• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

A message to Smash Tournament hosts

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mew2King

King of the Mews
Joined
Jul 18, 2002
Messages
11,263
Location
Cinnaminson (southwest NJ 5 min drive from Philly)
Think of it this way AZ

if there's 1 minute left on the clock, and you're at least stock 100%, there's still a high chance you can time them out

imagine the same scenario with 3 minutes

time out isn't very likely - AT ALL -

in fact, they wouldn't be encouraged to GO OUT OF THEIR WAY to try to win by a timeout since it wouldn't be feasible at all. It could very well SHORTEN tournaments as an added bonus, besides also (the main reason) making matches end more "properly" (not via time out, since generally time outs are looked down upon).

so yes it makes a big difference. Has nice pros with no cons.

Furthermore, Melee timer is the same as Brawl timer, yet Melee matches only take HALF THE TIME TO COMPLETE

AZ that isn't true at all, one of the main things I do is just get near my opponent and overspace a full jump retreating Dair so that if they approach during that time then they take damage, and if I don't hit them then I'm still safe. It's the same type of strategy Hbox uses with his Bairs.
 

Heartstring

Smash Legend
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
11,129
Location
England
I've never understood why you would want use to watch camping for an extra 2 minutes?

Looking at the data we have we know less than 1% of all matches even go to time, so extending the time limit 2 minutes
1) Doesn't really make a difference since very very few matches go to time anyways
2) Doesn't really make a difference since some matches WILL STILL GO TO TIME.

Actually, IIRC from the analysis of the MLG match slips, it was likely half of those matches (39 IIRC out of several thousand) would still have gone to time had the timer been extended to 10 minutes.
although its nice to use data whenever possible, it cant be applied so well in this scenario
1) its not so much about it going to time, its about people attempting to make it go to time. if the tiemr was longer then it would be much harder for time out. therefore people would be less likely to attempt to time out.
2) i think youll find if the time limit was increased it would be much less likely that any timeouts occur, as i said above. its a change in mentality. in melee 8 mins was a LONG time to try and stall out. in brawl-a much slower paced game-its considerably easier to make a match go to time, even with one less stock. with a longer timer, people are less likely to try and timeout. i know for certain i wouldnt ever try to timeout for 5 minutes, but i would probbly try it for 3 minutes. those 2 minutes could make a big difference
of course, this side of the arguement lacks any true data as its experimental. perhaps you could try and ask someone in a defensively minded area to increase the time limit, and then report what happens
 

Mew2King

King of the Mews
Joined
Jul 18, 2002
Messages
11,263
Location
Cinnaminson (southwest NJ 5 min drive from Philly)
Well it's just my opinion (but I'm VERY sure of this), but it seemed VERY EASY for me, chu, and azen to transition over into Brawl after all of our years of melee. I think we understood the game series much better than almost everybody else did. Even Ally has been playing melee for 5 years before Brawl came out. I just feel like I understood what to do and how the engine works, how to get gimps, set up kills, and a bunch of different situations. Anything similar or the same was automatically carried over, while I just had to play a lot and learn from experience the differences.

edit - ohhh I see what you're saying. Yeah basically brawl thinks they are melee and they try to use the same concepts and rules. The timer thing is what I have the biggest gripe over, and in that sense the games aren't comparable at all since melee matches are only half as long as brawl matches

HOWEVER From playing BOTH games I feel like I had great understanding of smash CONCEPTS, which carried over.

with an extended timer, people (except overswarm and people like him that will CLEARLY BE GOING OUT OF THEIR WAY TO TRY TO PROVE YOU WRONG) will be less ENCOURAGED to time people out, as me and Golden-psyco have stated above.
 

Heartstring

Smash Legend
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
11,129
Location
England
indeed, people who play melee seem to transfer to brawl easily enough
but from personal experience, trying to go from brawl to melee is incredibly difficult in comparison. it kinda cements melee as being the most tournament viable smash game in my mind (although im thoroughly a brawl, haha)
 

TheCrimsonBlur

Smash Master
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Messages
3,407
Location
LA, CA near Santa Monica
didn't all of the nationals (Pound/Apex/Genesis) in the past few years use the MBR ruleset?

I haven't been paying attention to things
No.

I mean obviously they're similar because the rulesets don't change that much tournament to tournament anymore, but they haven't been exactly the MBR ruleset. Frankly though, no one even cares about the MBR ruleset (most don't even know it; its irrelevant). Its always called "Pound rules," "Genesis rules," etc.

