Can we talk before we try to make a ruleset for this game?

[Eternal Yoshi]

I really really REALLY don't think we should be talking rulesets so soon that turn off stages and items. I don't want us to make the same mistake the community did with Brawl.

For a "Quick" recap, the Brawl community turned off items and quite a bit of stages before the game even came out in the US and Europe, with the reasoning being things that were established in Melee, which is a different game. There were tournaments in select areas running the JP version of Brawl in February of 2008 (The game was not officially out in America or Europe)with no items and certain stages banned with no basis or testing whatsoever(Some setups in those tournaments did NOT have Wolf unlocked in the roster).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIdIQ8KLlcI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UASw6nJB7M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivLP97PkcIM
etc.

One thing that people didn't know is that in the early, early days of Melee, items were legal for a point, though their was debate for turning them off. However a certain incident happened in a tournament match involving an exploding item that raised red flags and caused them to be turned off since. Brawl doesn't have an equivalent incident or testing of much during the early days because they were turned off before such a thing could happen, which is ridiculous.

Also, many people cite explosive carrier items as a reason that items in Melee are turned off as you cannot turn them off without turning off all items. Brawl lets you turn off the carrier items independent of others, something I felt was forgotten during early 2008.

Many people both in and outside of the Smash Communities think it was very stupid to turn off and ban stages and items because of what happened in a different game, Since the brawl community turned them off so soon, there was no evidence of items/stages being broken, unbalanced, and therefore no evidence of broken tactics with items in Brawl in a competitive setting.

This proved to be a problem when Brawl went to EVO 2008 later that year, as the higher ups chose to use items because the basis and reasoning for turning them off were because of Melee and not Brawl, much to the dismay of most of the smash community that boycotted it and created further friction...

Now then, I want us to have items legal in all early tournaments of Smash 4 so that if there's an item that contains a broken tactic, we'll have hard evidence in the same game in a competitve setting to turn it off and ban for all to see that's not based off of rulesets and logic from an older game.

tl;dr stop banning stuff so early bcuz melee. That **** makes the ENTIRE smash community look bad, as proven with Brawl in 2008. Play the game with items for a little bit. It's for the best.

 

[PikaJew]

All items on normal.
Random character and stage selection.

How many of you had a heart attack thinking about that?

 

[LiteralGrill]

Really, the idea every other FGC uses: only ban when proven game breaking" should just be applied to smash.

 

[DownWitDaWaveDash]

No items. I wouldn't like to be in a tournament match and a pokeball spawns next to my opponent and throws out some legendary.. D:

 

[LiteralGrill]

No items. I wouldn't like to be in a tournament match and a pokeball spawns next to my opponent and throws out some legendary.. D:

I'm assuming if we had items on, it would have to be like ISP where you determined reasonable items under "do not ban until gamebreaking" criteria.

 

[grizby2]

I know what you're trying to say Eternal, but somethings are just pretty laid out in front of us, ya know?

imo:

imagine theres gonna be a few new basketball courts in the neighborhood and you find out that one of them has 1-foot deep holes that appear out of the ground at random.
are you going to want to hold a professional game there? of course not. its painfully obvious that some stages don't offer a fair playing ground, and introduce the "luck" factor, which is frowned upon in just about every competitive activity known. luck may never be completely eliminated, but the less it occurs, the more we can be sure that the winner won because of his/her skill (which is what we normally desire to spectate in these type of things)

we all know theres gonna be that ONE item that's game breaking, if not a couple (lets not forget the ever-returning item, the hammer/final smashes, home-run bat ect..). also, characters are not balanced to fight with items, they're balanced without any items. if you put a bat in a wrestling ring and one wrestler grabs the bat, which wrestler has the advantage now? items don't spawn in any particular place or time either (unless the next game allows us to customize this) adding to the luck factor once again.

not to mention that a character with faster speed is more likely to grab the items before the slower character. the slow character relies on power and being hard to knock off, but because his pros don't help him get the items first, his cons now greatly outweigh his pros, and vise versa for the faster-lighter character. so the only way I can see items being legal is if all players chose the same character, and items can be set to spawn in certain areas and at specific time intervals.

