not explode, the sun will continue to shine, and the roster will still display good variety under a FD-only rule set, just as melee and brawl was.

 

[LiteralGrill]

I thought I already replied to that. Meh. Whatever.
I am going to assume the Apex stage list + Delfino and Frigate (since those stages still show up at other things often enough).

That's quite a popular list so I'm okay with that.

How about we instead look at what the community defines as fair instead?

We don't really define fair in terms of character fairness, but rather interaction fairness.

The first stage is meant to be as not distracting as possible, no hazards or transformations or anything like that, only stages that are constant and don't have any huge variables to them.

Here's the problem, the community is WRONG. BAM!!!

No seriously, that definition is BAD. Here's why:

This isn't the problem of the CP system. That's the problem of the stages that are legal. Do something with more stages and then tell me the system is unfair.

No, adding more stages doesn't help as the match is STILL in favor for flat/plat from the very beginning. You can add every other stage that's ever been reasonably legal into the mix as CPs and the fact doesn't change that the first match is HEAVILY skewed in the favor of some characters AND also helps them in the second and third match to be even stronger. It's honestly close if not the same kind of bias FD only provides.

Match one goes to flat/plat, they can throw match two, and STILL have a huge advantage game 3. Even in a Bo5 it doesn't help.

It's FLAWED. There's a better option too which is what makes this even more silly. Why not have the match ACTUALLY be fair for the first game instead of "fair" just because we "feel" like it is? There is no reason based in logic of any kind.

How about this, prove that the CP system is logically fair and we'll talk. The problem is, you can't.

Heck, "interaction fairness"? Really? Both players have to interact with all stages equally, just because some have hazards or move doesn't change this. With multiple stages the fairest way to run a match is a List Striking system with all legal stages. It creates a fair game one allowing counterpicks to be acceptable. Providing a giant bias for game 1 IS NOT FAIR no matter how the community lies to itself to try and think it is based on "starter stages" being fair. They were originally called "neutral stages" and they had to change that wording for a reason.

Except our ruleset allows for more viable characters overall still.

The kicker is, you are wrong.

If you go by tier to YOUR specifications of Wolf and higher in Brawl (let's say C+ tier to make it even harder on me being right even) according to the Japanese Tier List an FD only ruleset would provide at least 4 more viable characters, possibly more since I didn't actually dip into C tier and only stuck with B tier even even with every possible advantage put your way an FD tier list ACTUALLY benefits more characters.

(Actually I'm not gonna lie this one surprised me a LOT. If I counted C tier which would be fair, it would have been 9 more viable characters. I thought it might be even, not in FD advantage.)

So... FD only not only has the potential to at LEAST break even with viable characters, but actually HAVE MORE VIABLE CHARACTERS then a larger stagelist.

Can you elaborate on how this point is justified because there's almost no evidence to suggest smash 4's roster viability will be negatively affected by FD-only yet.

And now from the looks of things depending on where you draw your line, FD might even produce MORE character viability.

I've already gone over this. The Japan have a totally different culture and way for playing from us. They firstly don't play for money, but rather "honor", and thus there isn;t as much pressures and encourages them to play out other characters.

Japanese gaming is incredibly competitive. Players arguably care more about winning any given match than western players do.

Go to any arcade, you will see hundred and hundreds of people practicing all day, any fighting game you can think of known to man. Sparring with other players. Practicing their combos and inputs, challenging players they don't even know.

Japanese players are *committed* son-of-a-guns to their game of choice. Even casual games, and rhythm game, you're always bound to see someone on the machine, moving their hands like you never even thought was possible.

It has nothing to do with "honor" (like seriously it makes me laugh out loud just reading this rubbish). That's not even an element. Japanese gamers want to win just as much as you do.

I'm going to give mimigrim benefit of the doubt here. What he is saying is the commonly held thing that Japanese players don't play for money. At least that's what a large amount of American players believe and have spread that idea about. (If this is wrong seriously let me know as that would change a HUGE portion of a LOT of conversations everywhere and I'd love to kill a stereotype.)