The MBR lost so much relevance in the Melee community that it has been defunct for like the past 3 years. They just recently started it up again. It wasn't very powerful before then either...

The greatest legacy of the MBR is their tier lists, not their rulesets...I think the Brawl community could learn a thing or two from the Melee community. We've been functioning for 10 years without nearly as much drama as the Brawl community has done in only 3....stop with the ****ing politicking.

Tournament organizers decide rulesets. The biggest tournament organizer has the most power in standardizing a ruleset. Alex Strife hosts a half dozen tournaments a year, including the biggest one of all. He has a "road to Apex" series of tournaments that span across the globe and follow his rules. He is connected to both the Melee and Brawl communities, and is liked (overall) by both. His clout so far exceeds the collective power of the URC that its comical that people take them seriously...
 

Smooth Criminal

Da Cheef
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,576
Location
Hinckley, Minnesota
NNID
boundless_light
So technically it encompasses content on the site, something that the admins have to regulate, like standardized rules of posting etiquette and content..? Am I off the mark here?

...I don't agree with that. You're supplanting the people that are part of this community, an even greater majority that exists beyond your precious numbers for URC's ban, with an even smaller and even more isolated minority. Some of them bust their *** to get the tourney that they want off of the ground, and because they don't adhere to a standard that is optional to begin with, they don't get something as simple (yet beneficial) as a sticky? Are you going to tell me that none of the NON-URC tourneys are going to matter, somewhere down the line?

This doesn't sound like the hub for Smash Bros. I've known for the past five years. It's starting to seem like an impassioned effort for absolute control with or without the cooperation of everyone else.

Smooth Criminal
 

KuroganeHammer

It's ya boy
BRoomer
Joined
Jul 15, 2012
Messages
15,985
Location
Australia
NNID
Aerodrome
76% of the community? Or 76% of the people who took the poll? Because I'm not sure they're the same thing.
I think you should assume the rest of the community doesn't care.

MK being banned by a bunch of people who don't use MK is weird.

The BBR should have had the final say.

Tournaments that don't use the Unity ruleset should be stickied too imo.

Smashboards have always said: "We can't force you to use our ruleset blah blah blah, BUT IF YOU DON'T WE WON'T STICKY YOUR THREAD. HA. HA. HAHA. HGAAGAHVFJKREWHNFKLREHBDFKDj"

I liek 2 stocks 6 minutes.

I don't care about MK being banned because:

1. He's not broken enough (high tier match ups are all -1 or even)
2. Him being banned would still make the game more diverse.

imo anyway
 

Mic_128

Wake up...
Administrator
BRoomer
Joined
Jun 19, 2002
Messages
46,175
Location
Steam
Think of it this way AZ

if there's 1 minute left on the clock, and you're at least stock 100%, there's still a high chance you can time them out

imagine the same scenario with 3 minutes

time out isn't very likely - AT ALL -
If you can camp the minute away without being touched, it doesn't matter if it's 1 minute or 3.

in fact, they wouldn't be encouraged to GO OUT OF THEIR WAY to try to win by a timeout since it wouldn't be feasible at all. It could very well SHORTEN tournaments as an added bonus, besides also (the main reason) making matches end more "properly" (not via time out, since generally time outs are looked down upon).HALF THE TIME TO COMPLETE
....what? If they're in a position where they can win by camping, they'll do it. They aren't going to say 'Ah crap, I have to camp out for 3 minutes instead of 1 guess I'll just take the loss' they'll try and stay alive. There's nothing wrong with that, but having people go 'well the only way to win is to camp, so I guess I'll just quit since people don't like it' isn't going to happen, because if it did, it'd be happening now.

When was the last time you were in the position of being able to win via camping but instead giving up?

Increasing the timer just means that camping will go on for longer in the small percentage of matches where it already occurs.
 
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
963
Location
Chicago,IL
NNID
MasterHavik
I actually like what they are doing. They are trying to bring life to the game. If you think the game is fine with pocket mks and mk seconds in top 8. Then so be it. No one isn't going to stop you from giving them their money.
 

ryulord_678

Smash Cadet
Joined
Oct 5, 2011
Messages
33
I think everyone here wants the game to have "life," they just disagree on what that means and how to implement it.

