Backroom Reform: Current Topic -> Success?

[DC.Eden]

Of course not. The game says Wario loses so he loses. The same applies to Ganoncide - it says he loses or goes to Sudden Death, so he loses or goes to Sudden Death. You can make an argument over the arbitrariness of determining victor by percentages in the case of a time out (which is also a universal rule), but that's a different discussion.

ganonciding also has the win option.

You're talking about GANON, a character PROVEN to have faulty coding.
( EX: his fair)

Also tbh that whole thing I typed wasn't really much an actual argument as much as it was a thing to mock the "hypothetical situation".

 

[chimpact]

Let me ask a hypothetical question. What if the game always made ganon lose? Like, every single time. No matter what, ganon dies first. Would you still want this rule? Even though it's obvious that the game is programmed to make ganon lose? It would be ridiculous to request it. In fact, it would mean that this move is not your "don't get in my way or I win" as you think it is, and more a "get in my way to win the game against me". You know, like jumping into the way of ike's quickdraw far offstage.

Now look at the facts. It's almost reasonable to request a tie, as it's a possible outcome. It almost never makes ganon win though. So murder choke is not your "get back to the stage free pass", it's a potential move to tie the game up, at best.

Let me ask a hypothetical question. What if the game always made a character that timed someone out to lose the match ( or you know, call a sudden death like it already does), regardless of percent.

As in a wario times out a snake or a mk times out a falco, it declared the winner of the game to be snake and falco. Would you still give the win to the person who timed someone out? Even though the game OBVIOUSLY was designed for that player to lose?

Hypotheticals are fun.

nice try budget kid

 

[-Vocal-]

ganonciding also has the win option.

You're talking about GANON, a character PROVEN to have faulty coding.
( EX: his fair)

Also tbh that whole thing I typed wasn't really much an actual argument as much as it was a thing to mock the "hypothetical situation".

T_T

His fair having faulty coding means absolutely nothing about the rest of his character. And yes, how could I forget that <1% chance of winning?

And if anyone wants to dispute that number, be my guest - show me cold, hard data to back it up.

 

[Vermanubis]

 

[Vermanubis]

T_T

His fair having faulty coding means absolutely nothing about the rest of his character. And yes, how could I forget that <1% chance of winning?

And if anyone wants to dispute that number, be my guest - show me cold, hard data to back it up.

It lends credence to the fact that other aspects of his character could be fauly. It's a small wonder you cling to facts; you seem to not like thinking independently.

 

[-Vocal-]

It lends credence to the fact that other aspects of his character could be fauly. It's a small wonder you cling to facts; you seem to not like thinking independently.

No, it lends credence to the fact that other aspects OF THE GAME could be faulty; it would even be more accurate to say that characters in general could be faulty, which is entirely true (off the top of my head I think of a glitch with DDD's inhale), but the way you two are stating it is entirely facetious.

LMFAO!!!

I laughed so hard XD

 

[Vermanubis]

As I said before, you cling to facts that can't, unfortunately, be unproven, but the basis that lends credence to these facts is, in and of itself, flawed. So it's a stalemate from hell.

Also, facetious? I'm not at all trying to be a smartass, but do you mean fallacious? Facetious means to joke or be sarcastic.

 

[-Vocal-]

As I said before, you cling to facts that can't, unfortunately, be unproven, but the basis that lends credence to these facts is, in and of itself, flawed. So it's a stalemate from hell.

Also, facetious? I'm not at all trying to be a smartass, but do you mean fallacious? Facetious means to joke or be sarcastic.

I'm honestly in the dark on this one - how was it proven that Ganon's Fair was supposed to auto-cancel?

And yes I meant fallacious, my b, I mix the two up sometimes ^_^

 

[swordgard]

If the game dictacted wario always lost after timeout, then so be it sucks to be wario. We removed sudden death because it was uncompetitive, but making it be only stocks would indeed adhere more to the game's ruling. That I would be more than willing to discuss, but clearly ganon should not get the win when he side-bs anymore than when any character does any other move. Deserving a win is purely arbitrary whenever it is taken out of hand of the game, which is why we should honor its verdict. I don't care if you think he "should" get the win even if its "faulty programming", fact is he doesn't in the game. Its just part of a crappy moveset. This is no different from being infinitable by d3, if it happens to your char, doesn't matter if you think it should not be allowed and you deserve the buff, its part of the game. Sucks to be ganondorf.