Though, economically speaking the amount of time invested in the game for no cash even if that is true is economically more money then players are playing for here in the states even. The amount of time spent practicing PLUS competiting when you could have been doing a money making activity would equal to more then the amount of time in the Us we practice plus whatever prize money a tournament has to offer.

In terms of economics, Japanese players play for more money then us even too.

(Seriously this particular post has seriously challenged some things for me, this was one part especially.)

\
The fact of the matter is, which Capps has been attempting to nail on in an absurdly passionate attempt to get you to understand, is that stage variation, in-directly, creates character imbalance. You're worried about balance which is understandable, your heart is in the right place, but you don't seem to see that your point of view flies in the face of balance.

I even like the idea of more stages but I agree. Saying "We can't have FD only, it effects balance" and wanting to add more stages IS THE SAME THING as that too effects balance. That isn't a valid reason I agree.

 

[mimgrim]

Here's the problem, the community is WRONG. BAM!!!

Nothing you can say after this will prove that is "wrong". Fair is a very subjective that has many different interpretations for many people and calling it "wrong" because you disagree with it is not ok by me. It is neither right or wrong.

No seriously, that definition is BAD. Here's why:

Only by your standards.

The kicker is, you are wrong.

If you go by tier to YOUR specifications of Wolf and higher in Brawl (let's say C+ tier to make it even harder on me being right even) according to the Japanese Tier List an FD only ruleset would provide at least 4 more viable characters, possibly more since I didn't actually dip into C tier and only stuck with B tier even even with every possible advantage put your way an FD tier list ACTUALLY benefits more characters.

(Actually I'm not gonna lie this one surprised me a LOT. If I counted C tier which would be fair, it would have been 9 more viable characters. I thought it might be even, not in FD advantage.)

So... FD only not only has the potential to at LEAST break even with viable characters, but actually HAVE MORE VIABLE CHARACTERS then a larger stagelist.

Prove it with a recent Japanese tier list, like 2013 or 2014.

And that's ignoring the fact that Japan actually isn't FD only anyways, they also play on BF and SV.

I'm going to give mimigrim benefit of the doubt here. What he is saying is the commonly held thing that Japanese players don't play for money. At least that's what a large amount of American players believe and have spread that idea about. (If this is wrong seriously let me know as that would change a HUGE portion of a LOT of conversations everywhere and I'd love to kill a stereotype.)

All I have to go on Japan is by word of mouth. and literally nothing else.


But seriously Capps. You are getting into dangerous territory here now.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Nothing you can say after this will prove that is "wrong". Fair is a very subjective that has many different interpretations for many people and calling it "wrong" because you disagree with it is not ok by me. It is neither right or wrong.
Only by your standards.

"without cheating or trying to achieve unjust advantage"

That's is in the definition of "fair". (Ignoring things like fair of skin, or beautiful for obvious reasons.) If you don't agree with that definition I'm honestly confused as that's a pretty good one. The current system gives certain characters and players and unjust advantage. Not by my standards, by pure logic. You cannot argue with logic, it is either correct or incorrect. The current system is flawed do to this unjust advantage given.

List Striking does not share this flaw. Within the system itself it does not mechanically give an unjust advantage towards any one player.

Even an FD only rulelist is better. All players know they are playing on FD only, the system only allows this one stage. even though this may change character balance everyone has this knowledge going in and no one is given a special advantage game one as they can pick any character based on this one stage standard. It doesn't have a mechanical flaw that gives an unjust advantage

Prove it with a recent Japanese tierlist, like 2013 or 2014.

I cannot read Japanese, but from what I know the last update to the tier list I could find in English was in 2012 (the wiki is a bit flawed on that one and it's sad I had to go to a GERMAN site to find this, come on SWF )

Even with the most recent tier list? It's dead even at the very line you drew when it comes to the first 14 characters (mathematically that's a duh, but still). In terms of letter tiers, there are still 4 more viable characters by your criteria.

If there is a more recent tier list and one of the Japanese players can share it please let me know so I can compare. I might even go bug the wiki for being out of date as well. But as it stands FD can create more viability by your standards or at least stay even.