Not only did the URC get random power and legitimacy from nowhere to bring about a very controversial meaning to giving "life" to the game, it was implemented in the worst way that I think is possible.

(Maybe choosing random poster and having them decide on a new ruleset would be worse; I'm still not sure yet.)
 
D

Deleted member

Guest
The MBR lost so much relevance in the Melee community that it has been defunct for like the past 3 years. They just recently started it up again. It wasn't very powerful before then either...

The greatest legacy of the MBR is their tier lists, not their rulesets...I think the Brawl community could learn a thing or two from the Melee community. We've been functioning for 10 years without nearly as much drama as the Brawl community has done in only 3....stop with the ****ing politicking.

Tournament organizers decide rulesets. The biggest tournament organizer has the most power in standardizing a ruleset. Alex Strife hosts a half dozen tournaments a year, including the biggest one of all. He has a "road to Apex" series of tournaments that span across the globe and follow his rules. He is connected to both the Melee and Brawl communities, and is liked (overall) by both. His clout so far exceeds the collective power of the URC that its comical that people take them seriously...
You don't know what you're talking about.

The MBR was mine in 2009 and 2010. I made it specifically what the MBR started out as: a reserved version of Melee Discussion for our community's best and brightest members. That's all was. It was never a "power" and we only produced rule sets and tier lists because the community asked for them. Like an opinion. A big collective opinion.

The BBR actually exists as a source of influence on that community. And it has to. Brawl has to be very specifically molded to be competitive. It has nothing to do with having a better community, the game simply requires more mediation. The Brawl community won't "learn" anything.

Tournament Organizers are the ultimate authority on their rule sets, but they often work directly with both back rooms heavily. Alex Strife is no exception, and he's worked with the back rooms time and again to make his tournaments run so well. You act as if they are on opposing sides, when this is probably the first time a major TO has outright opposed either back room in terms of policy.
 

Alex Strife

Smash Hero
Joined
Apr 24, 2006
Messages
9,839
Location
NYC
As far as my decision to not use their ruleset. It was really a decision that I felt would be best for a International event that we make a ruleset that was best for all. I will say in Brawl/Melee I never really liked having Brinstar/Rainbow Cruise/Pokemon Stadium 2 on. I felt that they would not help the better person win but just someone who knows the stage better ( I know there are details about that regarding knowing a stage means you are a better player but that is not the discussion I want to bring up and this is just my opinion ). I made the stagelist I felt was best for the community. Other rules such as the Ganon/Kirby/DDDcide I do not agree with also. The URC was made to have Tos compromise in order to get a better ruleset for everyone. I just felt those main things are something I did not want to change. I felt that it would be better the way I have it now.

In the end I will have to end up using the URC ruleset because of the MK ( Low-level players will not want to go to a MK legal tournament IMO ) despite of how I feel on it or not. I can say a lot about how it is way to late to ban anyone but that is neither here or there.

There is more I can say about this but I guess this should do.
 

Jellyfishn

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
387
Location
Utah
Go Gimpy! Totally agree with everything you say.


Here's what I think:
-stop saying MK wins nationals when 90% of them are from me
^^This!!

Sure Meta Knight is good. But the Meta-game won't change that drastically without him. Almost all characters have a worse matchup than the Meta Knight Matchup. MK is beatable as we have all seen.

The reason I am sick of MK is not because of the MK mains. It is because of all the people that think that MK is overpowered and second him for that reason only.


If we want MK to stop winning national tournaments, lets just stop M2K from winning them. I am not a fanboy, but I do think that the reason that M2K is good is that he puts time into the game.
 

John12346

Smash Master
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
3,534
Location
New York, NY
NNID
JohnNumbers
Yeah, we'll do that once M2K actually becomes responsible for winning a FIFTH of MK's winnings.

Meta Knight:
Cash Won(No Split): 49592.77
Mew2King: 8484.77 - 17.11%

In direct comparison to that, we have:

Diddy:
Cash Won(No Split): 10613.63
ADHD: 2655.68 - 25.02%

Snake:
Cash Won(No Split): 19231.29
Ally: 7173.08 - 37.30%

Falco:
Cash Won(No Split): 9230.11
Ally: 2299.28 - 24.91%

I could go on with this, but you all get the idea, right?

So, exactly which characters get to attest their winnings to ONE PLAYER?
 

