Backroom Reform: Current Topic -> Success?

[-Vocal-]

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.

Haven't you heard? Straw man is the new Iron Person

Oh wait, no, it's still a flimsy argument. How 'bout that :/

So Ganonsburg - you would advocate for the removal of the IDC rule which would thereby allow your MK opponents to skirt the line of stalling against you without being disqualified for it?

The most important thing to note is that the only reason the IDC rule exists is because IDC is too powerful of a stalling tool to remain unchecked. Stalling is counterproductive to competition, which is why precautions are taken to make sure it does not happen.

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

Bah. It's all minuit details we are left to discuss. I have no idea why I am discussing in the first place. I never play ganon, and if I was to lose to ganoncide in the first place, I would call it a lose anyway for me being so stupid to get caught in it.

 

[Ganonsburg]

Who said I was trying to argue sensibly right now? You guys gave up a long time ago, and the BBR even before that....I just wanted to join the party.

BTW, if stalling is counterproductive to competition, is that why we let people get a percent lead, stall for the rest of the match, and then give them the win? Sounds logical to me.

 

[vVv Rapture]

Haven't you heard? Straw man is the new Iron Person

Oh wait, no, it's still a flimsy argument. How 'bout that :/

So Ganonsburg - you would advocate for the removal of the IDC rule which would thereby allow your MK opponents to skirt the line of stalling against you without being disqualified for it?

The most important thing to note is that the only reason the IDC rule exists is because IDC is too powerful of a stalling tool to remain unchecked. Stalling is counterproductive to competition, which is why precautions are taken to make sure it does not happen.

Yeah, but isn't it part of Metaknight's programming? I for one think we should stick to the game's programming with these issues. I mean, it's only fair.

You can't say that we have to abide by the game's programming with Ganon, but not with MK. If you allow MK, you shouldn't go against what he can do just because you don't like stalling. It's still a character-specific rule no matter how you look at it.

 

[-Vocal-]

Yeah, but isn't it part of Metaknight's programming? I for one think we should stick to the game's programming with these issues. I mean, it's only fair.

You can't say that we have to abide by the game's programming with Ganon, but not with MK. If you allow MK, you shouldn't go against what he can do just because you don't like stalling. It's still a character-specific rule no matter how you look at it.

It's a character specific rule because the universal rule that should apply to it allows him to skirt its fuzzy border. It's a firmer way of telling him NO STALLING. At least that's how I reason it, not saying that's the official reasoning.

There is no universal rule that would encompass suicide rules.

And @Ganon: there are extremely few characters that can stall effectively while avoiding combat. Anyone can try to run the clock out, but that isn't classified as stalling.

 

[Ganonsburg]

But it achieves the same effect: it avoids combat. Hm...considering this is a fighting game, avoiding combat seems counterproductive. Not to mention, it doesn't seem like noncombat would be in a combat-oriented game. But you guys can go ahead and encourage it.

Wait, what's that? You think killing your foe via suicide and losing is okay? Even though it is direct combat and the initiator should be rewarded for killing his foe (the foe obviously didn't kill the initiator)? You banned combat in a combat oriented game? Hm. That sounds about right.

It totally makes sense now. Fighting in a fighting game means you lose, when not fighting in a fighting game means you win. Thank you for showing me the error of my ways.

 

[-Vocal-]

But it achieves the same effect: it avoids combat. Hm...considering this is a fighting game, avoiding combat seems counterproductive. Not to mention, it doesn't seem like noncombat would be in a combat-oriented game. But you guys can go ahead and encourage it.

Wait, what's that? You think killing your foe via suicide and losing is okay? Even though it is direct combat and the initiator should be rewarded for killing his foe (the foe obviously didn't kill the initiator)? You banned combat in a combat oriented game? Hm. That sounds about right.

It totally makes sense now. Fighting in a fighting game means you lose, when not fighting in a fighting game means you win. Thank you for showing me the error of my ways.

Thank you for sharing your opinions on how a game should be created. Take them to HAL Laboratory if they ever choose to make another Smash game.

And avoiding combat is competitive because you have to avoid it. Making combat impossible (or some paraphrase) is defined as stalling.