All I have to go on Japan is by word of mouth. and literally nothing else.

But seriously Capps. You are getting into dangerous territory here now.

I'm not sure how it's dangerous, I'm speaking the truth. A lot of word of mouth says Japanese players don't play for money, it's something I've heard a lot as well. If that isn't true it needs to stop as it's not only false but could change quite a few debates, like the one we are having.

Though as I stated, technically if that is the case they play for MORE money then we do technically so it's a bad argument anyways.

 

[mimgrim]

"without cheating or trying to achieve unjust advantage"

That's is in the definition of "fair". (Ignoring things like fair of skin, or beautiful for obvious reasons.) If you don't agree with that definition I'm honestly confused as that's a pretty good one. The current system gives certain characters and players and unjust advantage. Not by my standards, by pure logic. You cannot argue with logic, it is either correct or incorrect. The current system is flawed do to this unjust advantage given.

List Striking does not share this flaw. Within the system itself it does not mechanically give an unjust advantage towards any one player.

Even an FD only rulelist is better. All players know they are playing on FD only, the system only allows this one stage. even though this may change character balance everyone has this knowledge going in and no one is given a special advantage game one as they can pick any character based on this one stage standard. It doesn't have a mechanical flaw that gives an unjust advantage

It is still highly subjective.

Just what is unjust? Why is your justice more right then someone elses?

I cannot read Japanese, but from what I know the last update to the tier list I could find in English was in 2012 (the wiki is a bit flawed on that one and it's sad I had to go to a GERMAN site to find this, come on SWF )

Even with the most recent tier list? It's dead even at the very line you drew when it comes to the first 14 characters (mathematically that's a duh, but still). In terms of letter tiers, there are still 4 more viable characters by your criteria.

I actually draw the line at the bottom of Upper Mid Tier, but that's jsut my personal opinion, results dictate that Wolf and above are currently viable however.

I'm not sure how it's dangerous, I'm speaking the truth. A lot of word of mouth says Japanese players don't play for money, it's something I've heard a lot as well. If that isn't true it needs to stop as it's not only false but could change quite a few debates, like the one we are having.

Though as I stated, technically if that is the case they play for MORE money then we do technically so it's a bad argument anyways.

Your getting into dangerous territory because you starting to call people who have different views from you wrong when the things are totally subjective.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Ignore this post, what I originally wrote was poorly written and I fixed that below.

 

[popsofctown]

It might happen to be true that money pressures character choices, but you definitely cannot take that as a given. There's plenty of psychology experiments out there illustrating people doing a task for free more frequently than if you pay them a small amount of money. Goodness knows how many hours of practice it takes to make a couple two hundred dollar payouts, but it's nowhere near minimum wage.


Capps, your recent posts aren't making sense because fairness, as it is usually used, is a social construct, and thus subjective or at least subject to some larger arbiter. People have big split arguments about whether when 80 blue people and 20 red people apply to Harvard if it's "fair" to accept 5 blues and 5 reds or 8 blues and 2 reds. Or 3 blues and 7 reds to make up for last year. You can substitute some mathematical/logical value in there instead if you like, but you'll need to lay that out explicitly and explain what it is. I think maybe you have one in mind but no one is caught up to it.

 

[Second Power]

After a week of lurking on this thread, I voted in favor of a FD only ruleset. It saves time during tournaments, it makes the game more accessible to newcomers, and @ LiteralGrill points about how counterpicking is schewed towards the winner of the first game, as well as character counter-picking.

 

[LiteralGrill]

It might happen to be true that money pressures character choices, but you definitely cannot take that as a given. There's plenty of psychology experiments out there illustrating people doing a task for free more frequently than if you pay them a small amount of money. Goodness knows how many hours of practice it takes to make a couple two hundred dollar payouts, but it's nowhere near minimum wage.

A fanstastic point.