Also, most people laughing at budget are actually way worst at making a good argument than he is >.> . If you want to attack someone, aim at me instead, I lost to inui after all<trollbait.

 

[Spelt]

lol argumenting

 

[swordgard]

lol argumenting

Is that not a word in english?

In french it is O.o

 

[C.J.]

Nope. Unfortunately English is dumb and unlike most other languages you can't add specific prefixes/suffixes and change a noun into a verb.
Argument and arguing.

 

[-Vocal-]

Even weirder

Testament and testifying.

 

[Spelt]

Oh ok, well then sorry.
I'm not familiar with french.

 

[Dark 3nergy]

i dont understand....;_; why is ganon losing

 

[lordhelmet]

I'm honestly in the dark on this one - how was it proven that Ganon's Fair was supposed to auto-cancel?

And yes I meant fallacious, my b, I mix the two up sometimes ^_^

Open up Ganon's fair in PSA. It jumps right out that it was supposed to autocancel on SHORT HOP. He suffers the lag even if he full hops.

Fair would have been a great move...

 

[swordgard]

Open up Ganon's fair in PSA. It jumps right out that it was supposed to autocancel on SHORT HOP. He suffers the lag even if he full hops.

Fair would have been a great move...

So what? We are playing the game how it was made, sucks to be ganon if he has faulty programming.

 

[lordhelmet]

I was answering his question Swordgard. Lrn2 read the quote.

 

[.Marik]

This entire thread basically showcases the exact reasons why I dropped Brawl competitively.

 

[-Vocal-]

Open up Ganon's fair in PSA. It jumps right out that it was supposed to autocancel on SHORT HOP. He suffers the lag even if he full hops.

Fair would have been a great move...

Interesting. I wonder if we can do a similar thing with Ganoncide! Even if there's no actual programming that says it, we may be able to discover an answer otherwise; perhaps we could test what happens when two people in a grab cross the blastline and see if anything could be gathered from that. Then you'd at least be able to argue that it's a glitch. Not saying that will change everything, and not saying it won't, just saying it could.

 

[AvaricePanda]

We removed sudden death because it was uncompetitive, but making it be only stocks would indeed adhere more to the game's ruling.

How come we run one stock 3 minute rematches in the case of the percent and stocks being the same, but we just grant the leader in % the win in the case of a sudden death, despite the game screen showing a sudden death? I understand why you don't play out the sudden death, but why do we do two different things in two scenarios when the game screen shows the same thing?

The above is semi-rhetorical (I'm actually not pushing that we do a 1 stock 3-minute rematch all the time when the game screen shows Sudden Death), but my point is that how come the above is fine, yet a rule saying that Ganon always wins (even always loses would be more competitive in a tournament setting then random-i-hope-you-get-lucky) is dismissed because the game screen says not to?

I'ts clear inconsistency within the same ruleset.

The Ganoncide ruling in itself brings an issue with competitiveness in that the exact same action done the exact same way can win a set or lose one directly from the results screen, which in a tournament is "unfair". The point of a tournament is to as closely as possible show who the best players that day were—a player being lucky with an uncompetitive game engine with the results screen should not interfere with that.

"I placed 5th because I Ganoncided and it said my opponent won when I had the % lead."
"Oh, I placed 4th because I Ganoncided and it went to sudden death when I had the % lead/I won the 1-stock 3-minute time match."
(btw, this ruleset is unclear: what happens if a Ganoncide goes to sudden death? do you do a 1-stock 3-minute time match or just give the win to whoever's in the lead with % [despite the game not saying that lolololol])

 

[-Vocal-]

I'd like to hear swordgard's reply since he's from the BR, but I also have a couple things I'd like to say.

Random occurences are allowed to kill. If Peach pulls a stitch face and throws it at you, she got lucky and won. In her case, the random factor is at the beginning of the move and can be utilized; Ganondorf's, unfortunately, occurs at the end of the move and is not random in his favor. Sad as this is, it is what it is.

And another problem I have: rematch rules and the like apply to EVERY character - suicide rules apply ONLY to charactes with suicide moves, and as such become a balancing tool, either making them better or worse.

