Meta Australian Smash 4 General Ruleset Discussion

[Attila_]

A group of Melbourne TOs had a chat and agreed to trial a few small changes at our next monthly:

1. FD replaced with T+C in starters
2. Timer increased to 8 minutes
3. Modified DSR for Bo5 (can't pick the stage you most recently won on)
4. Omega Palutena's Temple and FD are interchangable
5. Kongo Jungle banned in singles (was banned at Apex, but was previously legal in our region)

 

[CyberHyperPhoenix]

I think this is pretty damn noice ^

 

[Pazx]

I disagree with 1 and 5. The other 3 are worth trialling.

1. We should be running 5 starter stages. FD and T&C are in our best 4 starter stages, we can't strike from 4 but we have wonderful options for a 5th starter in Lylat Cruise or Duck Hunt, neither of which are undeserving. This also nullifies the advantage striking second has with a "bad" number of stages to strike from (3, 7, 11, 15). As far as trialling goes, introducing T&C is probably a good idea but a 5 stage list is better than a 3 stage list.

5. I don't see a reason to ban this stage. You don't "trial" a ban, you can trial a stage and if it turns out to be awful you can ban it. I'd like to see the reasoning for banning this stage before I respond properly.

I hope BAM's ruleset doesn't follow suit.

 

[Attila_]

Cool cool.

Imma get back to running tournaments now.

 

[Venks]

A group of Melbourne TOs had a chat and agreed to trial a few small changes at our next monthly:

1. FD replaced with T+C in starters
2. Timer increased to 8 minutes
3. Modified DSR for Bo5 (can't pick the stage you most recently won on)
4. Omega Palutena's Temple and FD are interchangable
5. Kongo Jungle banned in singles (was banned at Apex, but was previously legal in our region)

Town & City a starter in place of FD? That's essentially what everyone has to strike by default given that it's Diddy's best stage. The higher platforms allows him to keep up his attack string after hoo-hah that much easier.
Wouldn't really be so bad if it was 5 starters. Then you could actually have a say in what stage you play on rather then leaving it to Diddy.

Also where are the custom moves at? D1 is asking (Nakat started the poll) who wants to see them in competitive play and as always the majority votes towards customs.
Teamsp00ky holds a biweekly tournament and the next one up will be featuring customs.
Where you guys at?

 

[Jamwa]

If you legalise customs i will main DK in sm4sh and make everyone hate everything ever

 

[Venks]

If you legalise customs i will main DK in sm4sh and make everyone hate everything ever

Well I might as well help everyone out. This move is not invincible or have super armor on start up. Super armor starts at frame 15 for Aerial Kong Cyclone. The attack only has two hits, one at the beginning of the spin and another just as the spin ends.

 

[Tempest]

A group of Melbourne TOs had a chat and agreed to trial a few small changes at our next monthly:

1. FD replaced with T+C in starters
2. Timer increased to 8 minutes
3. Modified DSR for Bo5 (can't pick the stage you most recently won on)
4. Omega Palutena's Temple and FD are interchangable
5. Kongo Jungle banned in singles (was banned at Apex, but was previously legal in our region)

I don't think Final destination should be replaced with town and city, as I think the starters worked well in the last monthly. I think the trial would work better if you just increase the number of starter stages rather than removing one from the list completely as some people stated above.

The other changes are pretty good, I like them.

Just going back and reading the custom move set discussion, I think it would be a bad idea to ever consider adding in custom moves, for the main reason that not everyone has specific custom moves unlocked on their wii U set up, and different set ups at the tournament will consist of different custom moves unlocked (or barley any at all). It would be such a hassle to organize and would slow down the whole tournament, with players always having to constantly set up their characters.

 

[Shaya]

Obviously the reason Apex didn't have customs was because the smash Illuminati deemed them uncompetitive.

But yeah, let's just hurry up and agree to ban Villager and DK customs and then we can get on with playing a really good game~

 

[Pazx]

Cool cool.

Imma get back to running tournaments now.

Sick response bro, I hope melburnians enjoy listening to a TO who complains about rolling and Little Mac constantly and makes arbitrary rules for ****s and gigs.

 

[Venks]

Obviously the reason Apex didn't have customs was because the smash Illuminati deemed them uncompetitive.

But yeah, let's just hurry up and agree to ban Villager and DK customs and then we can get on with playing a really good game~

I keep hearing ban Villager's customs from you all the time. How often do you play against that set? I've played against it a lot and man the wins are just so free. But that's mostly because I have so much experience against the moves and have adapted to the matchup. Villager is nowhere as bad as Diddy and even he isn't that bad. No Meta Knights here.

Also anyone see Wizard talking about allowing custom moves at EVO?

 

[earla]

wheres ur custom legal tournament vids at sydney? link?

i wana see how thats goin..

 

[dean.]

https://m.youtube.com/user/SydneySmash

 

[earla]

deans a champ

 

[Pazx]

Founder of EVO likes the idea of customs and thinks they'll probably use them, Xanadu, sp00ky and TLocator are all moving towards customs as well and I know sp00ky at least has KJ64 legal.

Looks like we've fallen behind again.

 

[Attila_]

It's a good thing Mr Wizard doesn't write Rulesets.

Anyone else remember brawl's evo appearance? Gotta get the right people making the big decisions.

The masses don't always know what's good for them until it's too late.

 

[Pazx]

"we need to do what the major international tournaments are doing but only if they agree with what i think"

 

[Attila_]

Almost.

I'd run customs if evo runs customs. At least until the end of July.

I just would prefer if it doesn't come to that.

 

[Nin*Rose]

A group of Melbourne TOs had a chat and agreed to trial a few small changes at our next monthly:

1. FD replaced with T+C in starters
2. Timer increased to 8 minutes
3. Modified DSR for Bo5 (can't pick the stage you most recently won on)
4. Omega Palutena's Temple and FD are interchangable
5. Kongo Jungle banned in singles (was banned at Apex, but was previously legal in our region)

In don't mind Town & City being added to the starter picks stages but I do believe Final Destination and/or Omega Palutena's Temple should remain as starter picks too.

FD - Flat + No Platforms
SV - Flat + 1 Platforms
BF - Flat + 3 Platforms
TnC - Flat + Rotation of 3, 2 or No Platforms

By removing FD (and Omega) from the starter picks, wouldn't that make it an unbalanced list of stages for a few selected characters? TnC is an awesome stage and I support it for a starter pick but FD should stay too I believe

 

[Karnu]

I miss Frigate.
Lucario loves Frigate.

 

[Splice]

Venks, with 3 starters there are going to be a few forced strikes in some MU's.
You have to strike T&C against Diddy.
IF you're against Little Mac I think you gotta strike FD if you had FD instead
You gotta strike Battlefield a lot of the time if your opponent has a character that can use the platforms better and wants to get under you, especially if your character primarily fights horizontally

With only 3 starters, the strikes can often feel like they are set at the beginning of the match and player preference doesn't always come into it. This is also why I think the less balanced striking procedure from only having 3 stages doesn't affect things significantly.

Nin*Rose, with FD in starters, the character that prefers to fight horizontally will go to Smashville, which I'd say is favorable for them. T&D can strike a balance in between horizontal and vertical fights and we want to see how that goes, and it may or may not be the middle ground that people strike to, or they may continue to go to Smashville.

 

[Leisha]

Remember guys, next monthly's ruleset just a trail. So it wont be the standard.

 

[Baron Omega]

I only really disagree with fd being replaced in starters but I think the 4th rule is k

 

[Venks]

Ah here we go. Basically why the 3 starter system is flawed.

 

[Splice]

Everyone should understand that vid, defs worth linking but it doesn't support your point about 3 starters. Generally the more starters the better, but in this context the purpose of starters and striking as outlined in that video are not hindered by having 3 as opposed to 5 starters.

Yes we want to get to stage that gives no player a huge advantage, but lets say you add great cave offensive to the stagelist. Someone has to strike that simply because they don't want their starter to be affected by the stage affecting player vs. player gameplay too much. I don't think we want people to feel that they have to make strikes for these reasons, so when a large amount of people have problems with stages like Lylat or Halberd, it's a bit of a problem.
If we can't get 5 stages that don't cause people to have an issue striking out of fear of stage hazard, then the original intention of stage-striking does not play out as intended.

The vid also doesn't explicitly call-out forced strikes. You can have 7 stages and still have 3 of them that need to be forced strikes simply because of the MU. You can have 3 stages and have a forced strike each. It depends on the attributes of the starters whether the remaining stage will really provide you a middle-ground though.

Hopefully, you can agree that the more starters the better, and we want a diverse but balanced range of stages. Not more flat stages than platform heavy ones, not more huge ceilings than standard ceilings.
But if a large portion of people within the community don't want to deal with hazards in the starters in anyway, then a decision has to be made as to whether they should be subject to FD/SV/BF/Lylat/Halberd/T&C/DuckHunt or something similar as a 7 starter list. Additionally, if we had FD/SV/BF/T&C/DuckHunt as a 5 starter list, it would over bias one group of characters more than a 3 starter list of T&C/SV/BF because over half of the former list benefits characters who like to fight horizontally. They can ban BF and then just one stage to cover more niche elements of the MU, whereas the character preferring platforms can't even ban all the stages with huge amounts of flat space.

 

[Venks]

Everyone should understand that vid, defs worth linking but it doesn't support your point about 3 starters. Generally the more starters the better, but in this context the purpose of starters and striking as outlined in that video are not hindered by having 3 as opposed to 5 starters.

Yes we want to get to stage that gives no player a huge advantage, but lets say you add great cave offensive to the stagelist. Someone has to strike that simply because they don't want their starter to be affected by the stage affecting player vs. player gameplay too much. I don't think we want people to feel that they have to make strikes for these reasons, so when a large amount of people have problems with stages like Lylat or Halberd, it's a bit of a problem.
If we can't get 5 stages that don't cause people to have an issue striking out of fear of stage hazard, then the original intention of stage-striking does not play out as intended.

The vid also doesn't explicitly call-out forced strikes. You can have 7 stages and still have 3 of them that need to be forced strikes simply because of the MU. You can have 3 stages and have a forced strike each. It depends on the attributes of the starters whether the remaining stage will really provide you a middle-ground though.

Hopefully, you can agree that the more starters the better, and we want a diverse but balanced range of stages. Not more flat stages than platform heavy ones, not more huge ceilings than standard ceilings.
But if a large portion of people within the community don't want to deal with hazards in the starters in anyway, then a decision has to be made as to whether they should be subject to FD/SV/BF/Lylat/Halberd/T&C/DuckHunt or something similar as a 7 starter list. Additionally, if we had FD/SV/BF/T&C/DuckHunt as a 5 starter list, it would over bias one group of characters more than a 3 starter list of T&C/SV/BF because over half of the former list benefits characters who like to fight horizontally. They can ban BF and then just one stage to cover more niche elements of the MU, whereas the character preferring platforms can't even ban all the stages with huge amounts of flat space.

The more stages the better. Makes it a lot easier to find a stage that doesn't give too much of an advantage to either player.
If I was using the FD/SV/BF/T&C/DH stage list my opponent would probably start by banning FD. That's fine by me because I don't like the stage. My first ban as Little Mac will always be Smashville. It is literally Little Mac's worst stage. I might ban Duck Hunt, but it depends on the matchup. If I'm up against Diddy or anyone who can set up into up-air strings easily than I obviously would rather ban Town & City.
I'm hoping to go to Battlefield and that's usually where most people take me. But I can't really stop them from taking me to either T&C or Duck Hunt. That's really up to how they decide to ban. Little Mac being one of the strongest horizontal fighters in the game I definitely do not feel like I'm at any advantage. Essentially the problem is people misunderstand that Battlefield helps Little Mac more than hinders him and that Smashville is his worst stage.

 

[Attila_]

That's all well and good, but you didn't actually respond to what he said.

Splice made some good points.

 

[Nin*Rose]

The more starter picks, the better I say

Also just gonna throw this out there... you know how we shorten names to initials such as Final Destination to FD... well we really gotta stop calling Town and City as T&C... T&C stands for Terms and Conditions lols :D Maybe we should call it TnC hahah

 

[Splice]

Yeah I feel like I'm wasting my energy a bit if you ignore a lot of the issues around deciding the number of starter stages and then talk like Little Mac is the only character in the game that prefers to take on the opponent horizontal.

Venks, here is an example like yours that works the other way:
As Sonic against almost anyone except Little Mac, your suggested 5 starters favors Sonic (who doesn't need more favor from the stage list) more than 3 starters. As Sonic, I can ban BF and T&C, and all the other stages favor me since they emphasise my Spin Dash and Spin Charge without giving my opponents great platforms for offensive use. With only 3 stages, it's usually more fair for the opponent because I can only ban BF, and depending on their character being able to choose from T&C and SV can be a big help. Of course, there are some MU's where Sonic would like BF the most too. So what does this mean?

Having 3 or 5 starters is not always the fairest for every MU. It's a large task to simply decide what is best, which is why it's up to us to trial starter stage options so our community can reach some kind of consensus on what they felt comfortable with.
I'm all for trialling five starters (personally I have a good idea for 7 or 9) but the TO's in Melb have decided that the next thing we will trial is how we feel about T&C as a starter in a set of 3 stages instead of FD. Making sure the stages we choose for our starter list are optimal will help us understand which amount of stages is better.

edited: tied paragraphs together a little better

 

[Pazx]

Everyone should understand that vid, defs worth linking but it doesn't support your point about 3 starters. Generally the more starters the better, but in this context the purpose of starters and striking as outlined in that video are not hindered by having 3 as opposed to 5 starters.

Yes we want to get to stage that gives no player a huge advantage, but lets say you add great cave offensive to the stagelist. Someone has to strike that simply because they don't want their starter to be affected by the stage affecting player vs. player gameplay too much. I don't think we want people to feel that they have to make strikes for these reasons, so when a large amount of people have problems with stages like Lylat or Halberd, it's a bit of a problem.
If we can't get 5 stages that don't cause people to have an issue striking out of fear of stage hazard, then the original intention of stage-striking does not play out as intended.

The vid also doesn't explicitly call-out forced strikes. You can have 7 stages and still have 3 of them that need to be forced strikes simply because of the MU. You can have 3 stages and have a forced strike each. It depends on the attributes of the starters whether the remaining stage will really provide you a middle-ground though.

Do you think we should be protecting players who choose to strike Lylat out of fear, or lack of experience on the stage? If we decide we want our starter stages to be hazard-free that's acceptable but I don't think Lylat's edges or tilting are on the same level as typical hazards (eg lava, cannon, laser) that truly interfere with the gameplay to the point where it's player vs player vs stage. If a player wants to strike Lylat due to their problems with the ledges, let them, you will personally benefit from this and it should be (in my opinion) up to them to get familiar with the stage and determine whether it's really worth striking. It is more common for people to strike to Lylat than one would imagine, this happens when both players have good stage knowledge and don't fear the ledges.

As far as forced strikes go, in the Little Mac vs Anyone matchup, each player has 1 forced strike (SV and FD respectively). If these stages are polarising enough to be forced strikes even when striking from 9 stages, why are they considered to in our top 3 (or 5 if we decide T&C > FD) "starter" stages?

Yeah I feel like I'm wasting my energy a bit if you ignore a lot of the issues around deciding the number of starter stages and then talk like Little Mac is the only character in the game that prefers to take on the opponent horizontal.

Venks, here is an example like yours that works the other way:
As Sonic against almost anyone except Little Mac, your suggested 5 starters favors Sonic (who doesn't need more favor from the stage list) more than 3 starters. As Sonic, I can ban BF and T&C, and all the other stages favor me since they emphasise my Spin Dash and Spin Charge without giving my opponents great platforms for offensive use. With only 3 stages, it's usually more fair for the opponent because I can only ban BF, and depending on their character being able to choose from T&C and SV can be a big help. Of course, there are some MU's where Sonic would like BF the most too. So what does this mean?

Having 3 or 5 starters is not subjectively the fairest for every MU. It's a large task to simply decide which is best, which is why it's up to us to trial starter stager options so our community can reach some kind of consensus on what they felt comfortable with.
I'm all for trialling five starters (personally I have a good idea for 7 or 9) but the TO's in Melb have decided that the next thing we will trial is how we feel about T&C as a starter in a set of 3 stages instead of FD. Making sure the stages we choose for our starter list are optimal will help us understand which amount of stages is better.

edited: tied paragraphs together a little better

I think this makes a very good case for T&C being the preferred third starter over FD in a single matchup. You could pick 3 stages vs 5 stages and make a similar case for many matchups in the game, and you're correct in saying that we can't say 3 or 5 stages is subjectively the fairest in each matchup. I think the only practical solution that preserves "fairness" is to create the starter list from the largest number of non-redundant (ie. functionally different) stages (N) in the game so that we do end up on a stage for game one that does not fall in either character's worst (N-1)/2 stages.

also lol @ kj64 being banned when it's potentially starter material in a 7 or 9 stage list what was that silly TO thinking amirite fellas

 

[Splice]

Thanks for the questions Pazx.

Regarding your concern about Lylat, it very much is a worry about opinion. If you were to ask me, I think Lylat's tilting is more detrimental to the strategy of player vs. player gameplay than Halberds hazards. Because there appear to be a large number of people concerned about both stages, that is why we are tentative to put them in if many are just going to waste their precious round one strikes on staving off hazards then making the in-game Match-Up better for themselves. I definitely encourage players to learn and get comfortable with both stages, and trialling them as starters may do that. However, you can't force people to come to a conclusion and if a large portion deem these stages too volatile for a starter, then I believe that's decent reason to remove them.

Regarding forced strikes, my point includes the idea that you are always going to have some stages that are forced strikes in some MU's. And the stages that might never be that way, may not be the same ones that are also deemed standard and non-hazardous enough to be starters in the first place. Forced strikes don't necessarily wield a flawed outcome. with 3 stages, if I'm forced to strike FD and the other player is forced to strike Battlefield, it doesn't matter. As long as the remaining stage is relatively neutral for the two characters, the purpose has been achieved. Duck Hunt is polarising for Sonic. FD for Little Mac. T&C for Diddy. Eventually we would not end up having a starter. As Venks' video link suggests, by having a balance of stages that cater to different groups of characters, they should reach a place that is not particularly advantageous to either, even if there are forced strikes. Some people including myself believe it is easier to get a balance of stages that will land on a more neutral stage in many MU's with 3, rather than 5 stages. Hopefully we can trial both.

Creating the starter list from the largest number of non-redundant stages that are also not deemed too hazardous would be ideal, yes. This is what should be strived for, however we feel a lot of the stages are hazardous and there is some redundancy in what is left over. Hopefully we can make progress on this!
Also, I hope you aware that in having unique and non-redundant stages, there will naturally be more polarising stages in some Match-ups. This means more 'forced-strikes' in these matchups. Hopefully this helps you to further see why forced-strikes don't need to be avoided in able to achieve what is best for the starter stage.

There is a case for Kongo 64 being the most effective place to circle camp out of the starters. I'm personally unsure if this will be permanent but I don't think the idea for removing it is something worth laughing at. You have to understand we are just doing things in a way that is less forgiving towards stages short-comings than you may be.
Additionally, just because it is potentially starter material if it were legal does not mean it is not also a candidate for being banned. The stage is non-redundant, and not that hazardous, so it is a great candidate for starters. However it has a prominent feature which may be considered outside of the nature of the game - strong circle camping. Depending on how effective you think the circle camping on the stage is, it could very quickly shift from being a starter, all the way to banned.
Disclaimer though, if we were to add it back, it probably wouldn't be a starter, but it would depend. I personally think it should be, because with unique it's vertical space it provides something very different to other legal stages.

 

[Attila_]

Kids don't understand the pain of deliberate conflict avoidance. Being timed out over 8 minutes without being able to do anything is enough to make one quit the game. But you might have to experience that pain to believe it.

 

[Venks]

That's all well and good, but you didn't actually respond to what he said.

Splice made some good points.

Yeah I feel like I'm wasting my energy a bit if you ignore a lot of the issues around deciding the number of starter stages and then talk like Little Mac is the only character in the game that prefers to take on the opponent horizontal.

Venks, here is an example like yours that works the other way:
As Sonic against almost anyone except Little Mac, your suggested 5 starters favors Sonic (who doesn't need more favor from the stage list) more than 3 starters. As Sonic, I can ban BF and T&C, and all the other stages favor me since they emphasise my Spin Dash and Spin Charge without giving my opponents great platforms for offensive use. With only 3 stages, it's usually more fair for the opponent because I can only ban BF, and depending on their character being able to choose from T&C and SV can be a big help. Of course, there are some MU's where Sonic would like BF the most too. So what does this mean?

Having 3 or 5 starters is not always the fairest for every MU. It's a large task to simply decide what is best, which is why it's up to us to trial starter stage options so our community can reach some kind of consensus on what they felt comfortable with.
I'm all for trialling five starters (personally I have a good idea for 7 or 9) but the TO's in Melb have decided that the next thing we will trial is how we feel about T&C as a starter in a set of 3 stages instead of FD. Making sure the stages we choose for our starter list are optimal will help us understand which amount of stages is better.

edited: tied paragraphs together a little better

What exactly am I ignoring? What issue? That people don't like janky stages?

I was listing an example to prompt discussion in a more meaningful way. I like to talk about my actual experience with the game and things that can easily be shown off from other tournaments. I'm not huge into theorycraft.
I personally think it makes a lot more sense to trial a larger starter list and other stages at the same time. Essentially because regardless how this experiment goes Battlefield, Smashville, and Final Destination will continue to be starter stages in all regions. The only question is if we'll increase the amount of stages or not. Town & City has plenty of showing in tournaments as a starter especially on Anther's Ladder. What exactly would balk T&C from being optimal?

Also @ Attila_ you haven't really contributed much to this thread. Far too many of your posts are one or two sentences. You either agree with someone, make a joke about someone else's claims, or say "this is how I'm doing things."
This thread is Australian Smash 4 General Ruleset Discussion isn't it?

 

[Splice]

@ Venks
Attila has a right to post one liners and they're not necessarily disruptive.
His last post was speaking from experience, and just because it was short does not mean it was less valid or insightful than your post about Little Mac striking in your experience.

I've tried to cover what Attila would have said, for the most part. I will try to provide the wall for you to bounce opinions off in regards to what we're doing in VIC. Forgive me if I'm not always willing to respond in future though.

You bring up a good point about trialling a larger starter list, since BF/SV/FD may continue to always be starters. The thing here is an opinion that FD may not be the best to be included in starters, even with 5 stages, but we will see!

T&C could be called redundant, since sometimes it is FD, and sometimes it doesn't provide much more than FD or SV is. By having more stages that are similar to each other, we might fatten up the starters with a type of stage that benefits one type of character more than others. If T&C results in some MU's going to T&C while FD might result in going to Smashville, then will be a small difference and it would be good to note which of these outcomes is more bias for one group of characters.
I have no idea if T&C will turn out to be ideal or not.

Regarding further trials;
If people are willing to accept stages like Halberd in starters (if were to communally agree the hazards were not overly potent), we might be able to provide a bunch of stages that one might not expect to be the standard 5 but ultimately end up on more neutral of a stage for more MU's. It is unlikely for this to be the norm, but is worth testing in my opinion. With any luck, we will trial different sets of starters at tournaments in Victoria. It is unlikely we will be adding more stages to the overall list, however I'm not sure if the decision to remove K64 is final.

