A Final Destination Only Ruleset

[ryuu seika]

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.

No, its character viability might not be harmed by a lack of stage variety but stage variety itself brings interest to the game. Unless the variety of characters who are playable is VASTLY increased by FD only, I think the loss of stage variety wouldn't be worth it.
I would still be willing to try it though.

 

[LiteralGrill]

No, its character viability might not be harmed by a lack of stage variety but stage variety itself brings interest to the game. Unless the variety of characters who are playable is VASTLY increased by FD only, I think the loss of stage variety wouldn't be worth it.
I would still be willing to try it though.

If we compare from Brawl, I showed it would either be exactly the same or actually in favor of FD only. While that means very little to the next game, it shows that FD only could be worthy from a character viability standpoint.

 

[Second Power]

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

Where did they confirm time mode. Stock may not be confirmed. What is confirmed, however, is that this mode is targeting competitive players. 99% of which prefer stock to time.

And no need to be condescending about it.

 

[ryuu seika]

If we compare from Brawl, I showed it would either be exactly the same or actually in favor of FD only. While that means very little to the next game, it shows that FD only could be worthy from a character viability standpoint.

Yes, and what I'm saying is that character variety is not the only form of variety. Stages bring excitement to the game too and the fact that Smash's vary in more than just size and aesthetic is something unique to the game that I feel should be embraced.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Yes, and what I'm saying is that character variety is not the only form of variety. Stages bring excitement to the game too and the fact that Smash's vary in more than just size and aesthetic is something unique to the game that I feel should be embraced.

I did mention "the spirit of smash" in the OP, it's a worthy point to consider I agree.

 

[mimgrim]

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.

I never said it was. I said it was what the community deemed to be fair. It's what has been deemed just by the majority.

Think about the law system.

It is inherently good or bad. Morality is a very subjective concept and what is good or evil differs from person to person. However we as a society created a set of laws so as to fit what we have deemed to be fair and just and things like that.

The rulesets we have overall created for each game can be comparable to that basically.

I could probably explain myself better then this, but bleh. I think you will be able to get what I am getting at.

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.

To be fair. People aren't doing all that good of explaining themselves on the defending side. I know I definitely have a hard time forming what I am trying to get at at times. Someone more experienced could probably do a much better job then what I am doing lol.

 

[LiteralGrill]

I never said it was. I said it was what the community deemed to be fair. It's what has been deemed just by the majority.

Think about the law system.

It is inherently good or bad. Morality is a very subjective concept and what is good or evil differs from person to person. However we as a society created a set of laws so as to fit what we have deemed to be fair and just and things like that.

The rulesets we have overall created for each game can be comparable to that basically.

I could probably explain myself better then this, but bleh. I think you will be able to get what I am getting at.

I got what you meant. Yes, the idea of morality in terms of what is fair or isn't fair could be subjective. But once we as a community see that something is wrong or broken, we should fix it as a moral obligation. Like when we went from random stage selection to counterpick. It was the right choice at the time. Now that we know there is something better, we should do that again be it FD only, List Striking, or maybe something EVEN better then those no one knows yet. Some will not want to change it just because it benefits them there is no denying this, they don't care that it's wrong as long as it helps them win. The others should do their best to stand up to that.

I also slightly question the community being as big a part as we think. A very select few in the community have actually made these decisions, not the masses. I've gone over that way too many times, and it will be difficult to change that.

To be fair. People aren't doing all that good of explaining themselves on the defending side. I know I definitely have a hard time forming what I am trying to get at at times. Someone more experienced could probably do a much better job then what I am doing lol.

I also agree on that sadly, but it's not like you aren't doing a good job either. Average maybe? I really feel like more people on the pro stages side gotta step in and defend I agree. Though some it might be that we're presenting good arguments as well. I think more then anything the conversation has a large psychological shift to it where both sides have good points and it's tough to "find a winner".

 

[mimgrim]

I got what you meant. Yes, the idea of morality in terms of what is fair or isn't fair could be subjective. But once we as a community see that something is wrong or broken, we should fix it as a moral obligation. Like when we went from random stage selection to counterpick. It was the right choice at the time. Now that we know there is something better, we should do that again be it FD only, List Striking, or maybe something EVEN better then those no one knows yet. Some will not want to change it just because it benefits them there is no denying this, they don't care that it's wrong as long as it helps them win. The others should do their best to stand up to that.

But is it really better?

I also slightly question the community being as big a part as we think. A very select few in the community have actually made these decisions, not the masses. I've gone over that way too many times, and it will be difficult to change that.

Yet the masses seem to agree with those select few.

 

[ryuu seika]

Yet the masses seem to agree with those select few.

Long term players will tend to come to terms with and accept the decisions that are made for them, so long as they aren't too opposed from the get go. After all, they have to if they want to continue at the competitive level.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

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

Whiiiiich is basically nothing.

No, its character viability might not be harmed by a lack of stage variety but stage variety itself brings interest to the game. Unless the variety of characters who are playable is VASTLY increased by FD only, I think the loss of stage variety wouldn't be worth it.
I would still be willing to try it though.

I don't mean to be dismissive but since when has the smash community here ever truly cared about what people on the outside think? The point of a tournament is to grind a match down to who the better player is, and many things are banned & slashed as a catalyst for that objective. Most of the Brawl community feels justified in eliminating the existence of an entire character from the mix, how do you think that looks like to outsiders?

It's incredibly hypocritical to back a community who's general purpose is to spread the ideals of a fair & competitive player, that which includes getting rid of tons of stages, items entirely, even a whole character, a community who's brought on itself the stereotype of "No items, Fox only, Final Destination", and then counter with the logic that an FD-only rule-set would be bad simply because it brings less interest to the game visually. The competitive smash community has never been about bending the perceived fairness and balance of their tournaments just for the sake of increasing interest, outside or in, and definitely not for an aesthetic requisite.