Alex Strife

Smash Hero
Joined
Apr 24, 2006
Messages
9,839
Location
NYC
he said nationals john not tournaments overall..the best character usually makes the most money though :\
 

John12346

Smash Master
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
3,534
Location
New York, NY
NNID
JohnNumbers
Ah, my mistake. -___ -;

I guess that would call for a:
That doesn't matter. On the national level, you are no longer an outlier because everyone is a lot closer to your level at that point.

We can attune national level rankings to the characters, rather than the players a lot more reliably in this scenario.
Also, and this is at everyone else, so people have a point of reference to work off of, when all 2011 NA tournaments are taken into account, MK is winning 45.91% of all tournament money, and when all 2011 NA regionals and nationals are taken into account, MK takes a defiant rise to 59.05% of the tournament money.

I never took data for nationals only, but I'm pretty sure it won't ultimately vary that much.
 

Jellyfishn

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
387
Location
Utah
I never said that M2K was the only one that was winning with Meta Knight. I said that Meta Knight is good(in fact the best), but he is beatable. However, M2K is at the top of MK's and is therefore winning National tournaments. But there are others who are not Meta Knight Players who are up there at the top as well.
 

Keitaro

Banned via Administration
Joined
Sep 14, 2006
Messages
11,941
Location
Piscataway, NJ
Yeah, we'll do that once M2K actually becomes responsible for winning a FIFTH of MK's winnings.

Meta Knight:
Cash Won(No Split): 49592.77
Mew2King: 8484.77 - 17.11%

In direct comparison to that, we have:

Diddy:
Cash Won(No Split): 10613.63
ADHD: 2655.68 - 25.02%

Snake:
Cash Won(No Split): 19231.29
Ally: 7173.08 - 37.30%

Falco:
Cash Won(No Split): 9230.11
Ally: 2299.28 - 24.91%

I could go on with this, but you all get the idea, right?

So, exactly which characters get to attest their winnings to ONE PLAYER?
John Numbers with the numbers!!

Wow at these stats.
 

Zankoku

Never Knows Best
Administrator
BRoomer
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
22,906
Location
Milpitas, CA
NNID
SSBM_PLAYER
To be fair, M2K didn't claim to win most of the money, he claimed to win most nationals.
 

xDD-Master

Smash Champion
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
2,992
Location
Berlin
...

Ally won more with falco than DEHF?

...

Ally plays falco?!
Yeah its stupid, because if Ally plays Snake/Falco and won 100€ both Characters will get 75€ (Or both get 50/100€ depending on which statistic), eben though he may used Falco just one or two sets.

IIRC he used Falco to win vs ADHD and/or Gnes at Genesis2, where he got 2nd(?).
 

Pierce7d

Wise Hermit
Joined
Dec 20, 2006
Messages
6,289
Location
Teaneck, North Bergen County, NJ, USA
3DS FC
1993-9028-0439
If you want to know what actually happened, the BBR did a Metaknight ban vote 3 times. All 3, I was the forerunner of the anti-ban side, and I'm quite proud of my 3 victories. However, I did add in some reasonable concessions to my side:

1. If the community decisively wants MK banned, he should be banned. To deny an obvious desire is simple self-sabotage.
2. A MK ban was inevitable, since double jeopardy is allowed. That is, so long as a ban vote can resurface every 6 months, it was only a matter of time.
3. At the time, the polls were nearly 50/50. Opinions and information change over time, and it was obviously prone to fluctuations.

Put the yellow language aside if you want others to take you seriously. No one is on opposing sides in this community, we're simply on opposing stances but ultimately want the same things. Respect your peers and address them sincerely if you want them to agree with you.
Best post in the thread. <3 Mow

Aren't tournaments that aren't nationals posted in regional zones?
Come on bro. You're an admin, and one whose reputation is at stake here. You can't just go throwing out ignorant statements like this.

Metaknights win nationals? really? I thought it was just m2knight that wins nationals, which makes sense SINCE I'VE TRAVELED TO ALMOST EVERY NATIONAL (and ALWAYS done REALLY well). That is OBVIOUSLY very likely to happen. I'm sure if Mango were to play Brawl he would be dominating this game too but he doesn't enjoy it. The skill that can be carried over from melee is tremendous. I honestly think that helps a lot, but I was the only melee pro to transition over to this game besides Chu/Azen, who used bad characters and Azen played only for like a year (but he was TOP 3 when he played, which proves my point).