 

[mimgrim]

Meta Knight only, no items, Final Destination.

Yes that's right, I went there.

 

[[Corn]]

Really, the idea every other FGC uses: only ban when proven game breaking" should just be applied to smash.

This flawed idea encourages that the developers are perfect and designed the game specifically to the comp players with no flaws in programing/judgement.

A much better one would be,
"Ban things that are found/proven to cause largely detrimental effects to the overall metagame/competitive nature of a game; while without the object/actic in question, would not cause another thing to take its place and cause the process to repeat itself until the rule-set is equal on all terms. Due to the subjective nature of things; the context in which something is found to be detrimental should cover issues like over centralization, increased or decreased competitive elements in said game with its removal, and lack of counter-ability through normal means. Other standpoints such as ease of use, entertainment/fun value, cheapness and other subjective matters are not prioritized if the issue has no conflicts with the above.

Note that objects that have uncontrollable factors will be dealt with immediately. If no way exists to completely remove the uncontrollably of the factor itself, but the option to remove the entire factor does, that will be the issue taken. If no largely beneficial result can be taken it is to be left in play until proven one way or another..
"

Complex situations sometimes invoke complex actions to be taken.

 

[DakotaBonez]

Man now I'm fantasizing about the game super hard...its too beautiful...

 

[BADGRAPHICS]

This again? First of all Smash 4 doesn't just need one ruleset.

People should be playing the game without items as much as they should be playing with items. Smash is a heavily customisable game, and tournaments should promote that variety.

There should be a ruleset with no items and a limited stage selection (cutting out excessive stage elements) for people who want to play the pure trimmed-down, version of Smash. Similarly, there should be a ruleset where most (if not all) of the extras are left turned on.

This thread makes valid points, but telling people to play with all items on from day one divides the community as much as telling people to turn them all off.

 

[Ulevo]

Really, the idea every other FGC uses: only ban when proven game breaking" should just be applied to smash.

Except Smash isn't a traditional fighting game.

Smash Bros. has the benefit of optional settings, both giving the privilege to turn on and off items and stages. Given this fact, it only makes sense to cater towards the customization of settings that benefit competitive, fair play most, and to detract from settings that would encourage the opposite.

As far as what BADGRAPHICS is suggesting, this will not solve any problems regarding divisions on a ruleset. Dividing the community among rulesets (or anything) creates resentment, makes the tournament scene more complicated than necessary, and ultimately leads to problems. If you believe trying to invoke numerable standard rulesets is a good idea, and the community as an entity won't experience a problem with that, I implore you to look over the past several years where people bickered over Melee versus Brawl and the differences those two games made amongst our competitive scene.

I think its important that we are all on the same page. I think testing out different rulesets is good, as it allows you to collect data and utilize that to come to a better consensus of what is necessary. But the utilization or testing of that knowledge has to come from a direction that makes it worth pursuing. This is why I believe testing numerable questionable stages is fine, but testing items is not. The premise of items and their legitimacy in a competitive setting is flawed, and it won't lead to anything meaningful in the long run.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Except Smash isn't a traditional fighting game.

Smash Bros. has the benefit of optional settings, both giving the privilege to turn on and off items and stages. Given this fact, it only makes sense to cater towards the customization of settings that benefit competitive, fair play most, and to detract from settings that would encourage the opposite.

As far as what BADGRAPHICS is suggesting, this will not solve any problems regarding divisions on a ruleset. Dividing the community among rulesets (or anything) creates resentment, makes the tournament scene more complicated than necessary, and ultimately leads to problems. If you believe trying to invoke numerable standard rulesets is a good idea, and the community as an entity won't experience a problem with that, I implore you to look over the past several years where people bickered over Melee versus Brawl and the differences those two games made amongst our competitive scene.