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.

Allow me to dispel both doubt and myth. Japanese players seldom play for money (money matches) but it's absolutely irrelevant to anything, competitive-wise.

First of all, have the people making this argument ever considered that money matches actually have a skewing effect on the tier list in the negative direction? When money is on the line, that is indeed a form of pressure, and when a player is under that kind of pressure, they may feel limited to picking characters that they already know and are aware perform well in high caliber match-ups, which ultimately prevents positive experimentation. This creates an avalanche effect in the direction of the top of the tier list, because people will pick from the designated pool of characters that have already shown to have great results in high-pressure settings, which is generally how tier lists are observed. When money is not on the line, people feel more motivated to try their meddle with characters less appraised, and thus, allowing performances not yet seen before to occur with characters that no one thought was possible, which often happens here in Japan, and is often noticed by western players.

The Japanese tier list is based off the same thing the NTSC tier list is, which characters perform the best, most often, in tournament settings. There's no ridiculous third party element like "pressure of money matches" being formulated in to that.

We may not always play for money on the table, but that doesn't change the desire to win any less. It's just money. More important to Japanese players is simply just winning. Japanese players are passionate about games and their performance in them, we don't need to have money on the table to be striving to play our best. We seek performance no matter the odds.

This means that money matches themselves, more often than not, are likely yet unintentionally lowering character variety.

 

[Thirdkoopa]

Capps, never change. We need more people like you around here.

So okay, thoughts:

1. Let's work up and start with having FD and maybe Battlefield only - I think all your reasoning is at least good in short term. You know what I heard happened when Brawl came out? People played on Mario Bros and Distant Planet at tournaments. The hell? (I have heard real stories regarding this) and let's not lie to ourselves - Eventually, we cut almost every stage anyways. Why keep the middle man in the process? So we can have a back room vote on it? Frankly, it'll piss off more people if say, someone gets really good at a counter pick and then it's banned. If you really don't think most stages get banned, please take a look at the stage list.

2. We need to consider doubles - So far this is looking to be the best smash game for doubles, why let FD in the way of that? Even if we go FD only, it won't bode well in doubles. It's way too small and little breathing room to formulate the chemistry needed.

3. Until proven otherwise, the FD variations all have different properties - this'll need more research than people think. Not so much with characters but more with stages. Heck, there might even be anvils again like Brawl's FD, or we may have FD's that are bigger. They all look quite different...

4. This may just be the best option for the 3ds - no other comment

5. AA said this in WritersBlah's thread, but we should abolish counter picks as a whole - as in, they're either banned or not banned. The concept can still be there (unless we do FD only and it's all the same properties, but I doubt that with what we've seen so far)

Gah. I'd have more to type if I wasn't on my phone but there you go. Great thread.

 

[LiteralGrill]

But is it really better?

In terms of player skill being the main determinate for a win in a match? Yes. This may be a personal belief, but I feel player skill alone should decide match outcome and I'll bet others feel the same. Anything that makes player skill not the most important aspect of a match should be removed.

Yet the masses seem to agree with those select few.

Those that remain. You know how people say if people don't agree with an event they wont go? It's somewhat true, and somewhat false. No one is skipping apex if they don't like the rules as an example. But many communities during the rise of Brawl started cutting a lot of things and straight up were giant jerks to anyone who disagreed. People were turned off to the community and never came back.

The issue is, there is a majority NOW. That majority used to be there and was just ignored. If you are going to argue majority rules (fallacy but anyways) then that majority should have gotten what it wanted and didn't. Honestly, if you wanted to stay competitive you HAD to keep playing too, not showing up to events is your death sentence competitively even if you don't agree with the rules. The "put your money where you agree with" mentally doesn't work here, and the players that tried just got left behind.

@ Overswarm I recall that you had a survey of players who had quit playing once where a pretty hefty percent said they'd come back if they were actually listened to on stages, is that true or is it my memory playing tricks on me?

Long term players will tend to come to terms with and accept the decisions that are made for them, so long as they aren't too opposed from the get go. After all, they have to if they want to continue at the competitive level.

Exactly.

I don't mean to be dismissive but since when has the smash community here ever truly cared about what people on the outside think? The point of a tournament is to grind a match down to who the better player is, and many things are banned & slashed as a catalyst for that objective. Most of the Brawl community feels justified in eliminating the existence of an entire character from the mix, how do you think that looks like to outsiders?

It's incredibly hypocritical to back a community who's general purpose is to spread the ideals of a fair & competitive player, that which includes getting rid of tons of stages, items entirely, even a whole character, a community who's brought on itself the stereotype of "No items, Fox only, Final Destination", and then counter with the logic that an FD-only rule-set would be bad simply because it brings less interest to the game visually. The competitive smash community has never been about bending the perceived fairness and balance of their tournaments just for the sake of increasing interest, outside or in, and definitely not for an aesthetic requisite.

It is true that our community has long been a grass roots effort where we try to ignore people from outside of the community who don't care for us or think we're stupid. But we're really hitting our stride, MLG is picking up Melee again, we're getting into the public eye now, and I think a lot of players want to keep that going to see how huge it can get.

We should have cared at least a little before hand though, we've done stupid and scrubby things in the past we need to own up to.

But keeping interest in the game from within is a bit important, and bringing new folks in needs to be considered. We wont all be young forever, we'll die out without any new blood at all. I don't think FD only is as much a detriment to that though. Having the game and matches and rules be highly recognizable and easily learn-able makes the game even better for viewers. More viewers and our game gets even bigger

Quick learning course!