Anyway, if you take away all the nationals I've won, the only 2 nationals won by other MKs any time lately --AT ALL-- is Ally's MK (and other chars) at Whobo3 and Ktar, and he would win with snake or various other characters regardless since his skill level is so far above most everybody. In fact, at Ktar4, where even Nairo and Anti were present (2nd/4th best MKs probably/possibly), ADHD and Gnes would have taken the top 2 spots if I wasn't there. Maybe Diddy is broken? (and I consider Anti to be the 3rd best player probably). We should ban diddy for having more diddy players win MLGs than mk players won them. You can use any logic as long as it supports your argument's goal. You're overrating this character by a lot. A -LOT-. People vote to ban him because most people don't use or main MK and would benefit from him gone. That's why using the majority rule, while it's not likely to be argued by the MAJORITY of people, is a VERY FLAWED way to go about it. By pure numbers, most people are going to vote to make it easier.

"Should we ban the best character, which beats your favorite character?" Well what the **** do you expect people to say?

(as far as Fox goes, yeah I think he's overrated. melee and brawl aren't comparable games. But Brawlers seem to think they are, since they base their TIMER off of Melee's timer, even though matches last TWICE as long). Bbl at college still
This was arguably the best post you ever made in your life.

Ah, my mistake. -___ -;

I guess that would call for a:


Also, and this is at everyone else, so people have a point of reference to work off of, when all 2011 NA tournaments are taken into account, MK is winning 45.91% of all tournament money, and when all 2011 NA regionals and nationals are taken into account, MK takes a defiant rise to 59.05% of the tournament money.

I never took data for nationals only, but I'm pretty sure it won't ultimately vary that much.
I actually wanted the quote captured in your post, because the main reason I quoted this to say that it is quite obvious M2k is still an outlier at a national level.