 

[swordgard]

Who said I was trying to argue sensibly right now? You guys gave up a long time ago, and the BBR even before that....I just wanted to join the party.

****talking a group like the BBR on which you have no idea on how it works or how people reason within it is really going too far. I really don't see why I should try to answer your argument if you imply you aren't trying to argue in a logical manner and then pretend others don't without even knowing what your talking about.

 

[AvaricePanda]

ignoring all the bad arguments I'd like to repost this being only slightly better

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 understand that game rules like what happens at sudden death applies to all characters and a ganoncide ruling applies to only Ganon, but it doesn't change the inconsistency that we do two different things for the results screen showing the same thing—specifically when sudden death appears, we either give the winner to the person leading in %, or we do a 1-stock 3-minute rematch in the case of a % tie. I see your reasoning about Peach's Turnip random factor being at the beginning and Ganon's being at the end (which sucks). I'm just asking, mainly to swordgard but also to a lot of people, why is suggesting a specific Ganoncide ruling such a ridiculous idea when we already have inconsistencies with what the game screen says in the same ruleset?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Actually, what Avarice Panda says makes sense. Why reward % leads, when the game clearly doesn't? We shouldn't.

 

[Ganonsburg]

At least someone's finally addressing that point. After the 5th or 6th time it got annoying bringing it back up because no one addressed it.

Who wants to bet the BBR still ignores it?

Edit: @ Vocal, if you think fighting games should consist of mainly not fighting, by all means continue. I'll be over here KOing my opponent like the game was made for.

 

[Shaya]

As I said... a billion years ago...

game going to time:
In the spirit of "other" competitive fighters, as well as smash in itself (when stocks are different); the character with the least damage wins. Somewhat uniform.

There are two victory conditions in this game:
1. Take all 3 of your opponent's stocks before they take yours.
2. Be in the lead when the match goes to time.

The suicide/sudden death match rule was made to
COVER THE SITUATION IN WHICH EITHER VICTORY CONDITION WAS A DRAW

This rule is all about game draws.
It's pretty explicit, and it's meant to cover the entire cast, in every situation, uniformly.

If ganon side bs to end the game and it goes to sudden death... then you follow what the rule set has specifically said.

Peach bulls a bomb, throws it, it explodes on both players, both players die at the same time (sudden death), who wins?
If we did this for ganon, we should somewhat apply this to Peach; arguably all characters... But then things get shaky

Instead of evading the bomb, I purposely move forwards so both of us got hit so it would go to sudden death, why should I lose?

instead of letting ganon get back to the stage, I purposely got in the way of his side b so the game would end, why should I lose?

 

[Browny]

Actually, what Avarice Panda says makes sense. Why reward % leads, when the game clearly doesn't? We shouldn't.

...

Thats true rofl. No more of this 'we must honour the games decision' when it comes to keeping the game 'pure' in the instance of ganon/bowser forcing sudden death (a draw) if at the same time this rule exists, invented by us for the sole purpose of deciding a match as quickly as possible in the event of a draw.

Like seriously, the argument about honouring the games decision in regards to the suicide rule is now invalid (or hypocritical, take your pick)

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Uh... I'm not advocating changing the suicide rule here... Just FYI. It's the other way around.

 

[AvaricePanda]

There are two victory conditions in this game:
2. Be in the lead when the match goes to time.

This is not a victory condition in this game.

HOWEVER, I understand why we give the person who's leading by % the win even though the game goes to sudden death. It's reasonable for me. But my question is,

1) The game goes to Sudden Death, but we grant the win to the person leading in percent.
2) The game goes to Sudden Death, but we grant the win to the person who initiated the suicide move.

My question isn't, "Why do we do 1," but it's, "Why is 2 unreasonable for some people when 1 is accepted by nearly everybody?"

 

[Browny]

Uh... I'm not advocating changing the suicide rule here... Just FYI. It's the other way around.

Its not about advocating a rule one way or the other, it is rendering the idea that we must honour the games decisions as a definitive support to ones arguments, invalid. If the rules are to stay as they are currently thats fine but attempting to justify the rule on some moral high ground of playing the game purely without our intervention with arbitrary rules is complete cr@p.

