A Final Destination Only Ruleset

[Ulevo]

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.

The brand or title doesn't make the game. If you want proof of that, look no further than Killer Instinct for XBox One, and see how that's workin' out. I enjoy a game for its substance, not its distributor or lineage.

I was expressing an opinion on how I think the majorty sees things. I don't care in the long run.

 

[Aninymouse]

The brand or title doesn't make the game. If you want proof of that, look no further than Killer Instinct for XBox One, and see how that's workin' out. I enjoy a game for its substance, not its distributor or lineage.

I was expressing an opinion on how I think the majorty sees things. I don't care in the long run.

Implying the Killer Instinct characters like Jade (or any of those other characters I don't remember the names of) are anywhere near as recognizable and well-liked as Mario and friends is laughable.

A study found that Mario is the most well-known cartoon character in the entire world. He beat out Mickey Mouse, Ronald McDonald, and everybody else they tested for. Sit on that one for a moment.

 

[Ulevo]

Implying the Killer Instinct characters like Jade (or any of those other characters I don't remember the names of) are anywhere near as recognizable and well-liked as Mario and friends is laughable.

A study found that Mario is the most well-known cartoon character in the entire world. He beat out Mickey Mouse, Ronald McDonald, and everybody else they tested for. Sit on that one for a moment.

Fortunately I wasn't making that implication, but thanks for the strawman.

So suddenly because a game, or a character, has a bigger following than another, it suddenly invalidates what I just said? Okay.

 

[LiteralGrill]

There is a fair point that a lot of what makes smash is the fact that we knock people off the stage, the rising percentages, and the characters. It is what makes our game so much different then other fighters. there are other fighters where the stages does matter even.

The brand or title doesn't make the game. If you want proof of that, look no further than Killer Instinct for XBox One, and see how that's workin' out. I enjoy a game for its substance, not its distributor or lineage.

I was expressing an opinion on how I think the majorty sees things. I don't care in the long run.

It is true, people have wanted KI to come back for YEARS. Just because it has a great name on it doesn't mean it will be a great game. But that substance of what makes our game different in the knocking off the stages and the growing percentages is what makes us unique. Less stages won't change that as drastically as some people think.

 

[Ulevo]

There is a fair point that a lot of what makes smash is the fact that we knock people off the stage, the rising percentages, and the characters. It is what makes our game so much different then other fighters. there are other fighters where the stages does matter even.



It is true, people have wanted KI to come back for YEARS. Just because it has a great name on it doesn't mean it will be a great game. But that substance of what makes our game different in the knocking off the stages and the growing percentages is what makes us unique. Less stages won't change that as drastically as some people think.

You're probably right in that it won't change a whole lot, but I mean that's subject to interpretation. I'm just saying its one part of the accumulative whole that makes Smash unique compared to other games in the genre that people like it for both casually and competitively.

 

[Aninymouse]

There is a fair point that a lot of what makes smash is the fact that we knock people off the stage, the rising percentages, and the characters. It is what makes our game so much different then other fighters. there are other fighters where the stages does matter even.



It is true, people have wanted KI to come back for YEARS. Just because it has a great name on it doesn't mean it will be a great game. But that substance of what makes our game different in the knocking off the stages and the growing percentages is what makes us unique. Less stages won't change that as drastically as some people think.

Exactly.

And yes, the Nintendo brand is a pretty huge part of Smash's wide appeal.It's a trusted brand in the world. People like me grew up with their entertainment devices.

There's a reason I've never bothered with Cartoon Network's or Playstation's knock-off versions of Smash: I don't care about those characters. They mean nothing to me. The characters keep me coming back.

Take away some stages, and I'm still gonna be hyped up and ready to play it. Most tournaments today are played on less than 10 stages, anyway. Some are only rarely seen.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

Exactly.

And yes, the Nintendo brand is a pretty huge part of Smash's wide appeal.It's a trusted brand in the world. People like me grew up with their entertainment devices.

There's a reason I've never bothered with Cartoon Network's or Playstation's knock-off versions of Smash: I don't care about those characters. They mean nothing to me. The characters keep me coming back.

Take away some stages, and I'm still gonna be hyped up and ready to play it. Most tournaments today are played on less than 10 stages, anyway. Some are only rarely seen.

It's not a stretch to say you see maybe at most 3-4 unique stages during a tournament, and that's on a good day.

 

[LiteralGrill]

If we look at the Apex ruleset (which just about everyone uses now) it's 8 stages, but the 5 stage set list of just the starters is also pretty common.

If we're really honest, you pretty much only see the starters getting used nowadays anyways with Smashville being king.

 

[ryuu seika]

@Zipzo: Stage variety isn't a reason to watch a competitive match. It's a reason to watch a second. Assuming no change in character or stages, why not just pick the very match and never watch another? Different situations (characters, stages, controller ports to an extent) result in different optimal plays, meaning that, even at the absolute highest level imaginable, the game will play out completely differently.