AlphaZealot, I didn't quote anything, but instead of dodging questions, and nitpicking stuff, and then making fantastic points, only reply when you're going to make a fantastic point. You had some awesome stuff to say in this thread, but before you said anything awesome, you put your foot in your mouth like three times.

~~~~~~~~

Now I'll share my own opinions about this.

I honestly do not care if a tournament is hosting Unity or not, and I don't care if MK gets banned or not. BUT there is something that has been sitting rather uncomfortably with me, and I've remained silent, because I supported the Unity Ruleset and I supported AlphaZealot and JV, so I did not wish to share an opinion which might oppose them and their parties. With this much of a scar to the community though, and with how poorly things were handled, I feel like I should say a few words though. I'm not going to point any blame, make any accusations, or say that anyone is harming the community, because I honestly believe that the vast majority of the higher powers involved here DO INDEED have the community's best interest at heart, which is why I have not interfered. But listen to this:

-The idea for the Unity Ruleset was generated by AlphaZealot during MLG season. He pitched the idea to JV. At the time, it was under a different name, but I will continue to call it Unity Ruleset to avoid confusion

-JV, the Global Moderator and ultimate power of SWF at that time supported the idea, and said that Smashboards would only sticky Unity Tournaments. The idea behind this was to provide incentive for people to use the Ruleset. The purpose of this was to have a community standard, to end ruleset strife once and for all, and to add legitimacy to the Community.

-Several meetings were held between Senators and AiB leader Nealdt, and the Unity Ruleset Committee came to life.

-At the time of it's origin, the Unity Ruleset Committee was still under the cover of the Brawl Backroom. Despite this, Brawl Backroom members that were not part of the committee had absolutely no influence on the Ruleset.

-Brawl Backroom members were threatened to silence on any opposition they may have had in the public. Brawl Backroom members were told that their membership to the backroom would be revoked if they publicly spoke out against the ruleset.

-Afterwards, when the ruleset had already used the cover of the BBR (and many of the members had serious disagreement with this) to gain a foothold of favor, the Unity Ruleset Committee finally split from the BBR.

~In summary, the idea of the Unity Ruleset was founded and implemented by several of the higher ups in Smashboards, then used the BBR as a launching pad, before finally gaining enough sway and sitting on top of global Smashboards power to generate further influence.

Now, I'm all for doing things that are pro-community, but I greatly dislike that the higher ups have blatantly ignored the serious outcry from the community here.

-DEAR PEOPLE WHO RUN SMASHBOARDS

Take the sticky rule that says you must run Unity to get stickied out of your rules. While the initial intent behind it was good, it is very obviously causing a rift. It is not what the community wants, and the community has a right to decide for itself. Sure, it may be true that the community has a greater chance for superior longevity with a Unified Ruleset, but it is the choice of the community to decide for themselves. Stop trying to shove it down their throats.

By favoring this particular body, you are indeed trying to push the community in a specific direction. It would be one thing if that's the way Smashboards always was, but I forsaw these types of problems from the day MLG bought Smashboards. No longer is the head of our forum one of us. We are now control by a corporate entity. Now, a tool that was previously available to anyone for use to promote tournaments is being used to fulfill a greater agenda. The community is mad.


To me, I don't think that a sticky is such a big deal. But I want the URC to succeed. At this rate, their best way to succeed is to listen to the community on this issue.

As several members of the URC have already stated, most tournaments that would be stickied already run URC. So it would be excellent press coverage not to appear overbearing, by forcing it to be this way. Cooperating with the community in this compromise, will greatly increase the chances that the community cooperates with you.

Just my .02
 

#HBC | Red Ryu

Red Fox Warrior
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
27,486
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
NNID
RedRyu_Smash
3DS FC
0344-9312-3352
-Brawl Backroom members were threatened to silence on any opposition they may have had in the public. Brawl Backroom members were told that their membership to the backroom would be revoked if they publicly spoke out against the ruleset.
I don't recall this ever happening. Where did this point come from?
 

rathy Aro

Smash Lord
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Messages
1,142
@pierce: Well said.

If you want a unified ruleset just have a set of rules that all or a vast majority of the TOs that run major events will agree to use. Everyone will follow suit. And if you find that's impossible, then maybe that tells you something about having a unified ruleset.
 

TheCrimsonBlur

Smash Master
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Messages
3,407
Location
LA, CA near Santa Monica
You don't know what you're talking about.

The MBR was mine in 2009 and 2010. I made it specifically what the MBR started out as: a reserved version of Melee Discussion for our community's best and brightest members. That's all was. It was never a "power" and we only produced rule sets and tier lists because the community asked for them. Like an opinion. A big collective opinion.
How does that contradict my point? The MBR never had power. Sure, part of that was because it wasn't formed to have power like the URC was, but the point is that Melee has been functioning for 10 years without the need for such a power.

The reason I make the comparison is because I feel a lot of Smashers think that back rooms and universal rulesets are necessary or standard for the Smash community. They are not. That is a phenomena of the last few years of Brawl's development.