 

[Shaya]

1) Because this will only occur if the match goes to time. The game already inherently gives the win to a character who has a lead at time; this has only been extended to include percent as well. This is a standard across all fighting games. Including brawl when it comes to stocks.
2) Because the game is a Draw on victory condition 1. Giving an individually set out character a win or less rather than having "blanket" rules is the hypocritical thing to do.

I hate using the term suicide rule because that's all it commonly effects. Its a rule that effects game draws from the set out victory conditions. We have two rules specific to how a game decides a winner that is uniform across the cast.
Now we have a rule which is uniform across the entire cast in the case of either of those victory conditions being a draw.

-

Browny being that devil's advocate troll again.

 

[-Vocal-]

I'm gonna lurk this conversation, but let me make one thing clear:

I NEVER ONCE STATED THAT THERE WAS NOT AN INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN HOW COMPLETE TIES AND PERCENT LEADS ARE TREATED.

edit@DC: As I heard Shaya explain the reasoning before, the BR chose the honor the old tradition of fighting games that in the case of a time out, the character with the most vitality left (in Brawl, the lowest percentage) wins. You could argue with them about that one if you like.

Omg, did you see what he just said?! HE SAID YOU COULD ARGUE THAT POINT!

So wait, why are people saying that he's claiming it can't be? Oh I don't know, people have short memories or something.

@Avarice: An inconsistency concerning the victory screen that is applied universally is in no way, shape, or form something that can be used to support a subset-specifc rule - ever. If you would like to apply more universal rules that are inconsistent with the victory screen, then ok. If you would like to remove all universal rules that are inconsistent with the victory screen, then that's fine too. Honestly, the ONLY thing I've been saying is ONLY IMPLEMENT A RULE IF IT'S UNIVERSAL. At that point, most rules are arbitrary anyways, so that is the ground upon which you may make an argument. No character specific rules though, just want to make sure we're clear on that one.

@Ganons: Would you kindly point to the word "mainly" in my post? You just trollin me now Which is fine, I see your posts enough to not harbor any ill will towards you

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Easy way out to this:

@Ganon mains: ganon might as well be banned, for how viable he is in tournaments. Stop *****ing about this rule and pick a character that isn't a hole in the ground that may later be used as a latrine.
Oh snap I went there.

And now I think I should probably go advocate removing the "win on % lead" rule. :V

 

[Shaya]

I'd be more inclined to argue win by % rule.

All matches going to draw rule in the case of a time out if the stocks are the same seems somewhat fair.

However, the main basis against that is of course
"omg we're at the same stock, time to time out so we get sudden death".
Or something similar to.
So punishing the player winning.

But really, considering how weight classes work, skills depending on DI, and what not... it's a fine line to consider percent the be-all end all.

 

[Ganonsburg]

But that still doesn't answer why the current rule is the only "logical" way, when there are also other solutions that are equally logical if not moreso.

Examples of better rules than the current:

-In the case that two players die at the same moment, the player with the percent lead wins. (This remains consistent with the current rule in place concerning time-outs)
-In the case that two players die at the same moment, the initiator wins. (This remains constant with the point of the game, which is to attack and KO the other player. Maybe the other player read the recovery, but that player could have also charged a smash or something to KO as well. Not to mention I have never seen anyone jump into a Aerudo to win a match.)
-In the case of a time-out or two players being KOed at the same time, there will be a 1-stock 3 min rematch (such that all Sudden Death Scenarios are treated the same way).

 

[-Vocal-]

Before reading anything and replying, I just gotta say: ignore BPC for now, he's drunk off his *** and I'm not joking

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Before reading anything and replying, I just gotta say: ignore BPC for now, he's drunk off his *** and I'm not joking

He's right, but in regards to what Panda said, it actually makes a lot of sense. I think it will continue to make sense when I'm sober.

Oh, and I'm serious about the whole "stop pouring your time into a hole in the ground with ganon" thing. No, really. It's the easiest way out, everyone just stop playing characters that aren't even remotely competitively viable in low tier.

 

[-Vocal-]

But that still doesn't answer why the current rule is the only "logical" way, when there are also other solutions that are equally logical if not moreso.