@ANinyMouse: People can't understand that FD only balance is possible? I do. I just don't see it as desirable. A variety of playable stages would be much preferred, for me atleast.

@ The Nintendo brand discussion: It's a gateway. If Smash was a badly made game, noone would play it competitively. This community exists because of the games, not their visuals. People pick up a game for the concept but it's gameplay that keeps them from putting it back down.

 

[mimgrim]

If we look at the Apex ruleset (which just about everyone uses now) it's 8 stages, but the 5 stage set list of just the starters is also pretty common.

If we're really honest, you pretty much only see the starters getting used nowadays anyways with Smashville being king.

most other places add Frigate or Delfino, or both as well. So it's more like 8-10 stages.

People can't understand that FD only balance is possible? I do. I just don't see it as desirable. A variety of playable stages would be much preferred, for me atleast.

Possible? Sure. Anything is possible.

Probable? Nope.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

Possible? Sure. Anything is possible.

Probable? Nope.

There are at the very least a handful of *good* arguments from your side that you could choose to either piggy-back on, or back up, yet your argument continues to be fantastically terrible.

"It can't work cuz I don't trust Sakurai to make the game good"

I mean seriously.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Everyone does keep forgetting that we get patches this time around, so there is a chance that if the balance isn't great it might get fixed.

 

[mimgrim]

Everyone does keep forgetting that we get patches this time around, so there is a chance that if the balance isn't great it might get fixed.

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Aninymouse]

@ANinyMouse: People can't understand that FD only balance is possible? I do. I just don't see it as desirable. A variety of playable stages would be much preferred, for me atleast.

@ The Nintendo brand discussion: It's a gateway. If Smash was a badly made game, noone would play it competitively. This community exists because of the games, not their visuals. People pick up a game for the concept but it's gameplay that keeps them from putting it back down.

I agree that stage variety is desirable. But I can argue that the 3-5 top stages we see now aren't enough variety to keep interest after watching a few matches. For the player, it doesn't matter as much, but obviously new visuals help keep players from losing their sensitivity over long periods of time. FD only actually has a lot to offer both the player, but moreso to the viewer, who will get new stage graphics and music quite often, with a realistic amount of 15 or more versions of FD, if we take Sakurai at his word: "Most stages" will have a FD mode.

And while I agree with the premise of your brand post, I disagree with the "gate" analogy. Brand does go before gameplay, but gameplay with branding tacked on is not enough. Look at all the dissatisfaction over canon departures in Smash (Ganondorf), or the irritation over the Landmasters, etc. No, I'd say you need a healthy dose of both. They are much more complimentary in nature, rather than one leading you to the other and ceasing to be important beyond entry level. Keep in mind, Smash needs to work for spectators as well as players. Off topic, but that's the reason I like Soul Calibur more than I like King of Fighters, or Tekken more than Street Fighter: there is a visual component, there is a brand component, and a gameplay component, and they all work together.

 

[LiteralGrill]

I'll believe it when I see it.

I guess we wait and see then?

Either way, I wanted to chime in and say that the numbers for FD only are sliding up a tad. It was 30% earlier today. This might be viable in some way.

 

[RascalTheCharizard]

"No" still has more than double the votes though.

 

[LiteralGrill]

"No" still has more than double the votes though.

True, but the fact that even a fourth of our community is considering this says something. I wasn't expecting that much honestly.

 

[mimgrim]

True, but the fact that even a fourth of our community is considering this says something. I wasn't expecting that much honestly.

That's a bit of a stretch. Most of the people who voted, for both sides, more then likely are newer members who are mainly here for the Smash 4 hype and will probably leave to too long after Smash 4's release.

If you want a good look at how the community in whole views it, you need to go to other parts of the board and get them to vote on this and stuff.

85 votes is not a good representative of the community.

 

[LiteralGrill]

That's a bit of a stretch. Most of the people who voted, for both sides, more then likely are newer members who are mainly here for the Smash 4 hype and will probably leave to too long after Smash 4's release.

If you want a good look at how the community in whole views it, you need to go to other parts of the board and get them to vote on this and stuff.

85 votes is not a good representative of the community.

Yeah, but these things tend to bring out the more vocal folks, and those folks tend to be on the other side. It's just curious that the number is that high even in our small sample.

 

[RascalTheCharizard]

Yeah, but these things tend to bring out the more vocal folks, and those folks tend to be on the other side. It's just curious that the number is that high even in our small sample.

So you'd rather bias the results with minorities than majorities? Neither is a good option. Mix the two, don't try to skew the data.

 

[LiteralGrill]

So you'd rather bias the results with minorities than majorities? Neither is a good option. Mix the two, don't try to skew the data.