All people did in the MBR was talk. They didn't try to universalize a ruleset at any point in time, and they sure as hell wouldn't actually try to do that with sheer force by amassing TOs from every region and making sticky restrictions.

The BBR actually exists as a source of influence on that community. And it has to. Brawl has to be very specifically molded to be competitive. It has nothing to do with having a better community, the game simply requires more mediation.
You're going to have to explain this to me.

What makes Brawl so different that the TOs can't just decide the rules like they have been for the past 10 years? I'm genuinely curious; maybe there are caveats about the game I don't know.

Though let me clear something up: I'm not trying to imply that Melee has a better community or whatever. Just that they could learn a thing or two from us. The Melee community could do the same; the Brawl community is much more coordinated at streaming and attaining sponsors than Melee has been, and I'd like for us to learn from them in that respect.
 

Heartstring

Smash Legend
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
11,129
Location
England
Yeah, we'll do that once M2K actually becomes responsible for winning a FIFTH of MK's winnings.

Meta Knight:
Cash Won(No Split): 49592.77
Mew2King: 8484.77 - 17.11%

In direct comparison to that, we have:

Diddy:
Cash Won(No Split): 10613.63
ADHD: 2655.68 - 25.02%

Snake:
Cash Won(No Split): 19231.29
Ally: 7173.08 - 37.30%

Falco:
Cash Won(No Split): 9230.11
Ally: 2299.28 - 24.91%

I could go on with this, but you all get the idea, right?

So, exactly which characters get to attest their winnings to ONE PLAYER?
if youre gonig to do that, then you need to only use the events that said player actually entered in. also theres more mks than anything else. so although the research you jsut did is nice, its not watertight enough to disprove the post :L

also if unity was a more agreeable ruleset then i dont think people would be nearly as bothered abotu the sticky problem, im just gonna give my opinion on the ruleset and whats needs to change:

All infinites and chain grabs are legal.
chain grabs yes, infinites not in my opinion. things like standard infinites should be banned. although thats not including against the wall infinites. things like d3 infinite on dk and marths infinite on ness/lucas should be banned

There is a 50 Ledge Grab Limit for all characters. If a game goes to time and one player goes over the Ledge Grab Limit for their character, they will automatically lose the game. If both players exceed their Ledge Grab Limit, then this rule is ignored.
although a ruling like this is needed. i dont think a ledge grab limit is the best way to go about it. some characters live on the edge, literally. i do think-however- that planking should be including in unity's definition of stalling. this requires a third party to be watching at all times to alert a TO. so its a difficult situation to deal with

If the match ends with both players dying at the same time (either coincidentally or via suicide move) or if time ran out with both players at equal percent, a one stock three minute rematch will be played on the same stage. For a tie-breaker match, a Ledge Grab Limit of 18 is used for all characters.
fair ruling for coincidence. however i firmly believe that the suicide rule should still be about, that being the character than initiated the suicide move gets the win. because if someone is stupid enough to get killed by a suicide move, then they deserve to lose. on top of that, does ganon and bowser REALLY need to be hurt anymore?

(stagelist)
i agree except for one thing: castle seige a neutral? im normally pretty lassiez-faire when it comes to stages but seige is not neutral at all. it also means either lylat or ps1 needs to go into counterpick too. neither are a neutral in my strict opinion but we need to keep one of then. that ruling is probably one that should have a vote among bbr and urc in my opinion

just opinion all round XD
 

#HBC | Red Ryu

Red Fox Warrior
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
27,486
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
NNID
RedRyu_Smash
3DS FC
0344-9312-3352
Metaknights win nationals? really? I thought it was just m2knight that wins nationals, which makes sense SINCE I'VE TRAVELED TO ALMOST EVERY NATIONAL (and ALWAYS done REALLY well). That is OBVIOUSLY very likely to happen. I'm sure if Mango were to play Brawl he would be dominating this game too but he doesn't enjoy it. The skill that can be carried over from melee is tremendous. I honestly think that helps a lot, but I was the only melee pro to transition over to this game besides Chu/Azen, who used bad characters and Azen played only for like a year (but he was TOP 3 when he played, which proves my point).

Anyway, if you take away all the nationals I've won, the only 2 nationals won by other MKs any time lately --AT ALL-- is Ally's MK (and other chars) at Whobo3 and Ktar, and he would win with snake or various other characters regardless since his skill level is so far above most everybody. In fact, at Ktar4, where even Nairo and Anti were present (2nd/4th best MKs probably/possibly), ADHD and Gnes would have taken the top 2 spots if I wasn't there. Maybe Diddy is broken? (and I consider Anti to be the 3rd best player probably). We should ban diddy for having more diddy players win MLGs than mk players won them. You can use any logic as long as it supports your argument's goal. You're overrating this character by a lot. A -LOT-. People vote to ban him because most people don't use or main MK and would benefit from him gone. That's why using the majority rule, while it's not likely to be argued by the MAJORITY of people, is a VERY FLAWED way to go about it. By pure numbers, most people are going to vote to make it easier.

"Should we ban the best character, which beats your favorite character?" Well what the **** do you expect people to say?

(as far as Fox goes, yeah I think he's overrated. melee and brawl aren't comparable games. But Brawlers seem to think they are, since they base their TIMER off of Melee's timer, even though matches last TWICE as long). Bbl at college still
I agree you and other players are good who used MK to win, I wouldn't want to say these players are awful without MK. Still doesn't change the fact they all used MK to gain and took up top results better than any other character by a large margin. You can call best character will do that all you want, but the community at large thinks it would be better if the character was gone.