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

And another problem I have: rematch rules and the like apply to EVERY character - suicide rules apply ONLY to charactes with suicide moves, and as such become a balancing tool, either making them better or worse.

My take on -cide moves was that it's something that should be allowed. In the case of ganon's and Bowsers, when down to the last stock and they use their -cide moves, they are the victors.There is no escape method once you get caught in that move. It took timing for the other player to use the -cide move correctly to kill your stock. In the case of Kirby's, I think it should be on whatever the screen says. it is possible to escape kirby before you fall off the screen and die. If you somehow die as kirby and the other player escaped before you did, then it's the kirby's loss. The other player escaped your -cide attempt and one uped you.

 

[Deleted member]

On the topic of "success", I'd say yes, we succeeded in getting things changed with the recent ruleset, but our original goal of reforming the backroom fell short, or it's just unnecessary as long as there's more communication between the public and the BBR.

There are still some issues that make this not a complete success, namely the amount of players who are unsatisfied with the current BBR character discussions. The issue of the higher tiered characters getting the more obvious support from backroom members is probably what bugs me the most.

 

[-Vocal-]

My take on -cide moves was that it's something that should be allowed. In the case of ganon's and Bowsers, when down to the last stock and they use their -cide moves, they are the victors.There is no escape method once you get caught in that move. It took timing for the other player to use the -cide move correctly to kill your stock. In the case of Kirby's, I think it should be on whatever the screen says. it is possible to escape kirby before you fall off the screen and die. If you somehow die as kirby and the other player escaped before you did, then it's the kirby's loss. The other player escaped your -cide attempt and one uped you.

But that's just because you think Ganon and Bowser deserve a buff. Yes, the opponent can't escape, but the game does not always say that they win. For Bowser, it would seem to be entirely dependent on port priority; for Ganon, it appears to be dependent on both port priority and a random factor. In either case, they aren't the victor unless that's the effect the move produces

 

[solecalibur]

I just dont see why half of the background is not even on becasue the ruleset only showed half of the members voting lolz

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

But that's just because you think Ganon and Bowser deserve a buff. Yes, the opponent can't escape, but the game does not always say that they win. For Bowser, it would seem to be entirely dependent on port priority; for Ganon, it appears to be dependent on both port priority and a random factor. In either case, they aren't the victor unless that's the effect the move produces

For that case, I am ignoring what the screen says and saying that if bowswer or ganon -cide you on the last stock (even if it was their own as well), no matter what the screen says, they win. I am not saying that because it's a buff, I am saying that because the other opponent failed to evade the grab range of the attack. It's like evading the killing move of some character. You failed to evade someone's kill move, therefore you lose the stock.

 

[adumbrodeus]

However if we decided that they auto-lost then it would be your fault for using the wrong move or not avoiding their hurtbox. Cuts both ways.

 

[-Vocal-]

For that case, I am ignoring what the screen says and saying that if bowswer or ganon -cide you on the last stock (even if it was their own as well), no matter what the screen says, they win. I am not saying that because it's a buff, I am saying that because the other opponent failed to evade the grab range of the attack. It's like evading the killing move of some character. You failed to evade someone's kill move, therefore you lose the stock.

>.>

You don't see how that isn't making those characters better? Sure, they opponent didn't evade the move, but THE MOVE DID NOT SAY THAT THE INITIATOR WINS. You're trying to change that

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

I'm not changing anything. Just saying what ruling makes the most logic given the nature of the game.

 

[-Vocal-]

I'm not changing anything. Just saying what ruling makes the most logic given the nature of the game.

The nature of the game is to be decided by programming

Peach just can't say "Oh I hit you with a turnip so I should get the best possible outcome that comes from doing so!" and then tack on damage equal to a stitch face. Random moves get what they get - that's the programming, that's the nature of the game.

 

[swordgard]

I'm not changing anything. Just saying what ruling makes the most logic given the nature of the game.

...

Your changing the games decision.

 

[Ganonsburg]

Or, if you want to make it so that the initiator of attacks is the loser, I'd go Ganon vs. MK all day and come out as the winner. Yes, this one rule buffs Ganon and Bowser (and maybe Kirby/DDD/Wario...but that's a completely different scenario), but it also keeps the nature and overall point of the game intact. The nature/point being that you attack your opponent to KO them and, with enough KOs, win. It's not about buffing two characters. It's about staying within the nature of the game.