I think its important that we are all on the same page. I think testing out different rulesets is good, as it allows you to collect data and utilize that to come to a better consensus of what is necessary. But the utilization or testing of that knowledge has to come from a direction that makes it worth pursuing. This is why I believe testing numerable questionable stages is fine, but testing items is not. The premise of items and their legitimacy in a competitive setting is flawed, and it won't lead to anything meaningful in the long run.

But is the method other fighters use still not a worthy way to attempt to make a set? You'll end up with a competitive game this way, though it is only one philosophy as to designing rules.

And a big problem with two different rulesets was the fact they both wanted to be THE ruleset, the only one ever used ever. If people did split but were amicable, it MIGHT be better then what we have now. OR if both sides could compromise, we may be able to at least have both sides reasonably happy.

 

[BADGRAPHICS]

Except Smash isn't a traditional fighting game.

Smash Bros. has the benefit of optional settings, both giving the privilege to turn on and off items and stages. Given this fact, it only makes sense to cater towards the customization of settings that benefit competitive, fair play most, and to detract from settings that would encourage the opposite.

As far as what BADGRAPHICS is suggesting, this will not solve any problems regarding divisions on a ruleset. Dividing the community among rulesets (or anything) creates resentment, makes the tournament scene more complicated than necessary, and ultimately leads to problems. If you believe trying to invoke numerable standard rulesets is a good idea, and the community as an entity won't experience a problem with that, I implore you to look over the past several years where people bickered over Melee versus Brawl and the differences those two games made amongst our competitive scene.

There are already a variant rulesets, they just don't get the same exposure; I'm reasonably confident we can handle a little more publicity for sets like ISP. I think a lot of the resentment you speak of comes from people not being able to compete the way they want to (most notably using items and the more gimmicky stages).

I think its important that we are all on the same page. I think testing out different rulesets is good, as it allows you to collect data and utilize that to come to a better consensus of what is necessary. But the utilization or testing of that knowledge has to come from a direction that makes it worth pursuing. This is why I believe testing numerable questionable stages is fine, but testing items is not. The premise of items and their legitimacy in a competitive setting is flawed, and it won't lead to anything meaningful in the long run.

I'm not sure what you mean by "flawed". Items add an element of chance, but this in itself doesn't lead to a total breakdown of consistent results.

There are obvious arguments for how these features detract from the "refined" version of Smash that is most popular among competitive players, and this refinement will (and probably should) always be the standard. There are, however, no good arguments for why people can't play competitively with items or gimmicky stages at all. A factor only detracts significantly from competitivity at the point where results become inconsistent.

 

[Ulevo]

The problem that comes with an alternate ruleset that has emphasis placed on gimmicky stages or an introduction of items is that it still has the same intended philosophy, so long as it is competitive, but is further away from achieving that same philosophy. The justifications for using a less refined ruleset are typically ones outside of the competitive scope, and so the competitive preference will always deviate back towards what we currently have in place, or something similar to it.

Even if you were to effectively establish an alternate ruleset from the norm that focused more on a larger stage list and items in play, it will garner less attention because it lacks the same direction, intent, and refinement. It will likely be ignored, or it will pull attention away from the majority, and I don't see that as a positive thats worth investing time in to.

 

[LiteralGrill]

The problem that comes with an alternate ruleset that has emphasis placed on gimmicky stages or an introduction of items is that it still has the same intended philosophy, so long as it is competitive, but is further away from achieving that same philosophy. The justifications for using a less refined ruleset are typically ones outside of the competitive scope, and so the competitive preference will always deviate back towards what we currently have in place, or something similar to it.

Even if you were to effectively establish an alternate ruleset from the norm that focused more on a larger stage list and items in play, it will garner less attention because it lacks the same direction, intent, and refinement. It will likely be ignored, or it will pull attention away from the majority, and I don't see that as a positive thats worth investing time in to.

At one point, the side wanting more stages WAS the majority, and a bunch of people came in to express what they thought to have the majority changed.

I have a feeling if both sides did just coexist and tried to not go out of their way to bash each other as they have, things would still work out and both scenes would be strong.

 

[Mr.Jackpot]

Items will always be banned as long as both item spawning times and item spawning location is random and instantaneous.

 

[DonkaFjord]

It would be nice having a second (even if it is less known) ruleset that plays smash. I do not think it will take away from the 'majority' or 'point' of smash and if someone feels like there is no reason to invest in it they do not have to but other people may want to. There is no single way to play smash and one could argue that having some items on requires different gambling/strategy so it would be nice to have more variety and open up the competitive scene to more people.

 

[BADGRAPHICS]

The problem that comes with an alternate ruleset that has emphasis placed on gimmicky stages or an introduction of items is that it still has the same intended philosophy, so long as it is competitive, but is further away from achieving that same philosophy. The justifications for using a less refined ruleset are typically ones outside of the competitive scope, and so the competitive preference will always deviate back towards what we currently have in place, or something similar to it.

Even if you were to effectively establish an alternate ruleset from the norm that focused more on a larger stage list and items in play, it will garner less attention because it lacks the same direction, intent, and refinement. It will likely be ignored, or it will pull attention away from the majority, and I don't see that as a positive thats worth investing time in to.

Well, we don't know until we try, I guess. There's too much posturing and baseless speculation in these threads. I guess all I can do is run some item tournaments when Smash 4 comes out and see who's interested! For now, discussion should really be focussed around preparing for release, and if we want to run alternate tournaments, making sure we don't end up splintering into a dozen different rulesets.

 

[Eternal Yoshi]

Items will always be banned as long as both item spawning times and item spawning location is random and instantaneous.

While I am aware of this, I'd rather a defining event happen in smash 4 happen that's hard evidence that this is undeniably the case in Smash 4 so that when the burden of evidence is in our hands, we have something to show for it that's not from another game.

 

[[Corn]]

At one point, the side wanting more stages WAS the majority, and a bunch of people came in to express what they thought to have the majority changed.

I have a feeling if both sides did just coexist and tried to not go out of their way to bash each other as they have, things would still work out and both scenes would be strong.

If it is the majority, how about you actually rally them?

 

[LiteralGrill]

If it is the majority, how about you actually rally them?

It WAS a majority, and if they do come back to try Sm4sh I most definitely will try to provide a place for them to play the way they like.

I do not expect too many to come back after the terrible treatment they received here however. Even though I love Smash a TON if I had to deal with the crap they put up with 24/7 I'd have left too. Being completely ignored and having "you're stupid" as the only main argument against you while watching a small vocal minority not using reason slowly destroying the game you came to play AND SUCCEEDING brings down moral in a ton of people, especially when people tried to use reason and were ignored next to "you're stupid".

 

[[Corn]]

It WAS a majority, and if they do come back to try Sm4sh I most definitely will try to provide a place for them to play the way they like.

I do not expect too many to come back after the terrible treatment they received here however. Even though I love Smash a TON if I had to deal with the crap they put up with 24/7 I'd have left too. Being completely ignored and having "you're stupid" as the only main argument against you while watching a small vocal minority not using reason slowly destroying the game you came to play AND SUCCEEDING brings down moral in a ton of people, especially when people tried to use reason and were ignored next to "you're stupid".

If the majority are actual players, organize your own events and if you are the majority and have drive, you will easily outpreform the minority.

There isnt a Smash God that determines everything that should be and Smash rules arent set in stone. people when found in a position they arent comfortable with lash out. This is true in every format of games of this nature. If a majority dislikes the people/nature of the rules currently, they have the option to do things on their own. Its been noted that when tournies are organized with a controversial ruleset in mind, or one that the higher level players tend not to agree with and state actual reasons why, they attract less players. This is due to a number of things, but I have yet to really see a recent urge to severely change rulesets from the dedicated community.

 

[LiteralGrill]

If the majority are actual players, organize your own events and if you are the majority and have drive, you will easily outpreform the minority.