I'm not wanting to bias the results at all, I really was just surprised at how the numbers look is all. I wasn't even expecting more then a few FD only is all. Don't read into it so much O_O

 

[popsofctown]

I think what Capps is trying to convey is that he wouldn't even expect that same total number of FD favored votes if the poll had census-level participation, therefore no matter the magnitude of the skew it is interesting to him.

 

[LiteralGrill]

I think what Capps is trying to convey is that he wouldn't even expect that same total number of FD favored votes if the poll had census-level participation, therefore no matter the magnitude of the skew it is interesting to him.

What he said.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Sorry for the double post, but I had a thought that might spark some conversation. You know how they are inviting players for the big tournament at E3? What if all of those matches end up happening on FD, would that be somewhat Nintendo endorsing the idea?

 

[RascalTheCharizard]

Sorry for the double post, but I had a thought that might spark some conversation. You know how they are inviting players for the big tournament at E3? What if all of those matches end up happening on FD, would that be somewhat Nintendo endorsing the idea?

I'd see that as Nintendo not knowing what competitive play is really like (as usual) and just using For Glory's ruleset. Can't go wrong with the rules the game offers right? That last question was rhetorical and sarcastic btw.

 

[LiteralGrill]

I'd see that as Nintendo not knowing what competitive play is really like (as usual) and just using For Glory's ruleset. Can't go wrong with the rules the game offers right? That last question was rhetorical and sarcastic btw.

Maybe that would be the case, but even then if they think "For Glory" is where competition should happen... Eh. I think bigger then that would be tons of people watching "top pros" play on that stage pushing the idea that it is the competitive stage farther. Like imprinting the idea psychologically.

I wouldn't be surprised if they went FD only though so that if they really got good pros they couldn't exploit things in other stages like size or walls... Hrm...

 

[Second Power]

Even if the rules for the invitational allow for all stages, we'll probably only see Battlefield and Final D, simply because the smashers won't know how to play the other stages. They're something that has to be learned, like with characters.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Even if the rules for the invitational allow for all stages, we'll probably only see Battlefield and Final D, simply because the smashers won't know how to play the other stages. They're something that has to be learned, like with characters.

That's actually a fair point, players will be wanting to get the feel of the game way more and that'll be harder on different stages.

 

[ryuu seika]

That is a very valid reason for FD only at the invitational but sadly, as Capps has said, it will only serve to further the assumption amoung newcomers that For Glory is the only real way to play competitively.

 

[LiteralGrill]

That is a very valid reason for FD only at the invitational but sadly, as Capps has said, it will only serve to further the assumption amoung newcomers that For Glory is the only real way to play competitively.

It is true. It seems silly to think about, but we gotta think about the new blood coming to the competitive scene and their preconceptions. We did a nasty job of conversion on Brawl and didn't explain things well at all, and if a bunch of people come in wanting FD only how will we respond?

 

[ryuu seika]

Maybe we could compromise with FD(s) as the only starter?

 

[LiteralGrill]

Maybe we could compromise with FD(s) as the only starter?

Hmm... That still has issues. It's the same kind of problem the cp system we have now has.

 

[ryuu seika]

While that is true, are there any better options for a counterpick system available?

 

[LiteralGrill]

While that is true, are there any better options for a counterpick system available?

All stages are legal, no starters and no counterpicks as classifications. If you strike the first match from a list of all legal stages, it removes the bias provided on game one in the current system.

 

[ryuu seika]

And what about game 2?

 

[LiteralGrill]

And what about game 2?

Counterpick from any legal stage (minus DSR and such). As long as game 1 is fair, counterpicking is fine.

 

[ryuu seika]

But you say all stages are legal. By that logic I can counterpick by playing Metaknight on rumble falls.

 

[LiteralGrill]

But you say all stages are legal. By that logic I can counterpick by playing Metaknight on rumble falls.

I think I didn't explain that correctly there, let me explain myself.

Stages just aren't classified as counterpick and starters. We would still define a legal stagelist to get rid of insane stages. This just keeps match one fair.

 

[ryuu seika]

Assuming that we define starters properly, that should make little difference. Your argument appears to be that starters aren't as neutral as they should be and therefore a problem with the community's choices, not the rules themselves.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Assuming that we define starters properly, that should make little difference. Your argument appears to be that starters aren't as neutral as they should be and therefore a problem with the community's choices, not the rules themselves.

Not exactly. Starters should be every stage available to fight on, there is no way for us to decide which stages "are the most fair" as that is different for every matchup. There would be nothing more then saying a stage is legal or banned, and all the legal stages struck from.

It is true that we aren't defining them properly now, but if we just try to classify them in some other special ways it won't work either. all stages should be treated equal if they are legal.