Allow me to dispel both doubt and myth. Japanese players seldom play for money (money matches) but it's absolutely irrelevant to anything, competitive-wise.

First of all, have the people making this argument ever considered that money matches actually have a skewing effect on the tier list in the negative direction? When money is on the line, that is indeed a form of pressure, and when a player is under that kind of pressure, they may feel limited to picking characters that they already know and are aware perform well in high caliber match-ups, which ultimately prevents positive experimentation. This creates an avalanche effect in the direction of the top of the tier list, because people will pick from the designated pool of characters that have already shown to have great results in high-pressure settings, which is generally how tier lists are observed. When money is not on the line, people feel more motivated to try their meddle with characters less appraised, and thus, allowing performances not yet seen before to occur with characters that no one thought was possible, which often happens here in Japan, and is often noticed by western players.

The Japanese tier list is based off the same thing the NTSC tier list is, which characters perform the best, most often, in tournament settings. There's no ridiculous third party element like "pressure of money matches" being formulated in to that.

We may not always play for money on the table, but that doesn't change the desire to win any less. It's just money. More important to Japanese players is simply just winning. Japanese players are passionate about games and their performance in them, we don't need to have money on the table to be striving to play our best. We seek performance no matter the odds.

This means that money matches themselves, more often than not, are likely yet unintentionally lowering character variety.

You know... That's seriously a great point. I had thought of "economic money made", but never thought that the way we play for money could actually be hurting some parts of the game. I can really see this happening too. I understand that low tier characters wont see as much play minus those few dedicated famous players for those characters, but the fact that after a bit into the game the experimenting honestly stops is sad too, who knows what low tier character is just waiting to destroy the meta that just has almost no one backing him? (G&W in Melee really comes to mind.)

Capps, never change. We need more people like you around here.

I'll try man.

[quotes]So okay, thoughts:

1. Let's work up and start with having FD and maybe Battlefield only - I think all your reasoning is at least good in short term. You know what I heard happened when Brawl came out? People played on Mario Bros and Distant Planet at tournaments. The hell? (I have heard real stories regarding this) and let's not lie to ourselves - Eventually, we cut almost every stage anyways. Why keep the middle man in the process? So we can have a back room vote on it? Frankly, it'll piss off more people if say, someone gets really good at a counter pick and then it's banned. If you really don't think most stages get banned, please take a look at the stage list.[/quote]

I'd like a lot more stages legal then not, but I agree that especially at the start of Brawl stages were... crazy. Heck it was the same in Melee too though, when I took over the old G&W guide on the Melee forums it was talking about games on Mushroom Kingdom II as back then it was a common legal stage.

It's true though, in the end we generally end up cutting almost everything and maybe only playing on 5 stages anyways which sucks. We either have to say "We are going to limit the stages" and not lie about it, or say "we'll keep everything that isn't broken" and actually do it. This wishy washy behavior just makes both sides angry, and while I want more stages I'll support less if it will strengthen the community.

But two stages won't work, we gotta have an odd number for just selection reasons. Maybe in the end it'll be Battlefield only, or FD only, or we'll get a perfect third stage. But if it's not an odd number we gotta randomly select again which would suck!

2. We need to consider doubles - So far this is looking to be the best smash game for doubles, why let FD in the way of that? Even if we go FD only, it won't bode well in doubles. It's way too small and little breathing room to formulate the chemistry needed.

That's a tough point. I bet FD only doubles could work but I also do understand your concerns. I'm not sure how to combat them though, if we had at least 3 stages it would maybe help but you'd still end up playing on it at some point

3. Until proven otherwise, the FD variations all have different properties - this'll need more research than people think. Not so much with characters but more with stages. Heck, there might even be anvils again like Brawl's FD, or we may have FD's that are bigger. They all look quite different...

It's true, and if this was the case FD only may have a bit more life, especially if we can use those variants offline as well.

4. This may just be the best option for the 3ds - no other comment

I agree. Being the 3DS guy I'm honestly considering this a lot as it may be something the 3DS needs to be successful. Bigger faster events are the things the 3DS can offeer, one stage standard for introducing new players could be a huge plus as well.

5. AA said this in WritersBlah's thread, but we should abolish counter picks as a whole - as in, they're either banned or not banned. The concept can still be there (unless we do FD only and it's all the same properties, but I doubt that with what we've seen so far)

I agree. The current system doesn't work right, stages should either be legal or banned with stage striking to pick the first stage. If it's just one stage that's easy lol, but if there's more it still wont be that bad.

Gah. I'd have more to type if I wasn't on my phone but there you go. Great thread.

I hope you have a computer some time soon, and I'm glad the thread is good!

 

[Overswarm]

Capps-

That was years ago; most people have moved on since then and don't even enter smash events anymore. I couldn't answer accurately with a number anymore.


As for an FD only ruleset, it's not different than a (insert stage) only ruleset. They're bound to be limiting because they have a strict definition of "good" and "bad" because there are no variables changing other than character. Certain characters excel on FD. Those will be the good characters. Certain characters do poorly on FD, especially given those who excel. Those will be the bad characters


Side note:

Anything that makes player skill not the most important aspect of a match should be removed.

This is know as a "broad statement" and "useless".

I played Darkrain in Melee on Green Greens and got him down to one stock high %, despite being 3 stocked on one of the starters earlier. This is when I was WAY worse, a top 16 player.

I was able to beat Vidjo, Iggy, all sorts of good midwest players on CP stages because I knew them better. I was exhibiting "player skill" and this could be proven due to my consistency. What others thought was "random", I knew was not.