Capps, your recent posts aren't making sense because fairness, as it is usually used, is a social construct, and thus subjective or at least subject to some larger arbiter. People have big split arguments about whether when 80 blue people and 20 red people apply to Harvard if it's "fair" to accept 5 blues and 5 reds or 8 blues and 2 reds. Or 3 blues and 7 reds to make up for last year. You can substitute some mathematical/logical value in there instead if you like, but you'll need to lay that out explicitly and explain what it is. I think maybe you have one in mind but no one is caught up to it.

Actually another fantastic point. Sorry @ mimgrim , I'll admit the way I just structured what I said has issues. Let me try again.

It is still highly subjective.

Just what is unjust? Why is your justice more right then someone elses?

What is unjust to you then? What is unfair?

I can't name this for everyone, but bringing everyone on as equal a playing ground as possible where no one has an advantage given to them by the system in which we choose stages and can only gain advantages by being a better player is my goal. Can we agree that the player winning on their ability as a player is the most important part of competition? If this is the case, the cp system definately has issues. If you have another definition let me hear it too so we can discuss it.

List Striking can do this and I do not understand why anyone wouldn't want the system minus it might take a bit more time to use. It can give us results where the player's ability is the true measure of the winner for the match instead of putting some players at a disadvantage simply do to how the system we have constructed works.

FD only could even still qualify under this, everyone would no going in that it is FD only, and any character choices they made would reflect that and could be done before the match. This doesn't artificially create a bias due to mechanics in choosing like the cp system does, so is still in my eyes fairer then the current system.

So mimigrim, explain to me why in your definition of fairness the cp system or your suggested system is better, maybe even look at it from my definition and see where I am coming from. And to all others reading, I'd love to hear what you guys define as fair yourself.

A bit better you two?

I actually draw the line at the bottom of Upper Mid Tier, but that's jsut my personal opinion, results dictate that Wolf and above are currently viable however.

I can draw the line there too but it ends up almost exactly the same, at a bare minimum the numbers come out even which would show that the viability of characters didn't change.

After a week of lurking on this thread, I voted in favor of a FD only ruleset. It saves time during tournaments, it makes the game more accessible to newcomers, and @ LiteralGrill points about how counterpicking is schewed towards the winner of the first game, as well as character counter-picking.

It's funny, when I started this thread I would have fought tooth and nail against FD only. I'm glad I'm representing it as well as I am. I'm trying to not be so partisan to what I personally like and try to look at things from other perspectives. It looks like I'm doing well

 

[Second Power]

It's funny, when I started this thread I would have fought tooth and nail against FD only. I'm glad I'm representing it as well as I am. I'm trying to not be so partisan to what I personally like and try to look at things from other perspectives. It looks like I'm doing well

You're doing quite good. When I first saw this thread, I actually rolled my eyes a bit. But now, of course, I'm actually hoping a few TOs try this, and it catches on. It may help that the first major smash 4 tournament (the invitational) is likely to use FD only, causing most users to take the idea into consideration.

 

[LiteralGrill]

You're doing quite good. When I first saw this thread, I actually rolled my eyes a bit. But now, of course, I'm actually hoping a few TOs try this, and it catches on. It may help that the first major smash 4 tournament (the invitational) is likely to use FD only, causing most users to take the idea into consideration.

I have a feeling online events may especially give this a go. The stage with the least lag would be helpful. Plus, at least 25% of people think this is worth considering, one of them is bound to be a TO willing to give this a shot.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

You're doing quite good. When I first saw this thread, I actually rolled my eyes a bit. But now, of course, I'm actually hoping a few TOs try this, and it catches on. It may help that the first major smash 4 tournament (the invitational) is likely to use FD only, causing most users to take the idea into consideration.

Lol

You are forgetting if it's FD only, it's probably going to emulate For Glory mode

For Glory is going to be degenerate with its Time mode

The stage with the least lag would be helpful.

I'm gonna go cry

 

[LiteralGrill]

Lol

You are forgetting if it's FD only, it's probably going to emulate For Glory mode

For Glory is going to be degenerate with its Time mode

It may be, but I'm guessing people will easily convert over to stock if you ask. Not playing timed isn't as huge a leap to make as some things.

I'm gonna go cry

Good! Get outa here! No one loves you anyways!!!



I'm just kidding come back...