You can call people out saying they are selfish. Yet, multiple people, such as myself, didn't consider trying to do this for our own self gain. There we're people that did do it selfishly, just as there were people who want to keep him legal for their own selfish reasons. Majority rule still is the only way to deal with this issue. There is no way people can keep him legal if such a majority want him gone. While it is true a lot of people who voted yes we're possible non MK mains, there were a good share of MK mains also for the ban as well, Ally, for one. For the non MK mains, hey did not feel like MK was a fair character concerning the ruleset and how the results were looking.

Even his MU spread people didn't want to deal with a character who many thought had no even or a few even MU, I don't care what Pikas or Fox's claim, I do not believe those are even MUs.

I didn't vote yes to remove one of my mains bad MUs, I voted to remove him because I think the character is a determent to the game and the people who play this game.

Stop thinking people are out to get you, your neutral to me personally, a lot of people voted due to the recording of winnings, his MU spread, and what he did to our ruleset.

That is how I see it.
 

John12346

Smash Master
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
3,534
Location
New York, NY
NNID
JohnNumbers
if youre gonig to do that, then you need to only use the events that said player actually entered in. also theres more mks than anything else. so although the research you jsut did is nice, its not watertight enough to disprove the post :L
Wait, what? The point I was trying to make was that M2K was winning a lower proportion of MK's money than, say Ally was for Snake and Falco, or ADHD for Diddy.

Y'know, to show that MK's winnings cannot reliably be attributed to solely Mew2King.
 

Zankoku

Never Knows Best
Administrator
BRoomer
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
22,906
Location
Milpitas, CA
NNID
SSBM_PLAYER
That's probably because Mew2King isn't five different people.
 

Pink Reaper

Real Name No Gimmicks
BRoomer
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
8,333
Location
In the Air, Using Up b as an offensive move
I agree you and other players are good who used MK to win, I wouldn't want to say these players are awful without MK. Still doesn't change the fact they all used MK to gain and took up top results better than any other character by a large margin. You can call best character will do that all you want, but the community at large thinks it would be better if the character was gone.

You can call people out saying they are selfish. Yet, multiple people, such as myself, didn't consider trying to do this for our own self gain. There we're people that did do it selfishly, just as there were people who want to keep him legal for their own selfish reasons. Majority rule still is the only way to deal with this issue. There is no way people can keep him legal if such a majority want him gone. While it is true a lot of people who voted yes we're possible non MK mains, there were a good share of MK mains also for the ban as well, Ally, for one. For the non MK mains, hey did not feel like MK was a fair character concerning the ruleset and how the results were looking.

Even his MU spread people didn't want to deal with a character who many thought had no even or a few even MU, I don't care what Pikas or Fox's claim, I do not believe those are even MUs.

I didn't vote yes to remove one of my mains bad MUs, I voted to remove him because I think the character is a determent to the game and the people who play this game.

Stop thinking people are out to get you, your neutral to me personally, a lot of people voted due to the recording of winnings, his MU spread, and what he did to our ruleset.

That is how I see it.
That's still a pretty selfish reason to ban a character. In most games(aka, everything except pokemon) a character is banned because they are legitimately broken. Voting to ban a character for any other reason that "This character is actually broken, needs to be banned" is going to be a selfish reason.

I want the game to be more fun.
I want the game to be more diverse.
I dont want the game to devolve into ledge camping.

If you dont like the way the game plays, rather than banning a character to make it the way you want, maybe you just shouldnt play the game.
 

Heartstring

Smash Legend
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
11,129
Location
England
Wait, what? The point I was trying to make was that M2K was winning a lower proportion of MK's money than, say Ally was for Snake and Falco, or ADHD for Diddy.

Y'know, to show that MK's winnings cannot reliably be attributed to solely Mew2King.
well that point was made then. theres too many variables in how much someone wins though for it to be solid data
whatever, talk for another time. im too tired to pick things apart
 

AlphaZealot

Former Smashboards Owner
Administrator
Premium
BRoomer
Joined
Jul 6, 2003
Messages
12,731
Location
Bellevue, Washington
That's still a pretty selfish reason to ban a character. In most games(aka, everything except pokemon) a character is banned because they are legitimately broken. Voting to ban a character for any other reason that "This character is actually broken, needs to be banned" is going to be a selfish reason.
I'd put the statistics backing up the MK ban against any statistics for any character ban in any other fighting game.
 

Mew2King

King of the Mews
Joined
Jul 18, 2002
Messages
11,263
Location
Cinnaminson (southwest NJ 5 min drive from Philly)
the only reason unity isn't ALREADY overthrown is because they are catering to a majority, despite whether it's right or wrong. Having a majority backing will NOT get overthrown, but saying SUCKS FOR YOU to the rest of the minority is sure to be a way to have some really dedicated haters. ****ing corrupt system this entire thing is. You would at least get rid of a HUGE CHUNK OF THE HATE if you didn't try to FORCE people into your ways (sticky rule, even though it's not a huge thing, it is still a punishment/lack of reward for not following you like obedient dogs) but nope, not good enough for the EMPIRE
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom