Backroom Reform: Current Topic -> Success?

[vVv Rapture]

Tournament experience should be recommended, not required. Someone who has not attended a tournament can still know a lot about the game. Granted, it is preferred that you do have some sort of tournament experience, but it's not like attending tournaments gives you an absurd of information you could never learn if you never went to one.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

vVv Just said what I wanted to say but felt like I would probably become even more of a fringe radical if I did.

 

[-Vocal-]

For certain organs of the BBR (remember how I was talking about splitting it up into various parts?), yes, being a top-level tournament player is absolutely essential. But for other parts, debatably so. Granted, it's better PR when only tournament players are allowed in, but they have to be smart, dammit. Being smart > being good at the game.

But both is important for the people I want making the rules. It's like how you have to be a member of a state/country before becoming part of the Senate/Lawmaking Body. The ruleset is like the constitution of tourney goers, and I only want members of that nation shaping it.

Loose analogy, but you get the idea.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Yes, except remember-the only people who really make a difference when deciding the rules are the TOs. The others are merely advisers to them. That's all.

 

[-Vocal-]

Yes, except remember-the only people who really make a difference when deciding the rules are the TOs. The others are merely advisers to them. That's all.

And the BR advises everyone. I miss your point.

You said the people should be knowledgeable; I agree. I also believe they should play under or organize according to the rules they would wish other people to do so under. So yea, they should attend/organize regularly.

 

[Kewkky]

Tournament experience should be recommended, not required. Someone who has not attended a tournament can still know a lot about the game. Granted, it is preferred that you do have some sort of tournament experience, but it's not like attending tournaments gives you an absurd of information you could never learn if you never went to one.

There's actually an extremely notable difference between people who have never gone to tourneys but spent their time studying the game, and a person who goes to tourneys but never spends his time studying the game. The one who studies the game will immediately be a better player as soon as they grab a controller and play, since the one that never studies never improves.

That said, one that studies the essentials AND plays in tourneys beats people who study but don't go to tourneys when it comes to character and stage discussions. One can learn things like frame data, what move should beat what, why X thing works... But when you play, you learn that things aren't as black and white as data teaches us. There are varying playstyles: Falco could hands down lose against Kirby if he played in X manner, but he's able to win when played in Y manner. When you study the game and never go to tourneys, all the data suggests is that X beats Y, but when you go to a tourney and experience how volatile match results can be, you realize that even though X should beat Y, given the right thought and use Y can also beat X. And this is something that can only be studied deeply by playing matches at top/very high levels against many different people.

So if we were to create a new way on how to add people into the BBR, I'd say requirements should be:

1) Lots of smarts and lots of experience (top players, famous TOs)
2) Lots of smarts and less experience (top/high level players, recognized TOs)
3) Less smarts and lots of experience (non-top power-ranked players and lesser TOs)
4) Lots of smarts and little-to-no experience (community members who usually never go to tourneys, but everyone agrees would be a great addition to the group that leads their competitive scene)
5) Everyone else

Everyone in 1 should be able to join whenever they wish to, and no one in 5 should be able to join. The lower you are on the list, the harder it would be for you to join the BBR.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

And the BR advises everyone. I miss your point.

You said the people should be knowledgeable; I agree. I also believe they should play under or organize according to the rules they would wish other people to do so under. So yea, they should attend/organize regularly.

I don't see the point of the BBR as an advisory body, honestly...

A big part of this reform is that the TOs make the rules and agree to follow them. In fact, it's the key aspect. At least, that's how I see it. There only really needs to be two groups: the TOs, and the people advising them on the ruleset. Then you have other organs for things like character tactics, tier list, etc.

 

[-Vocal-]

There's actually an extremely notable difference between people who have never gone to tourneys but spent their time studying the game, and a person who goes to tourneys but never spends his time studying the game. The one who studies the game will immediately be a better player as soon as they grab a controller and play, since the one that never studies never improves.

That said, one that studies the essentials AND plays in tourneys beats people who study but don't go to tourneys when it comes to character and stage discussions. One can learn things like frame data, what move should beat what, why X thing works... But when you play, you learn that things aren't as black and white as data teaches us. There are varying playstyles: Falco could hands down lose against Kirby if he played in X manner, but he's able to win when played in Y manner. When you study the game and never go to tourneys, all the data suggests is that X beats Y, but when you go to a tourney and experience how volatile match results can be, you realize that even though X should beat Y, given the right thought and use Y can also beat X. And this is something that can only be studied deeply by playing matches at top/very high levels against many different people.

So if we were to create a new way on how to add people into the BBR, I'd say requirements should be:

1) Lots of smarts and lots of experience (top players, famous TOs)
2) Lots of smarts and less experience (top/high level players, recognized TOs)
3) Less smarts and lots of experience (non-top power-ranked players and lesser TOs)
4) Lots of smarts and little-to-no experience (community members who usually never go to tourneys, but everyone agrees would be a great addition to the group that leads their competitive scene)
5) Everyone else

Everyone in 1 should be able to join whenever they wish to, and no one in 5 should be able to join. The lower you are on the list, the harder it would be for you to join the BBR.

I like the way you think Kewkky I'm still iffy on 4) but I can agree with you.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I'd honestly put 4 above 3. 3 is simply not valuable to the group at all, and potentially very detrimental.

 

[-Vocal-]

I'd honestly put 4 above 3. 3 is simply not valuable to the group at all, and potentially very detrimental.

You're blowing smoke - experienced players can be a great reference for how gameplay actually plays out in certain stages, conditions, etc. Notice he said "less smarts" and not "no smarts" - go ahead and bring up M2K's inability to form good argument the majority of the time, but there are other people smarter than that.

 

[vVv Rapture]

Kewkky speaks the truth.

However, do these positions have priority based on order?

 

[Kewkky]

You're blowing smoke - experienced players can be a great reference for how gameplay actually plays out in certain stages, conditions, etc. Notice he said "less smarts" and not "no smarts" - go ahead and bring up M2K's inability to form good argument the majority of the time, but there are other people smarter than that.

Yep, you hit it on the mark. Experiences players with less smarts than the better players can contribute to character and stage discussions in a way that people who simply study can't.

And by less, I don't mean "none", I simply mean "less than most of the best". So you got it Vocal.

Kewkky speaks the truth.

However, do these positions have priority based on order?

Yep, The higher you are on that list, the higher your chances would be in the theoretical situation.

 

[Browny]

You wish...

Yeah youre right, I do wish it was as stupidly easy to get into now as it was when I originally applied early last year and had 10x the credentials that some current members have.

 

[Kewkky]

Yeah youre right, I do wish it was as stupidly easy to get into now as it was when I originally applied early last year and had 10x the credentials that some current members have.

What credentials are those?

 

[Browny]

ugh thats going off topic... if you must know ill keep it to pm.

 

[Orion*]

I'm still missing why "being a top player" should be a criteria to join the BBR.

because your booty LOL

This post has some very, very good reasons as to why not. Listening to players like Orion, Ally, or M2K (ADHD has gotten way better of late) post should give you a good idea as to why being a top player doesn't automatically qualify you for things like this.

ally trolls
i just dont give a **** unless its mk boards tbh because i at least want fellow mk mains to know SOMETHING about their character rather than just roll dsmash.
adhd has been saying the exact same thing, even now, he just words it better. idk why you act like his whole **** changed, its the same ****ing posts. and hes agreed with me LOL

I gave my example of "perfectly playing robot with next to no game knowledge" vs. "guy with one arm who knows everything about smash" which is a pretty good thought experiment to disprove the concept of "top players should be BBR".

except, the funny thing is. ally/adhd/m2k all have mediocre reaction time. ive played them all for a long time rofl, if you do something they dont read their reaction time is meh.

I give major TOs a pass on this because, well, they are the people who hold the power. But if they weren't, then I wouldn't say being a major TO is an atuomatic inclusion either. You have to know the game well, and know it beyond just a small facet. And then you have to be non-biased. Notice how many of these things have very little to do with how good you actually are at smash?

all you said was "tos shouldnt be auto included because they dont necessarily play or understant the game. -- people in my boat however think we understand the game but cant prove it. -- see how little to do with how good you are at smash means?"

Sure, there are things like matchup knowledge that you have to be a top player to have effectively, but still...

beg more

There's actually an extremely notable difference between people who have never gone to tourneys but spent their time studying the game, and a person who goes to tourneys but never spends his time studying the game. The one who studies the game will immediately be a better player as soon as they grab a controller and play, since the one that never studies never improves.

whats funny is, i am a perfect example of what your talking about, and i still disagree with you. some players no matter how much they know, will still suck *** at this game. and its kinda depressing XD

That said, one that studies the essentials AND plays in tourneys beats people who study but don't go to tourneys when it comes to character and stage discussions.

also not true, youre pulling statistics out your *** ROFL.