Examples of better rules than the current:

-In the case that two players die at the same moment, the player with the percent lead wins. (This remains consistent with the current rule in place concerning time-outs)
-In the case that two players die at the same moment, the initiator wins. (This remains constant with the point of the game, which is to attack and KO the other player. Maybe the other player read the recovery, but that player could have also charged a smash or something to KO as well. Not to mention I have never seen anyone jump into a Aerudo to win a match.)
-In the case of a time-out or two players being KOed at the same time, there will be a 1-stock 3 min rematch (such that all Sudden Death Scenarios are treated the same way).

The second of those suggestions is purely your opinion on the game. I would actually be in favor of the first for several reasons

1) It creates parallel structure through the rules concerning concurrent death
2) Tournaments would go on forever with the third option

I haven't thought too long about it, but the first actually does not seem like a bad suggestion.

 

[Ganonsburg]

Before reading anything and replying, I just gotta say: ignore BPC for now, he's drunk off his *** and I'm not joking

HAHA. I'll keep that in mind.

He's right, but in regards to what Panda said, it actually makes a lot of sense. I think it will continue to make sense when I'm sober.

Oh, and I'm serious about the whole "stop pouring your time into a hole in the ground with ganon" thing. No, really. It's the easiest way out, everyone just stop playing characters that aren't even remotely competitively viable in low tier.

Can't be serious AND drunk. But in all seriousness (BAHA), these characters have merit. It's like training in weighted clothing. See: Twilight Prince. Anyway, what's the point in playing a game with no challenge?

 

[-Vocal-]

HAHA. I'll keep that in mind.



Can't be serious AND drunk. But in all seriousness (BAHA), these characters have merit. It's like training in weighted clothing. See: Twilight Prince. Anyway, what's the point in playing a game with no challenge?

I play a character that's 10th on the tier list so let me tell you: there is still PLENTY of challenge at this level

 

[Shaya]

-In the case that two players die at the same moment, the player with the percent lead wins. (This remains consistent with the current rule in place concerning time-outs)

No it doesn't. The current rule only applies to time outs.
Only.
Applies
To
Time outs.

-In the case that two players die at the same moment, the initiator wins. (This remains constant with the point of the game, which is to attack and KO the other player. Maybe the other player read the recovery, but that player could have also charged a smash or something to KO as well. Not to mention I have never seen anyone jump into a Aerudo to win a match.)

So let's say someone extends themselves off stage to hit someone who would otherwise recover. Because of this they can't recover, neither can the opponent. Both die at the same time, who wins? BUT WAIT, one actually dies just a little bit earlier!

Also your example is flawed, the game already decides who died first, by having the other player win. So you're asking us to pick and choose what is considered dying at the same time.

The point of the game is to take three of your opponent's stocks before they take yours.
Or have a lead when the match goes to time.

Your second implication is full of too many holes.

-In the case of a time-out or two players being KOed at the same time, there will be a 1-stock 3 min rematch (such that all Sudden Death Scenarios are treated the same way).

Yep, this is what happens now. And it's amazing because it works.

 

[-Vocal-]

No it doesn't. The current rule only applies to time outs.
Only.
Applies
To
Time outs.



So let's say someone extends themselves off stage to hit someone who would otherwise recover. Because of this they can't recover, neither can the opponent. Both die at the same time, who wins? BUT WAIT, one actually dies just a little bit earlier!

Also your example is flawed, the game already decides who died first, by having the other player win. So you're asking us to pick and choose what is considered dying at the same time.

The point of the game is to take three of your opponent's stocks before they take yours.
Or have a lead when the match goes to time.

Your second implication is full of too many holes.




Yep, this is what happens now. And it's amazing because it works.

Shaya, I'm just wondering, does your cheek ever get full with all that tongue in it?

 

[Ganonsburg]

No it doesn't. The current rule only applies to time outs.
Only.
Applies
To
Time outs.

Wow, good reasoning. Because it applies to one, there is no way that it could ever apply to the other.

So let's say someone extends themselves off stage to hit someone who would otherwise recover. Because of this they can't recover, neither can the opponent. Both die at the same time, who wins? BUT WAIT, one actually dies just a little bit earlier!

Also your example is flawed, the game already decides who died first, by having the other player win. So you're asking us to pick and choose what is considered dying at the same time.