 

[Gords]

A group of Melbourne TOs had a chat and agreed to trial a few small changes at our next monthly:

1. FD replaced with T+C in starters
Hmm I actually dont mind this idea, will consider doing it Sydney. 3 starters though i am still unsure of so maybe i will move Sydney to 5 starters (T&C, SV, BF, DH, Lylat) if VIC is going with 3. Will discuss with the NSW TOs and see what comes of it.
2. Timer increased to 8 minutes
NSW is doing 3 Stock games atm so timer is already 8 min
3. Modified DSR for Bo5 (can't pick the stage you most recently won on)
I also prefer this rule over the unmodified DSR, and will likely move all NSW smash games to this rule on the next major ruleset revision (happening very soon)
4. Omega Palutena's Temple and FD are interchangable
So with FD now being a Counterpick stage, does this mean that only FD and Omega PT are the only FD stages allowed to be played in VIC?
NSW currently runs Omega PT as the starter instead of FD, and for counterpicking FD/Omega is considered one stage where banning FD includes all omega stages, which makes this change redundant if FD/Omega PT isnt starter anymore
5. Kongo Jungle banned in singles (was banned at Apex, but was previously legal in our region)
I agree with Pazx, in that:

5. I don't see a reason to ban this stage. You don't "trial" a ban, you can trial a stage and if it turns out to be awful you can ban it. I'd like to see the reasoning for banning this stage before I respond properly

although i am aware that Vic has had KJ64 legal thus far and that could be argued as the trial. My disagreement here is that the ban should not be trialed, it should either be banned for reasons proven detrimental in the already happened trial period or left legal (at least a counterpick) until enough evidence is collected to justify the Ban.
I am actually confused on what information your trying to gather by "trialing" a ban

Founder of EVO likes the idea of customs and thinks they'll probably use them, Xanadu, sp00ky and TLocator are all moving towards customs as well and I know sp00ky at least has KJ64 legal.

Looks like we've fallen behind again.

Well NSW could argue they were ahead of the curve, running customs from the start.

@ Venks
Attila has a right to post one liners and they're not necessarily disruptive.

yes Attila has the right to post one liners, yes some of them are not disruptive and on topic and yes Attila has posted some valid discussion posts.
however what venks says here is right.

Also @ Attila_ you haven't really contributed much to this thread. Far too many of your posts are one or two sentences. You either agree with someone, make a joke about someone else's claims, or say "this is how I'm doing things."
This thread is Australian Smash 4 General Ruleset Discussion isn't it?

Note Venks is saying a lot of his posts are not valid discussion posts, not all. Also posts that make a joke about someone else's claims, or say "this is how I'm doing things", without any supporting arguements or discussion IS Disruptive to this thread

I've tried to cover what Attila would have said, for the most part.

If Attila would have said something he should of said something.
I find it a little dumb that the person who opened this thread to create and promote discussion doesnt do much discussing and instead replies to valid discussion posts with things like

Cool cool.

Imma get back to running tournaments now.

 

[Dre89]

Just wanna chime in and say that you're not making a competitive game from scratch, you're adapting a pre-existing game to a competitive setting. The difference is that with the latter, anything that is already in the game and is competitive by default should be legal.

By default customs should be legal until proven non-competitive. I can't really think of any customs that really break the game. I also can't see how the option to customise four moves somehow degenerates this game into non-competitiveness.

 

[PrettyCoolGuy]

The idea is not to search for a local optimum but a global optimum

 

[Gords]

who are you responding to with that statement @ PrettyCoolGuy
because if its @ Dre89 then it doesnt matter if its locally or globally, @ Dre89 post is still valid

 

[PrettyCoolGuy]

I was more thinking in a maths way but interpreting it geographically is also relevant.

 

[Attila_]

Also @ Attila_ you haven't really contributed much to this thread. Far too many of your posts are one or two sentences. You either agree with someone, make a joke about someone else's claims, or say "this is how I'm doing things."
This thread is Australian Smash 4 General Ruleset Discussion isn't it?

I reserve the right to respond to insults or taunts with one liners or jokes. I think this is pretty logical. Responding to these posts seriously is a waste of time and energy, and won't lead to any resolution.

Other short posts I post are normally because I'm posting from my phone, and typing on phones is terrible.

As stated earlier, the ruleset trial was not my decision, but a consensus reached by a group of ten people. That's how we are doing things. A group of Melbournians decided to have a ruleset discussion outside of this thread because this thread has be diagnosed with cancer. Nothing constructive has been achieved here, and I can't see this thread becoming fruitful anytime soon.

On the flip side, too many of your posts are text walls about Little Mac. Real Talk.