One can learn things like frame data, what move should beat what, why X thing works... But when you play, you learn that things aren't as black and white as data teaches us. There are varying playstyles: Falco could hands down lose against Kirby if he played in X manner, but he's able to win when played in Y manner. When you study the game and never go to tourneys, all the data suggests is that X beats Y, but when you go to a tourney and experience how volatile match results can be, you realize that even though X should beat Y, given the right thought and use Y can also beat X. And this is something that can only be studied deeply by playing matches at top/very high levels against many different people.

i can agree with that

So if we were to create a new way on how to add people into the BBR, I'd say requirements should be:

1) Lots of smarts and lots of experience (top players, famous TOs)
2) Lots of smarts and less experience (top/high level players, recognized TOs)
3) Less smarts and lots of experience (non-top power-ranked players and lesser TOs)
4) Lots of smarts and little-to-no experience (community members who usually never go to tourneys, but everyone agrees would be a great addition to the group that leads their competitive scene)
5) Everyone else

Everyone in 1 should be able to join whenever they wish to, and no one in 5 should be able to join. The lower you are on the list, the harder it would be for you to join the BBR.

this is also good

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Kewkky speaks the truth.

However, do these positions have priority based on order?

Yes, they do.

Also, okay, yes, 3 before 4 makes sense now. My bad.

 

[Shaya]

Not to derail the topic, as some what requested by the person in question.
But X player above; was self admitted as to not attending tournaments / not being apart of the competitive scene any longer.

To be in the BBR it's important to not just be uber pro at talking or finding data, but be able to properly represent their scene.

 

[Kewkky]

whats funny is, i am a perfect example of what your talking about, and i still disagree with you. some players no matter how much they know, will still suck *** at this game. and its kinda depressing XD

Well sure some smart players can suck more than less educated players... But then that's just your own body's limitations playing into the game. Whether you lack the foresight to predict what your opponent is gonna do, or your reaction speed is slower, or hell if you can only move one finger, of course a less-knowledgeable smasher will do better than a smarter one.

But generally, taking two people with the same qualities except one is smarter than the other, and the other plays more than one, I would think that the smarter player would end up with most wins in a match (smarts include counterpicks of all sorts, chaingrabs, locks, true combos, OoS options, invincibility frames, port priority, mindgames and bait-and-punishment tactics, so on and so on...).

also not true, youre pulling statistics out your *** ROFL.

How so? I bet there's ranked players in different regions who don't study as much as the average Tactical Discussions poster, but could still beat them consistently nonetheless.

 

[Laem]

But generally, taking two people with the same qualities except one is smarter than the other, and the other plays more than one, I would think that the smarter player would end up with most wins in a match (smarts include counterpicks of all sorts, chaingrabs, locks, true combos, OoS options, invincibility frames, port priority, mindgames and bait-and-punishment tactics, so on and so on...).

Experience(playing more) automatically grant you your smarts.
The other way around, 'mafraid, that synergy is lacking.

and 'mindgames' is way more experience than it is smarts .

oh and orion probably misread, what you said is very, very obviously true.

 

[Kewkky]

Experience(playing more) automatically grant you your smarts.
The other way around, 'mafraid, that synergy is lacking.

and 'mindgames' is way more experience than it is smarts .

But how will a guy with only more experience than smarts know about frame data? Or things you could safely hit opponents' shields with? Or how to make rules according to what the game actually needs, and not just what your character needs (in other words, bias)? This falls under smarts as well, the ability to discern whether or not you're biased, and the ability to formulate unbiased opinions. Experience grants you some smarts, but not the kind of smarts you gain from studying.

A less-smarts and more-experience guy's character experience would be useful in discussing characters from the point of view of a high-level character mainer, and a more-smarts and less-experience guy's msarts would give us an unbiased theoretical look at the side of things. That said, the chance for either of them to get into the BBR is pretty low... But I'd rather have unbiased opinions of people who study the game's elements thoroughly, than possibly-biased opinions of a guy who just plays 2 or 3 characters and can mortar slide with Snake, so to speak.

 

[Coney]

There's actually an extremely notable difference between people who have never gone to tourneys but spent their time studying the game, and a person who goes to tourneys but never spends his time studying the game. The one who studies the game will immediately be a better player as soon as they grab a controller and play, since the one that never studies never improves.

i completely disagree. completely.

 

[memphischains]

i completely disagree. completely.

Well way to explain why.

Brawl isn't the type of game that the better player will always win. There are a lot of random factors and stupid **** that can happen (tripping for example).