There isnt a Smash God that determines everything that should be and Smash rules arent set in stone. people when found in a position they arent comfortable with lash out. This is true in every format of games of this nature. If a majority dislikes the people/nature of the rules currently, they have the option to do things on their own. Its been noted that when tournies are organized with a controversial ruleset in mind, or one that the higher level players tend not to agree with and state actual reasons why, they attract less players. This is due to a number of things, but I have yet to really see a recent urge to severely change rulesets from the dedicated community.

Why would there be a recent urge? People tried to drive out those who thought differently then them, some still try to even. People went out of their way to insult, bash, and do whatever else they could to destroy some tournaments that tried to do things differently. People were given social stigmas for life even, and considered not worthy to listen to by "competitive players" just for trying new things.

Doing things yourself could be the fast track to ending any "credibility" you have and ruin your smash career if people still act as they used to.

 

[[Corn]]

Why would there be a recent urge? People tried to drive out those who thought differently then them, some still try to even. People went out of their way to insult, bash, and do whatever else they could to destroy some tournaments that tried to do things differently. People were given social stigmas for life even, and considered not worthy to listen to by "competitive players" just for trying new things.

Doing things yourself could be the fast track to ending any "credibility" you have and ruin your smash career if people still act as they used to.

Like I said, the smash community isnt a single entity. If you remain with the assertion that the majority dislikes a ruleset, they have the ability to branch off. I dont recall anyone ever showing up at a tournry advertised as such and purposely trying to sabotage it. Voicing an opinion is not means to sabotage.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Like I said, the smash community isnt a single entity. If you remain with the assertion that the majority dislikes a ruleset, they have the ability to branch off. I dont recall anyone ever showing up at a tournry advertised as such and purposely trying to sabotage it. Voicing an opinion is not means to sabotage.

How you voice your opinion can quite certainly be sabotage. You need to go and do some reading of old threads, I've got over 500+ pages of seeing this kind of thing first hand. Hosting and/or going to a tournament with a large stagelist was making people in no way listen to you back then regardless of your skill.

Yeah, you read that right, People have no credibility if they go to/host those kinds of events WAS THE MENTALITY. Sure, someone could try and split off, and this time it may happen who knows? But it's disgusting the best of the best we are supposed to trust, and that people still trust now have acted that way, and may very well do so again.

 

[[Corn]]

How you voice your opinion can quite certainly be sabotage. You need to go and do some reading of old threads, I've got over 500+ pages of seeing this kind of thing first hand. Hosting and/or going to a tournament with a large stagelist was making people in no way listen to you back then regardless of your skill.

Yeah, you read that right, People have no credibility if they go to/host those kinds of events WAS THE MENTALITY. Sure, someone could try and split off, and this time it may happen who knows? But it's disgusting the best of the best we are supposed to trust, and that people still trust now have acted that way, and may very well do so again.

The purpose of organizing the tournies isnt to convince others who are not interested, it is to please the demographic in which wants a seperate branch and allow them to converse. Regardless of what is said the majority will be able to do as it pleases.

If it succeds in the group that wanted it to happen, statistics and data can then be taken as for future reference.

 

[LiteralGrill]

The purpose of organizing the tournies isnt to convince others who are not interested, it is to please the demographic in which wants a seperate branch and allow them to converse. Regardless of what is said the majority will be able to do as it pleases.

If it succeds in the group that wanted it to happen, statistics and data can then be taken as for future reference.

Why does it matter if I have data for future reference from these events if it wont be looked at because I'm "no longer legitimate"?

Look at OS. Top player in region, TONS of data, PROOF people are wrong about certain stages, and he was ignored. Why am I any different or special, or anyone else for that matter?

 

[[Corn]]

Why does it matter if I have data for future reference from these events if it wont be looked at because I'm "no longer legitimate"?

Look at OS. Top player in region, TONS of data, PROOF people are wrong about certain stages, and he was ignored. Why am I any different or special, or anyone else for that matter?

Again, you will have to define proof.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Again, you will have to define proof.

Data that would show claims made against certain stage's legality are false.

 

[[Corn]]

Data that would show claims made against certain stage's legality are false.

Im not going to skim back through every page, but can you refresh me on what has been shown?