Your statement doesn't account for the kind of skill you actually mean.

The only thing that matters to make a game competitive is consistent results.

That's it. Everything else is just a form of preference, one way or another. There are still "right" and "wrong" within the preference spectrum based on achieving goals, but still preference.

Why ban Kongo Falls in Melee? Because Fox can easily time out the majority of the cast there so you have to play Fox and the optimal strategy is an unpopular one.

"So?"

We just decided we don't want the optimal strategy to be "time out" and we want lots of people to be forced to play Fox.

Why not make an FD-only stage list? Because certain characters, especially those with big grab games like ICs, are given a huge advantage and mobility is almost entirely removed from the equation.

"So?"

We just decided we don't want lots of people to be forced to play ICs and like a variety of characters as well as displaying the skill of mobility.


It goes on and on with everything. Unless the answer to "so?" is "It creates inconsistent results that are not conducive to a competitive environment", it's all preference.

/thread
/unsubscribe

 

[LiteralGrill]

Capps-

That was years ago; most people have moved on since then and don't even enter smash events anymore. I couldn't answer accurately with a number anymore.


As for an FD only ruleset, it's not different than a (insert stage) only ruleset. They're bound to be limiting because they have a strict definition of "good" and "bad" because there are no variables changing other than character. Certain characters excel on FD. Those will be the good characters. Certain characters do poorly on FD, especially given those who excel. Those will be the bad characters

/thread
/unsubscribe

Would you link me anyways? I still think that the information from then could still be interesting and I wanna read it again anyways.

Also it was interesting earlier, when we compared some thresholds for viability FD only was either better or at least dead even. I know you might not like the idea, just don't entirely discount it. Either way there will be good and bad characters, and a bit of mathematics show the numbers at a minimum would be at least the same. Why is that bad?

 

[Deleted member 245254]

As for an FD only ruleset, it's not different than a (insert stage) only ruleset. They're bound to be limiting because they have a strict definition of "good" and "bad" because there are no variables changing other than character. Certain characters excel on FD. Those will be the good characters. Certain characters do poorly on FD, especially given those who excel. Those will be the bad characters.

Yes this is an accurate observation...for melee and brawl. Even so it's not as if the things you describe are un-counterable. As you said, you beat players on CP stages. That's what real skill is, and skill is strong enough to shine through any somewhat inevitable checks and balances that FD will have on each character in Smash 4.

Think about it like this.

The way it is now, a character is ALWAYS advantaged, because people pick the stage where they have that advantage. Every single match. So I don't even really see how "some characters have an advantage" is even a good argument, because that's the case either way.

A predetermined stage that you can expect to play on, that you can dedicatedly train on, those are parts of a good recipe for fair and balanced match ups, leaving the character balance affair up to the developers.

 

[Overswarm]

Would you link me anyways? I still think that the information from then could still be interesting and I wanna read it again anyways.

Also it was interesting earlier, when we compared some thresholds for viability FD only was either better or at least dead even. I know you might not like the idea, just don't entirely discount it. Either way there will be good and bad characters, and a bit of mathematics show the numbers at a minimum would be at least the same. Why is that bad?

You can search smashboards if you want, I've got 20k+ posts. I ain't gonna do it.

I'll answer your "why is that bad" question with another one:

Why don't we do Pokefloats only FFAs with items?

Because you get consistent results with them, so really it's just preference.


Okay... one more post. Quick lesson time.

There are two schools of thought in how to balance a game. Everyone is at one point on this line.

There are Constructionists and Originalists. I have bolded the most important advantages below.

Originalists, on the extreme end, believe you should leave in as much of the game as possible. When you see something as a problem, you remove it, but only after it has proven itself to be an issue do you remove it.

Advantages:

• You get more content in the game
• As time goes on, nothing gets "unbanned" or "reintegrated" because you have recorded reasons for why it was removed in the first place
• You, by definition, end up with the best possible game given your goals
• It allows for the widest expression of play
• It removes opinion from the matter entirely (no direct conflict between "I like playing on FD only" and "I like playing with items only" as they're both discounted. No one cares what you want, only what can be removed via proof)

Disadvantages:

• It's very very slow
• It requires people to live through particularly unsavory things (Example: "Why ban items?" = Wait for proof = Eddie losing a set by down+bing and an explosive create spawning in his path, killing him and losing him the tournament)

Constructionists, on the extreme end, believe you should cut away as much of the game as possible until you get to the "core" that you're looking for. They use an axe, not a scalpel. When you see something that COULD be a problem or doesn't add directly to the game you want, you remove it immediately.

Advantages:

• It's incredibly fast. You can have your ruleset on release day.
• It's easier to grasp; it's hard learning a whole game, much easier if there are less variables to consider
• It caters directly to players that don't want to spend more time on game aspects they don't care about (see: learning CP stages or hazards)
• It removes the possibility that "bull****" stuff happens to players in high profile events; no exploding crates here

Disadvantages:

• It's inconsistent and driven totally by opinion, meaning that two people with the same goal can have the same conclusion
• Game aspects are banned, unbanned, and banned again depending on the TO / region, making an inconsistent playing field
• Things you actually would like can be removed prematurely due to lack of knowledge

There's a rough sketch for you.

Originalists and Constructionists can easily want the same game but have different ways of going about it.

I am a clear Originalist. I want as much of the game as possible and, most importantly, want a reason for everything to be banned. A REAL reason, not a theorycraft reason.

"Why are items banned, OS?"

Because we saw in Melee that they can spawn with explosive canisters mid-move, killing a player. This amount of variance is unacceptable.

"You can turn off explosives in Brawl!"