It's like when you translate something from one language to another. You can translate word by word and get a half-decent translation that may or may not make sense (BBR's ruling on honoring the result screen). Or you can translate idea for idea and actually convey the original message (our point about keeping true to the nature of the game).

The results screen honoring only keeps true to one part of the game. What we're proposing stays true to everything that leads up to that one moment.

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

There is a factor of chance involved, but every scenario of that can just as quickly be wasted. I could get a bom-omb that will kill you at 60% no matter how you DI, but unless I hit you with it, it's just another wasted factor.

We ignored programming by deciding to turn items off. We can ignore programming by deciding to make Ganon's -cide move an auto-win if he somehow manages to get the other opponent down to the last stock for both of them and actually hit their opponent offstage with SideB.

 

[-Vocal-]

To both Ganon and Xey: we don't change or regulate programming in any way shape or form. The NEAR exception to this is the banning of the IDC glitch, but that is only because of it's potential as a stalling tool. Otherwise, all programming in the game is honored, and to suggest that we should ignore it is CHANGING THE GAME.

@Xey: We don't change the programming of items, we turn them off.

 

[Ganonsburg]

If IDC is such a problem for stalling, then it could be easily called out when seen. You don't even need a rule for that. It's an arbitrary rule (Hey guys, I can use arbitrary. Can I be in the BBR now?).

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

That is the thing though vocal. We make surgical changes by removing parts of the game all the time. We have removed stages, we have removed team attack off, we have removed items, all in the sake of making the game better for a tournament experince or to be true to the skill of the players. The same thing would be no different from simply saying Ganon's or Bowser's -cide moves are an auto-win or lose for ganon or the opponent. It's not the same as changing a switch in the game, but the end result is the same. Removing a piece of the gameplay through a decision. People decide to accept stages to be part of play, we can decide to accept to make it an auto-win or lose for -cide moves depending upon the situation.

The reasoning behind my thoughts for bowser and ganon was that it stayed true to the skill side of the player. They worked to get the other character down to final stock. If they manged to land a -cide move on their opponent, it would be like making the right read against falco to gimp his recovery. I cannot say the same for Kirby, DDD or wario though as people have the chance to escape.

 

[-Vocal-]

That is the thing though vocal. We make surgical changes by removing parts of the game all the time. We have removed stages, we have removed team attack off, we have removed items, all in the sake of making the game better for a tournament experince or to be true to the skill of the players. The same thing would be no different from simply saying Ganon's or Bowser's -cide moves are an auto-win or lose for ganon or the opponent. It's not the same as changing a switch in the game, but the end result is the same. Removing a piece of the gameplay through a decision. People decide to accept stages to be part of play, we can decide to accept to make it an auto-win or lose for -cide moves depending upon the situation.

The reasoning behind my thoughts for bowser and ganon was that it stayed true to the skill side of the player. They worked to get the other character down to final stock. If they manged to land a -cide move on their opponent, it would be like making the right read against falco to gimp his recovery. I cannot say the same for Kirby, DDD or wario though as people have the chance to escape.

What you fail to recognize is that EVERY ONE OF THOSE RULES APPLIES EQUALLY TO ALL CHARACTERS. NO character can play on Hanenbow. NO character gets disqualified for grabbing the ledge. NO character is allowed to stall. ALL characters begin the game with three stocks. Every rule applies to every character, and this is different from ONLY CHARACTERS THAT HAVE SUICIDE MOVES can win the game by default when performing a special.

As for IDC, it is impossible to know in all cases whether or not IDC is being used to gain a better position or to stall, which is why it was deemed detrimental to competitive play and banned. This is especially @Ganon - the lines can just get too fuzzy, which is why, after LONG deliberation, the BBR banned it.

 

[Ganonsburg]

Well, you have one character specific rule. Why not another rule for two characters? You can make all the excuses you like, but as long as the bbr still has that one character specific rule, the BBR is still contradicting itself when they say they won't make character specific rules.

 

[swordgard]

Strawmanning at its finest.


TBH I am not even sure I want to reply to this thread anymore. Bha I will but probably way later.