The point of the game is to take three of your opponent's stocks before they take yours.
Or have a lead when the match goes to time.

Your second implication is full of too many holes.

I could say the initiator part only applies to SD movies, but then you'd be crying because it's character specific. Boohoo.

Yep, this is what happens now. And it's amazing because it works.

No, it's not. What you said is that time outs are determined by percent, and SDs by......whatever the screen says and if it's SD a rematch. This proposed rule says that all time-outs, and all SD moves, result in the rematch.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Can't be serious AND drunk. But in all seriousness (BAHA), these characters have merit. It's like training in weighted clothing. See: Twilight Prince. Anyway, what's the point in playing a game with no challenge?

Olimar is like weighted clothing. Pikachu is like weighted clothing. ZSS is like weighted clothing. Ganon, Link, Zelda and co. are like trying to swim with an anchor attached to your ****.

 

[Krystedez]

Sorry I don't have much to contribute to the thread but I wanted to ask this and didn't know where else.

what do you do to be able to get in the backroom now? Do you have to consistently place really well, be well known, get invited, or apply or something? I'd like to contribute if I can, since I've been practicing things and want to learn as well as help.

 

[Dark 3nergy]

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.

i dont rly think thats whats really going on auspher. I think whats happening is the BBR ppl have played against more higher tiered characters and thus everyone there knows alot more about S/A/B/C characters over the rest of the cast.

Tho i dont doubt your assumption tho either, the lucario bbr thread was all kinds of horrible in terms of its discussion. Only lee martin knew the in's and out's of lucario

 

[vVv Rapture]

Posted this in the tier list thread for some god-awful reason (they were talking about rules and time-outs and stuff?), so I figured I'd post it here too, since Shaya brought something up about time-outs, too. This isn't a direct response to his post, but I'd appreciate his input, as well.

I find it a little weird how everyone says Brawl is not a traditional fighting game at all, or even call it a party game, yet use the excuse of allowing time-outs because that's how other fighters do it.

We all know Smash has more ways to KO someone than regular fighting games. In SSF4, all you have to do is knock down their health to zero. In Smash, you can knock them past the horizontal blastzone, knock them past the vertical blastzone, take away all their health (stamina-mode only, obviously), etc. And you can do these things by using a regular Smash attack, spiking, gimping, hell, you can even break a shield for a KO (sorry Jigglerpoof).

So, with that said, Smash clearly doesn't need to assume the characteristics of other fighters when it isn't. Thus, there is no reason to say that making time-outs a legitimate way of winning is because it makes the game more like other fighters and that's how it's done. It's completely arbitrary.

If Sakurai wanted games to end to time, he wouldn't have added Sudden Death. Because, if you play the game without any of our rules, no game will go to time.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Err... We don't have a timer because of fighting game tradition. We have a timer so that a tournament doesn't get kicked out of the venue after a few hour-long sets. Remember, without a timer, there's never any reason to really approach, and approaching puts you in a traditionally bad position. Ask Orion, Adumbrodeus, OS, or DMG about this... They would almost certainly play 30-minute long games if they never had to approach.

 

[vVv Rapture]

Err... We don't have a timer because of fighting game tradition. We have a timer so that a tournament doesn't get kicked out of the venue after a few hour-long sets.

I'm not saying get rid of the timer. I'm saying don't make it a criteria of victory.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

...Okay, what happens when time runs out then?

 

[vVv Rapture]

...Okay, what happens when time runs out then?

Well, there's the opportunity to come up with a solution for it.

I believe someone mentioned a non-timed, 1 stock match could be used to determine the winner, essentially mimicking the game's Sudden Death without the high-percent start and Bomb-ombs.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Yes, but then we hit the same problem as we have with every other solution, just more drastic and going against the game even more.

 

[Spelt]

If we have timers for tournament convenience and not in game aspects why not lower it to 5-6 minutes?

Most brawl matches that aren't purposely being timed out last 4-5 minutes anyway, so the extra 2-3 minutes just seems pointless imo.

 

[Nidtendofreak]

Because a few MUs out there do honestly need that much time if they want to have any hope of the match not ending in a time out. Like Peach vs Wario IIRC. Heck, just imagine a Samus Ditto match, and how long that would take.