Because in Brawl we saw healing items appear in mid-air and be picked up by an aerial. This ability to "randomly" pick up items is an intrusion you can't prepare for and is unacceptable.

"Why is (stage X) banned?"

Because we tested it extensively in and out of tournament and the results were either inconsistent (making it non-competitive) or consistent in requiring a non-desired form of play (circle camping, scrooging, CC and wall teching, edge camping on walkoffs, etc.)

"But what about Hyrule Temple? You didn't test that!"

Yes I did, and results were conclusive.

That's why I'm an Originalist.

"Why are items banned, mr. Constructionist?"

"Because we don't want to play with items"

That doesn't do it for me.


The biggest issue with being an Originalist is that it takes a long time. We played on Port Town Aero Dive in the midwest for a long time and we learned the stage backwards and forwards. It's a GOOD stage despite the extreme hazards, but as we learned how to avoid the hazards we also learned how to manipulate them. We learned that getting lower port (for grabs) and grabbing the opponent resulted in them being murdered. The stage became more about playing to the hazard and less the stage and game itself. That took months. Constructionists said "those cars are strong, banned".

If you're not the kind of person who can deal with that kind of stuff, you're probably in the "Constructionist" camp. Constructionist philosophy is very popular with new players and "REAL SKILL" players. The "extreme" constructionists are the kids that literally play Fox Only Final Destination.

Most people aren't that far on either scale. When I see Palutena's stage on Smash 4 I say "That is incredibly large. We can time out and circle camp there easily." I know it will be banned from competitive play easily. A 'pure' Originalist would test it first.

A 'pure' Constructionist can say "Let's play FD only" and their reasoning be as little as "I want to play only on FD". It's not right, not smart, not clever, it's just a clear personal goal. "I want to play only on FD" = "Let's play FD only", the consequences are separate.


So when you have these kinds of discussions, figure out where you are on that scale.

Do you want the best game possible and are willing to deal with some hiccups? You're Originalist.

Do you want the game you can make right now by removing the things you don't want and are okay with cutting some questionable stuff to do it? You're Constructionist.


If you're an Originalist and trying to explain to a Constructionist why "FD only isn't a good ruleset", unless their goal is something way off like "increased character viability" you can't convince them. They don't have logic, they have a personal goal.

If you're a Constructionist trying to explain to an Originalist why "FD only is the end result", the Originalist will simply say "then we'll end up there, but we don't have the evidence yet".

Yes this is an accurate observation...for melee and brawl. Even so it's not as if the things you describe are un-counterable. As you said, you beat players on CP stages. That's what real skill is, and skill is strong enough to shine through any somewhat inevitable checks and balances that FD will have on each character in Smash 4.

Think about it like this.

The way it is now, a character is ALWAYS advantaged, because people pick the stage where they have that advantage. Every single match. So I don't even really see how "some characters have an advantage" is even a good argument, because that's the case either way.

A predetermined stage that you can expect to play on, that you can dedicatedly train on, those are parts of a good recipe for fair and balanced match ups, leaving the character balance affair up to the developers.

Hey, you're right!

1v1, Yoshi only on Wario Ware is the new tournament standard.

This is a recipe for fair and balanced match ups, leaving character balance entirely out of the question!

What's your real goal?

 

[Deleted member 245254]

Hey, you're right!

1v1, Yoshi only on Wario Ware is the new tournament standard.

This is a recipe for fair and balanced match ups, leaving character balance entirely out of the question!

What's your real goal?

I'm going to go in to Smash 4 under the evidenced notion that it will be balanced for as many characters as possible on Final Destination. If it doesn't turn out that way, shucks.

My goal is to attempt to keep our minds open so we don't shut down the game in a flurry of hyper-elitist assumptions based on past games and false pretenses.

What possible positive benefit do I have to gain from anything ulterior to that?

Do you think I secretly want Smash 4 to suck or something?

 

[Road Death Wheel]

I hear allot about character advantages and such. We are not sure of the balance in FD
But can somebody or a few people post a list of the characters that have an advantage or disadvantage on FD from the previous installments.?
I hear camping is better on FD and then i hear rush down is better on FD I think a list of characters that people call advantageous or disadvantageous would be useful.

 

[LiteralGrill]

You can search smashboards if you want, I've got 20k+ posts. I ain't gonna do it.

Well it was worth a shot

I'll answer your "why is that bad" question with another one:

Why don't we do Pokefloats only FFAs with items?

Because you get consistent results with them, so really it's just preference.

While that's a fair answer, it almost ins't in a way. I think we look for more then JUST consistent results when playing.

There are Constructionists and Originalists.

I've read the several version of this explanation, but it is really something good for this thread. Maybe in a way I am a Constructionist but not for the usual reasons. I really put a lot of stock in strengthening the community and what it will take to make smash bigger then ever before. I'll take the road that makes the game the most successful even if it isn't quite to my taste as well.

That may be because I plan to work with the 3DS though, and since everyone wants to throw it under the bus I have to think about how to keep a community for that game strong since it will need it. FD only in that standpoint looks attractive to me.

 

[ryuu seika]

I don't mean to be dismissive but since when has the smash community here ever truly cared about what people on the outside think? The point of a tournament is to grind a match down to who the better player is, and many things are banned & slashed as a catalyst for that objective. Most of the Brawl community feels justified in eliminating the existence of an entire character from the mix, how do you think that looks like to outsiders?

It's incredibly hypocritical to back a community who's general purpose is to spread the ideals of a fair & competitive player, that which includes getting rid of tons of stages, items entirely, even a whole character, a community who's brought on itself the stereotype of "No items, Fox only, Final Destination", and then counter with the logic that an FD-only rule-set would be bad simply because it brings less interest to the game visually. The competitive smash community has never been about bending the perceived fairness and balance of their tournaments just for the sake of increasing interest, outside or in, and definitely not for an aesthetic requisite.