 

[LiteralGrill]

Im not going to skim back through every page, but can you refresh me on what has been shown?

Oh man, skiming or even a tiny refreshment isn't physically possible. You have YEARS of threads to read though. It's a sucky answer, but it's really the only answer as listing every single occurrence here would be insane, possibly taking MONTHS to manage.

 

[[Corn]]

Oh man, skiming or even a tiny refreshment isn't physically possible. You have YEARS of threads to read though. It's a sucky answer, but it's really the only answer as listing every single occurrence here would be insane, possibly taking MONTHS to manage.

Which is knida why I wanted a summary

 

[LiteralGrill]

Which is knida why I wanted a summary

I understand, I could try but I'd be missing so much more then likely. Gotta go and do insane research, don't make me be lonely in my insanity of reading!

 

[Accf124]

I say when smash 4 starts before things get competitive people should have little casual tournaments with items and random stages (unless the stages are like hanenbow). Then later on once everyone has had fun playing casual, competitive can start. Second, items being on in competitive matches kinda ruins the fun. A item can help a enemy go from losing to winning in like 5 seconds and people that master the use the items can really ruin the fun. But I do think a little discussion before deciding competitive ruleset would be good though.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Now we only have a couple people in here... What happened?

Anyways, to respond:

I say when smash 4 starts before things get competitive people should have little casual tournaments with items and random stages (unless the stages are like hanenbow). Then later on once everyone has had fun playing casual, competitive can start. Second, items being on in competitive matches kinda ruins the fun. A item can help a enemy go from losing to winning in like 5 seconds and people that master the use the items can really ruin the fun. But I do think a little discussion before deciding competitive ruleset would be good though.

Fun unfortunately shouldn't be a real discussion point to start/

Really, people should just test stages and items and prove they cause a problem with solid facts before they are banned.

 

[Ulevo]

The problem with the notion that 'this is a new game' is that it is not. The fundamentals are still there. The way the game is played will be the same on principle. The interaction between the player and hazardous stages and items will be the same. Smash Wii U is not a complete reimagining of the series; its going to be played the way all Smash games are played.

 

[LiteralGrill]

The problem with the notion that 'this is a new game' is that it is not. The fundamentals are still there. The way the game is played will be the same on principle. The interaction between the player and hazardous stages and items will be the same. Smash Wii U is not a complete reimagining of the series; its going to be played the way all Smash games are played.

Melee to Brawl.

You may still have enough differences to need to look at things differently without previous bias.

 

[Ulevo]

Melee to Brawl.

You may still have enough differences to need to look at things differently without previous bias.

Brawl, from a gameplay perspective, was also not a different game from Melee. It was a shallower game. There's a difference. The new additions added to Brawl from Melee were mostly superficial. Things like Boss Battles, stickers, CD's, et cetera. Very few new mechanics were implemented, and the different experience was the result of the absence of mechanics that were removed without being replaced. It still had the same direction and goals in mind.

I do not see how the transition from Melee to Brawl warrants a testing of items and stages on that merit alone because the environment and context under which these function has not changed.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Brawl, from a gameplay perspective, was also not a different game from Melee. It was a shallower game. There's a difference. The new additions added to Brawl from Melee were mostly superficial. Things like Boss Battles, stickers, CD's, et cetera. Very few new mechanics were implemented, and the different experience was the result of the absence of mechanics that were removed without being replaced. It still had the same direction and goals in mind.

I do not see how the transition from Melee to Brawl warrants a testing of items and stages on that merit alone because the environment and context under which these function has not changed.

Items alone from Melee to Brawl needed testing because the reason why they were banned was removed. No chain grabs? Walf offs may not be as big an issue anymore.

What does testing HURT?

 

[Ulevo]

O

Items alone from Melee to Brawl needed testing because the reason why they were banned was removed. No chain grabs? Walf offs may not be as big an issue anymore.

What does testing HURT?

One of the reasons was removed, not the rest.

Testing doesn't hurt. Go for it. But you're going to need participants in your tournament to test for it, and if you can't convince people of your position then that will be hard to come by.