 

[Kewkky]

i completely disagree. completely.

Never gone to tourneys =/= never played the game competitively.

Never gone to tourneys = friendlies, money matches, practicing, who knows?

Gone to tourneys doesn't automatically mean you do all of the above, and never gone to tourneys doesn't automatically mean you've never done any of the above. And according to how I just explained it, an ICs mainer who's never gone to a tourney would absolutely **** a (insert low/bottom tier character) who always goes to every tourney.


I'm sure that that's where you were confused.

 

[Lord Chair]

If you never study frame data you can still be aware of all your options. Practice every MU for 100 hours with your main in friendlies, try everything, know what you can do, learn **** from experience >>> you can be a good player. Eventually others will tell you what you do not know, and in the way people who never visit smashboards or any other information site will know how to play every single matchup, knowing all of their options.

Ultimate example: Glutonny. CBA to name more.

 

[-Vocal-]

If you never study frame data you can still be aware of all your options. Practice every MU for 100 hours with your main in friendlies, try everything, know what you can do, learn **** from experience >>> you can be a good player. Eventually others will tell you what you do not know, and in the way people who never visit smashboards or any other information site will know how to play every single matchup, knowing all of their options.

Ultimate example: Glutonny. CBA to name more.

The person who can dedicate 100 hours to every mu is rare, even if that was an exaggeration. And not everyone has the chance to play all the time - people have school (college) and jobs. Glutonny is abou 14, right? Of course he has time to do that, and probably friends who are in the same boat as him to play with

 

[uhmuzing]

Gluttony's 14!? Isn't he that Wario that beat Ally?

 

[-Vocal-]

Gluttony's 14!? Isn't he that Wario that beat Ally?

Yea. If he's not 12, it's 15 or something like that. I just know that the kid is young

 

[adumbrodeus]

I'd appreciate if the trolling and counter-trolling stopped, the group has made some recomendations worth exploring, and I'm interested in seeing what they come up with.




As far tournament experience... in my personal opinion, I don't think that a person who has never attended a tournament should be part of the BBR, neither should a person who no longer attends tournaments.

While it's not the only avenue of competitive experience, generally that's how you obtain the other areas. Furthermore, there's no way to gain a reasonably accurate gauge of your abilities without having people play against a number of individuals.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=10892648&postcount=85

I would appreciate it if anyone still interested in this thread would read/reread this post and tell me what they think about it. I still think it's full of great ideas, I just can't execute it effectively/at all without help. I have support from some TOs, but I don't know who else to contact and many people just don't return my PMs.

 

[Marc]

I check this thread from time to time and there are some things I can respond to. First of all, I think the foreword for 3.1 and the explanations accompanying it addressed a lot of the issues presented. If you can't discuss things on a level which shows you've read and understood it, I don't know what else to tell you.

This topic is basically a collection of opinions and even if we were willing to look at a demand list of some sorts, it's hard to filter out some kind of consensus.

What we will do at the very least:
-We will step it up with activity management. There are frequent purges, but maybe we should be harsher.
-We will revisit some elements of the ruleset after the tier list has been released. The ledge grab limit will be one of them. The point I made about (lack of) evidence still stands though and there are no guarantees anything will be changed. Rather than complain you'd be better off sending us evidence of planking winning tournaments, especially for non-MK characters.

Regarding membership: as long as they're capable of posting and (seem) willing to, we are receptive of admitting good players and many good character mains are actually in the BBR, as well as several of the best TOs. If they then choose not to contribute all we can do is remove them. This isn't a problem with the BBR's system, it's a problem with the players/TOs themselves. You can't force what isn't there.

If you're a good poster and debater you don't necessarily have to be the cream of the crop, but there is no way we can admit people who don't (frequently) enter or host tournaments. A person with no competitive affinity shouldn't make rulesets and tier list, even if they're very smart or good at looking at frame data. That said, there will be new admissions before the year ends and if you're genuinely out to change things you should definitely apply in that round.

I'd also like to know what people actually want us to do other than tier lists, rulesets and character discussions. The Back Room originally started out as a social club and we've been pushed into the role of a governing body over the years. We are definitely willing to accept that, but give us suggestions and try to be less hostile.

 

[Spelt]

I check this thread from time to time and there are some things I can respond to. First of all, I think the foreword for 3.1 and the explanations accompanying it addressed a lot of the issues presented. If you can't discuss things on a level which shows you've read and understood it, I don't know what else to tell you.