Lets say this were a different fighting game. Pick one, almost any will do. Would we even be discussing this? Of course we wouldn't! In those games, stage choice really is just an aesthetic but here, in the world of Nintendo crossovers, it actually makes a gameplay difference. I'm not arguing for diverse visuals and putting on a show for the crowd, I'm arguing for actual, meaningful, diverse gameplay options.

Would you consider playing Fox only? No? Then why would you think FD only any better? Characters may be the most important part of the game but stages play an important role, too. Suggesting that FD only would result in a greater variety of viable options is a joke.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Would you consider playing Fox only? No? Then why would you think FD only any better? Characters may be the most important part of the game but stages play an important role, too. Suggesting that FD only would result in a greater variety of viable options is a joke.

Hey hey! I JUST got done analyzing that, it ends up AT LEAST EQUAL in terms of viable characters. So...Yeah.

I do agree that the "spirit of smash" really is a huge point of consideration though, having different stages really is something that makes our game very different and special.

 

[ryuu seika]

Hey hey! I JUST got done analyzing that, it ends up AT LEAST EQUAL in terms of viable characters.

Yes but a lot more distinct situations can be had with X viable characters and Y viable stages when Y is a decently large number compared to when it is one. So long as X remains reasonably similar (which we have yet to have reason to disbelieve), a higher Y results in a vast increase in viable combinations.
This is good for keeping players interested, gameplay fresh and competitors tested to their limits. All things that should be beneficial to the competitive experience.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Yes but a lot more distinct situations can be had with X viable characters and Y viable stages when Y is a decently large number compared to when it is one. So long as X remains reasonably similar (which we have yet to have reason to disbelieve), a higher Y results in a vast increase in viable combinations.
This is good for keeping players interested, gameplay fresh and competitors tested to their limits. All things that should be beneficial to the competitive experience.

There's an easier way to put it. It adds more depth.

More depth is better for us hardcore players, but is worse for the new players and those who watch the stream.

 

[ryuu seika]

Right, well, now that my viewpoint has been expressed in words people seem to understand, my job here is done.
I have nothing against FD only as an option, only as the only option. Using FD as an introductory level might well work.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Right, well, now that my viewpoint has been expressed in words people seem to understand, my job here is done.
I have nothing against FD only as an option, only as the only option. Using FD as an introductory level might well work.

Dat 3DS... the system that could introduce a ton of people to the game before they move to the Wii U for competition. It's a big possibility.

 

[ryuu seika]

I'm not really a fan of this assumption that real competition will never happen on the 3DS. It does look to be almost entirely gimmicky hazard filled non-viable stages though so I can't say it's baseless.

 

[LiteralGrill]

I'm not really a fan of this assumption that real competition will never happen on the 3DS. It does look to be almost entirely gimmicky hazard filled non-viable stages though so I can't say it's baseless.

We can hope for more stages to be revealed, especially with E3!

 

[Deleted member 245254]

Lets say this were a different fighting game. Pick one, almost any will do. Would we even be discussing this? Of course we wouldn't! In those games, stage choice really is just an aesthetic but here, in the world of Nintendo crossovers, it actually makes a gameplay difference. I'm not arguing for diverse visuals and putting on a show for the crowd, I'm arguing for actual, meaningful, diverse gameplay options.

Would you consider playing Fox only? No? Then why would you think FD only any better? Characters may be the most important part of the game but stages play an important role, too. Suggesting that FD only would result in a greater variety of viable options is a joke.

You're right in that less stages is less variety, but less stages or variety doesn't actually always mean less exciting competition.

Let's take another look at other fighting games...haven't they been fighting on nothing other than flat surfaces with a slightly different coat of paint (which is essentially the case in For Glory) for generations now? Smash is still trying to hang on to the friggin' coat tails of FGC (though arguably recently it's started to pick up a lot of traction), even with its smorgasbord of stage variety.

My point here is that less is sometimes more. Stage variety is likely not a very high priority reason people watch and enjoy Smash fights. It really isn't. People watch for the same reason they watch the next Marvel/SF tournament. They want to watch professional players duke it out, under pressure, for fame, riches. There's drama. There's odds. There's people up on that stage comparing skill in a game that both are equally as immensely passionate about. This means a lot to them, winning that is. To see a player lose. To see their reactions at whatever the result.

In this case, less is actually more. A flat, neutral stage is non-imposing in any regard to this purpose. That's what watching a fighting game is. That's why other fighting games experience more success than Smash. I seriously doubt you watch just for the pretty colors.

I can bet you that if Street Fighter had platforms, some characters would benefit more from that, in a similar case, characters inherently benefit from the fact the stages are simply flat more than others. If to that you say "No, because traditional fighting games are balanced on a flat stage"...that's my friggin' point, in this case so is Sakurai (stated by himself!), and he's working with people who do this with a popular fighting franchise.

 

[Ulevo]

I think that if you start promoting rulesets that deviate from what makes Smash unique in its own respect compared to other traditional fighters, you'll begin to lose the interests of people who might want to play this game competitively, regardless if it is inherently a "better" or more balanced ruleset you suggest. This is why the community has such a drive to keep things like items, even though we know better, and to keep certain stages, despite many high level tournament players sharing the consensus that they're probably not fit for tournament play.

On a completely subjective note, I like stage variety. I feel it makes the game more interesting, it requires more skill to be good on more than a few, or even one stage. And in the past iterations its allowed for certain characters to remain more balanced amongst the cast than they otherwise would have been; a desirable side effect to stage variety.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

I think that if you start promoting rulesets that deviate from what makes Smash unique in its own respect compared to other traditional fighters, you'll begin to lose the interests of people who might want to play this game competitively, regardless if it is inherently a "better" or more balanced ruleset you suggest. This is why the community has such a drive to keep things like items, even though we know better, and to keep certain stages, despite many high level tournament players sharing the consensus that they're probably not fit for tournament play.

On a completely subjective note, I like stage variety. I feel it makes the game more interesting, it requires more skill to be good on more than a few, or even one stage. And in the past iterations its allowed for certain characters to remain more balanced amongst the cast than they otherwise would have been; a desirable side effect to stage variety.

Fair point.

I'm curious however, how you would rank stage variety among the reasons you enjoy seeing a professional smash match, innocently curious.

However, isn't it possible to attribute, distinguish, and identify the unique characteristics of Smash through say, the combat? The unique aspect of having to knock your opponent off the stage to take a stock? The fact you play as a heinous amount of characters from the Nintendo-verse (and more)?

Are these traits in their entirety just not enough to the point where stage variety needs to be the missing link that makes smash interesting?

Technically I'm only referring to platforms, since if visual variety is what you want...we're kind of getting that, For Glory wise (and I imagine they'll all be selectable otherwise).

 

[LiteralGrill]

Seeing more stages might be interesting to US. To new players all of this added depth hurts our viewership. There is something to say that our game can get more hype and even get bigger, more sponsorship, and BIGGER PRIZES EVEN with more viewers. Moving from just a game to a huge e-sport will take us considering the viewer a bit more.

 

[Aninymouse]

Quick learning course!

Off topic, sorry, but I wanted to say that I really liked this video, and found myself agreeing with most of it.

Why is this noteworthy? It's not, to anyone else, but to me it's a big deal. I kinda knew the guy who does these waaaay back when I frequented the OCR forums, and he was, like, the most annoying guy. I used to disagree with most of his videos and hated how people gushed all over them.

Seeing that he's kept this up and produced a reasonable video puts me at ease.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Off topic, sorry, but I wanted to say that I really liked this video, and found myself agreeing with most of it.

Why is this noteworthy? It's not, to anyone else, but to me it's a big deal. I kinda knew the guy who does these waaaay back when I frequented the OCR forums, and he was, like, the most annoying guy. I used to disagree with most of his videos and hated how people gushed all over them.

Seeing that he's kept this up and produced a reasonable video puts me at ease.

The fact that you agree with it may mean something else as well. I'm finding I'm more for building our community then maybe holding a specific side on the debate. It's not a position I thought was possible, but now I see it is. Making our community bigger and making our sport into a big thing would be amazing, I think that's my goal!

Also, man you knew those guys a bit? They've made some fantastic videos...

 

[Aninymouse]

I think that if you start promoting rulesets that deviate from what makes Smash unique in its own respect compared to other traditional fighters, you'll begin to lose the interests of people who might want to play this game competitively, regardless if it is inherently a "better" or more balanced ruleset you suggest. This is why the community has such a drive to keep things like items, even though we know better, and to keep certain stages, despite many high level tournament players sharing the consensus that they're probably not fit for tournament play.

On a completely subjective note, I like stage variety. I feel it makes the game more interesting, it requires more skill to be good on more than a few, or even one stage. And in the past iterations its allowed for certain characters to remain more balanced amongst the cast than they otherwise would have been; a desirable side effect to stage variety.

Speculative.

Smash has the Nintendo brand. Take away platforms, and you still have Nintendo. That is undoubtedly the draw for Smash, not Battlefield itself.

I think you are wrong, sir, and are needlessly worrying.

 

[Aninymouse]

I'll just throw my hat in this real quick.

I used to think "FD Only/For Glory" was stupid. "Sakurai believed the in-joke," I thought. Then I learned that Japan prefers FD over any other stage. Now Sakurai's decision began to make sense. Then, I read Capp's OP.

It's too early to tell.

We need the game first to see how characters are or are not balanced for For Glory.

And I still think my post holds true, honestly. It is too early. We don't have much evidence one way or the other, and we don't have the game in our hands.

But what I did not realize, is that people can be so used to doing things the way they have always been done that they will not even entertain the possibility that Sakurai and his team could deliver on his promises and premises. FG/FD can and will work if they do a stellar job of balancing characters for that mode. BUT, enough TOs have to be persuaded to give it a chance, first, before the game comes out. And so for that, I think this thread has done a great service: both sides have had many pages of detailed discussion of possible pros and cons, and have laid out their best reasoning. For the TO that's not sure what the best path is to take for their event, this thread does attempt to lay out the pros and cons of both methods of stage selection. Right there, in the OP! Hats (or caps) off to @ LiteralGrill for doing a stellar job.

Since this whole debacle, I've switched over to believing that FG/FD Only for competition is a valid and worthy style of play for us. I mean, the Japanese have already played that way for quite some time; and it could be argued that they are as good as our best, or better. It works for them. Why can't it work for us?

But that's not all. Really, the main reason I think FD/FG Only would be best? It cuts out the bickering by taking a strong stance on stages, right from the get-go.

Now please indulge some speculation, so I can make the following point:

Let's say a few TOs decide to run FG/FD, initially. After a few events, let's say... Yoshi is found to be clearly OP on FD and most FD clones. People are sure some platforms would help immensely, to help block the deadly rain of eggs. [So, in this instance, FG/FD turned out to not be the best. In this instance, I have to eat my hat, and many of you get to engage in a big I Told You So.] So now those same TOs want to integrate Battlefield and... let's say 3 other stages. People have something to get hyped over - something new to train for. Adding stages is more likely to build interest, rather than taking stages away. Taking stages away doesn't get people hyped, unless you're banning a really awful stage that should have never been legal, I guess. And all the while, people have had time to try out all the stages and get a feel for which are the most neutral.