This topic is basically a collection of opinions and even if we were willing to look at a demand list of some sorts, it's hard to filter out some kind of consensus.

What we will do at the very least:
-We will step it up with activity management. There are frequent purges, but maybe we should be harsher.
-We will revisit some elements of the ruleset after the tier list has been released. The ledge grab limit will be one of them. The point I made about (lack of) evidence still stands though and there are no guarantees anything will be changed. Rather than complain you'd be better off sending us evidence of planking winning tournaments, especially for non-MK characters.

Regarding membership: as long as they're capable of posting and (seem) willing to, we are receptive of admitting good players and many good character mains are actually in the BBR, as well as several of the best TOs. If they then choose not to contribute all we can do is remove them. This isn't a problem with the BBR's system, it's a problem with the players/TOs themselves. You can't force what isn't there.

If you're a good poster and debater you don't necessarily have to be the cream of the crop, but there is no way we can admit people who don't (frequently) enter or host tournaments. A person with no competitive affinity shouldn't make rulesets and tier list, even if they're very smart or good at looking at frame data. That said, there will be new admissions before the year ends and if you're genuinely out to change things you should definitely apply in that round.

I'd also like to know what people actually want us to do other than tier lists, rulesets and character discussions. The Back Room originally started out as a social club and we've been pushed into the role of a governing body over the years. We are definitely willing to accept that, but give us suggestions and try to be less hostile.

I am very pleased with this post, it's nice to see the BBR listen to the community's opinions.


As for suggestions, I don't have any currently, but I will try to think of some.

 

[-Vocal-]

I check this thread from time to time and there are some things I can respond to. First of all, I think the foreword for 3.1 and the explanations accompanying it addressed a lot of the issues presented. If you can't discuss things on a level which shows you've read and understood it, I don't know what else to tell you.

This topic is basically a collection of opinions and even if we were willing to look at a demand list of some sorts, it's hard to filter out some kind of consensus.

What we will do at the very least:
-We will step it up with activity management. There are frequent purges, but maybe we should be harsher.
-We will revisit some elements of the ruleset after the tier list has been released. The ledge grab limit will be one of them. The point I made about (lack of) evidence still stands though and there are no guarantees anything will be changed. Rather than complain you'd be better off sending us evidence of planking winning tournaments, especially for non-MK characters.

Regarding membership: as long as they're capable of posting and (seem) willing to, we are receptive of admitting good players and many good character mains are actually in the BBR, as well as several of the best TOs. If they then choose not to contribute all we can do is remove them. This isn't a problem with the BBR's system, it's a problem with the players/TOs themselves. You can't force what isn't there.

If you're a good poster and debater you don't necessarily have to be the cream of the crop, but there is no way we can admit people who don't (frequently) enter or host tournaments. A person with no competitive affinity shouldn't make rulesets and tier list, even if they're very smart or good at looking at frame data. That said, there will be new admissions before the year ends and if you're genuinely out to change things you should definitely apply in that round.

I'd also like to know what people actually want us to do other than tier lists, rulesets and character discussions. The Back Room originally started out as a social club and we've been pushed into the role of a governing body over the years. We are definitely willing to accept that, but give us suggestions and try to be less hostile.

You guys have all of my concerns under the ground; I figured you did even before you posted this, but it's nice to see some confirmation

 

[Overswarm]

A person with no competitive affinity shouldn't make rulesets and tier list, even if they're very smart or good at looking at frame data.

Ankoku was extremely useful before he started getting more into smash >_>


Basically, some deserves to get in if they'll be helpful to the BBR and love Smash. End of story. Anyone that thinks otherwise would need to swallow their pride and accept that if someone is useful, it doesn't matter what their other traits are. Using them as scapegoats of "something gone wrong" is... less than stellar.

 

[memphischains]

Overswarm you're the worst person in the back room for sure

 

[rPSIvysaur]

Overswarm you're the best person in the back room for sure.

<Back up your arguments please.

 

[Overswarm]

Confirmation bias says rPSI is correct.


That's right Marc. That was a meta post.

 

[Shaya]

I'm pretty fail at smash.

I guess I should leave the BBR

 

[Flayl]

I'm pretty fail at smash.

I guess I should leave the BBR

For the sake of argument let's just assume this is true. What do you bring to the BBR?

 

[TheMike]

Rajam, for instance, says that he sucks on the game. However, he brings to the community the SWF Rankings and to the BBR some of its especific data. We need not only good players/TOs, but also members willing to lead important projects, like Rajam.