Now that's enough speculation. How about some solid footing?

The 3DS version is going to be out for at least 3 months before the Wii U version hits. There are undoubtedly going to be some small time tournaments for 3DS, but maybe not any big events during that time. But, during those 3 (or more) months, people will be playing with the new and revamped characters and stages, and building a metagame. We will learn just about everything there is to learn about Smash 4. Sure, the Wii U version might introduce something, or a new AT might show up later, but in general, we're going to have a lot of time to try out most everything and see what's what.

Those 3 or so months of 3DS-only play are going to be crucial to see how the FD/FG mode really stacks up. It helps that the 3DS stages we've seen thus far all look BANNED like whoa. Really, FG mode for 3DS might end up the standard, anyway. So we're going to get some good practice in!

When the Wii U version hits, and people start thinking about adding Smash 4 to bigger events (assuming this wireless controller thing doesn't cause major road blocks), we will have the trial experience from which to draw for all our decisions. This doesn't have to be an issue we decide right away. In fact, it benefits both sides to continue to debate this once the 3DS version comes out in a month or thereabout.

 

[mimgrim]

The chances of Sakurai doing a stellar job at balancing, in general, is extremely low. He is still being a stubborn mule by doing all the balancing himself, like he did for the past games and look how they turned it up in terms of balance lol. My faith in him doing proper balance is super low.

Also, once something gets banned by the competitive community, it's probably gonna stay banned. So the problem with FD only at the start would result in it being the norm. So that even if evidence proves otherwise, and it probably would, more stages wouldn't get added. It's a very particular quirk of the community.

 

[Angiance]

Blah-blah-blah, Battlefield is better, etc. etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPKB-PT80Uw

 

[Aninymouse]

The chances of Sakurai doing a stellar job at balancing, in general, is extremely low. He is still being a stubborn mule by doing all the balancing himself, like he did for the past games and look how they turned it up in terms of balance lol. My faith in him doing proper balance is super low.

Also, once something gets banned by the competitive community, it's probably gonna stay banned. So the problem with FD only at the start would result in it being the norm. So that even if evidence proves otherwise, and it probably would, more stages wouldn't get added. It's a very particular quirk of the community.

It already is the norm, as dictated by the game itself. Smash 4 is a totally different game from 64, Melee and Brawl. We do not have to play it the exact same way.

Meta Knight got banned, and it was reversed.

People can change and adapt. They can refuse to as well, but sometimes it's best to change.

 

[popsofctown]

I think the notion of a battlefield only ruleset has its merits too. If it so happens that Yoshi breaks FD (I like this example I am going to reuse it), having Battlefield as a tournament standard allows online veterans to switch from one one-stage meta to a different one-stage meta, which is as little culture shock as possible. It retains all the benefits of a one-stage meta. It also makes it very easy for new players to practice during the period they are thinking about joining the scene. It was rather hard for a player with a passing familiarity with the specifics of the competitve scene to practice in advance for Brawl, they can't remember a fifteen stage stagelist that is rapidly changing every time they hear about it. But if they know the meatworld tournaments use battlefield, that's simple enough to remember and try out (just like casual players try out the easy to remember item legality list used in brawl and melee in advance)

 

[LiteralGrill]

The chances of Sakurai doing a stellar job at balancing, in general, is extremely low. He is still being a stubborn mule by doing all the balancing himself, like he did for the past games and look how they turned it up in terms of balance lol. My faith in him doing proper balance is super low.

We have patches this time... I recall Sakurai admitting if he could have patched Brawl he would have fixed MK in an interview once. I doubt he'll just ignore a ton of fans coming to him. Pluss as we mentioned before, some characters are just better in 2v2 and FFA then 1v1, there's nothing wrong with that, not every character needs to be a 1v1 powerhouse.

Also, once something gets banned by the competitive community, it's probably gonna stay banned. So the problem with FD only at the start would result in it being the norm. So that even if evidence proves otherwise, and it probably would, more stages wouldn't get added. It's a very particular quirk of the community.

This is rather true. However, we honestly have 2 different games this time. I think honestly "at worst" FD only would stick to the 3DS version only. When the Wii U comes out you're going to have an honestly different game and people will want to test. Since most people wanna just throw the 3DS overboard at that point anyways I have a feeling if FD only doesn't look as attractive at that point it will be able to change for the Wii U. This is a unique situation where we have a "test dummy" of sorts for once, we should try and use it.

I think the notion of a battlefield only ruleset has its merits too. If it so happens that Yoshi breaks FD (I like this example I am going to reuse it), having Battlefield as a tournament standard allows online veterans to switch from one one-stage meta to a different one-stage meta, which is as little culture shock as possible. It retains all the benefits of a one-stage meta. It also makes it very easy for new players to practice during the period they are thinking about joining the scene. It was rather hard for a player with a passing familiarity with the specifics of the competitve scene to practice in advance for Brawl, they can't remember a fifteen stage stagelist that is rapidly changing every time they hear about it. But if they know the meatworld tournaments use battlefield, that's simple enough to remember and try out (just like casual players try out the easy to remember item legality list used in brawl and melee in advance)

If FD were to be too big a problem I could agree to this as well, as little culture shock as possible while letting players get in with a simple change. Possibly if we're lucky, maybe we'll have 3 good stages and can work with that as well as an option. keeping it simple for new players will help us a lot, and a TON of new people will be coming to us with the 3DS.