Meta Competitive Smash Ruleset Discussion

[Jigglymaster]

All Mii Fighters were banned at KTAR XI not just Mii Brawler. They did this because the game was new and they weren't sure how it would be handled yet. At Collision X today they were allowed but only their default moveset was allowed. However, I am currently working towards making Mii Fighters and their customs be legal, along with Palutena, because they are starter customs. Unlockable Customs are the ones that should be banned due to the RNG rewarding unlocking system that Nintendo decided to troll us with.

Please do not make things with just "Mii Brawler banned" he was never OP and he does not deserve to be banned by any means.

 

[ATH_]

Ah, well, they really need to address a character ban. Character bans are pretty much non-existent in this community, and that is given the utter ridiculous strength of Meta Knight (only character to ever be banned to a reasonable degree), so that rule just made me go "whoa, hey, what??" and immediately post a reply asking why.

And, no, Brawler was not banned at KTAR XI. All Mii were allowed but no uploads of Mii were allowed since it was the first Wii U tourney and wanted to try to keep everything as basic as possible.

Edit: Just realized the language used "in-game rules" and how ironic it is that the ruling is actually an out-of-game rule (the game in itself does not ban Mii Brawler)... real funny guys, just saying it's in-game doesn't make it such.
It's like those cereals that say "100% Natural!" and you realize there's nothing but synthetic and artificial ingredients listed in that long ingredient label. X^D

Lol, I love the little bit at the end. I'll definitely show them this so they can clean it up and check the Mii Brawler thing again. I imagine they were playing some custom match and one got screwed up by a Mii Brawler and they instantly thought "BANNED!"

This kind of thing also happened to Gimr with Wuhu Island originally. There IS a glitch with the boat but I'm p sure it's only with Ness. I couldn't recreated it with the other characters I tried, same with others. Hence it being allowed.

 

[ATH_]

Yeah, I apologize. I'll make sure to check on stuff before "quickly posting it for reference" next time. Still a bit new to the forums, but getting the hang of it. Thanks.

 

[T0MMY]

All Mii Fighters were banned at KTAR XI not just Mii Brawler. They did this because the game was new and they weren't sure how it would be handled yet.

I thought I read in the rules that a default Mii was provided with the 1-1-1-1 specials that could be used (not like I expect anyone to use such a weak build). I'm not sure if that is what may be considered a "ban" because it could be seen as tailored Mii were "banned" in that respect.

Lol, I love the little bit at the end. I'll definitely show them this so they can clean it up and check the Mii Brawler thing again. I imagine they were playing some custom match and one got screwed up by a Mii Brawler and they instantly thought "BANNED!"

Now, I am not saying it is wrong to ban a character, even if it was based on the reason that those making the decision did not want to lose to a character they got stomped by. But what I am saying is that you posted in the "Competitive" ruleset discussion, and unwarranted bans are anticompetitive, thus such rulesets belong in a "Casual Rule Set" thread where people can share their opinions on such rules like "so-and-so character beat me, so I ban that character" and "my older brother spammed me with Marth's F-Smash so no controllers with C-sticks are allowed so people can't F-Smash spam as easily".
Someone may wander in and see casual "house rules" being posted here and think it is legitimately a competitive ruling, get confused and apply it to their local "competitive" tournaments, thus screwing their scene over for people who honestly want a good, clean fight. Just looking out for you, this thread, and the community here and glad to see you'll discuss this with your TO.

But with that said, I think it would be constructive to take a look at the rule sets proposed here and help verify them - weigh & measure them to a competitive standard and see if there are any violations to competitive principles. Anyone want to help?

 

[OwTheEdge]

We use all the stages, but olny in omega form. other stages, such as F-Zero or lumiose city, will gradually be unbanned. We use 3 stocks and 12 minutes. We then allow amiibos for team battle. That's my plan.

 

[ATH_]

I thought I read in the rules that a default Mii was provided with the 1-1-1-1 specials that could be used (not like I expect anyone to use such a weak build). I'm not sure if that is what may be considered a "ban" because it could be seen as tailored Mii were "banned" in that respect.


Now, I am not saying it is wrong to ban a character, even if it was based on the reason that those making the decision did not want to lose to a character they got stomped by. But what I am saying is that you posted in the "Competitive" ruleset discussion, and unwarranted bans are anticompetitive, thus such rulesets belong in a "Casual Rule Set" thread where people can share their opinions on such rules like "so-and-so character beat me, so I ban that character" and "my older brother spammed me with Marth's F-Smash so no controllers with C-sticks are allowed so people can't F-Smash spam as easily".
Someone may wander in and see casual "house rules" being posted here and think it is legitimately a competitive ruling, get confused and apply it to their local "competitive" tournaments, thus screwing their scene over for people who honestly want a good, clean fight. Just looking out for you, this thread, and the community here and glad to see you'll discuss this with your TO.

But with that said, I think it would be constructive to take a look at the rule sets proposed here and help verify them - weigh & measure them to a competitive standard and see if there are any violations to competitive principles. Anyone want to help?

Yeah, I get ya. As said, I won't just post something like that anymore without me actually approving of it. Oh, also, an update. I convinced my friends into unbanning Mii Brawler. We're currently debating whether or not Palutena should be allowed to use her custom moves (not equipment), or if we should keep her as is. Someone gave an idea saying that if she was to do so, it would have to be as a set.

So an example would be that the Palutena player would have to use all the customs of the same number, this way you could say before the match "I'm playing Palutena 2" or something. Similar to how Mii Fighters were locked in some cases to just the 1:1:1:1 set. Thoughts on this?

 

[Epok]

I have been helping with my tournament scene and right now we feel that Mii should be legal. I don't think we should ban something of off some awkward catch. We decided to try having players who plan to play a mii fighter fill out an index card that shows what set up they are using for the whole day. that way there is more transparency for what they decide to play with. The mii fighter would be an average height/weight mii. And we are using the number system for determining the moves.

 

[zephyrnereus]

in my opinion, if miis and customs are going to be allowed, so should the varying sizes. height and weight do not affect damage and knockback enough to be considered a huge difference, (usually a 1% difference in a fully charged smash attack between light, medium, and heavy) and specials tend to be unaffected by height and weight at all.

 

[T0MMY]

Oh, also, an update. I convinced my friends into unbanning Mii Brawler. We're currently debating whether or not Palutena should be allowed to use her custom moves (not equipment), or if we should keep her as is. Someone gave an idea saying that if she was to do so, it would have to be as a set.

Customization can be set either "On" or "Off".
In order to allow for characters to use their Custom Moves Customization will have to be set "On".
So when your group decides if Palutena should be allowed to use her custom moves then go into "Rules" and find "Customization" and make sure that is set correctly.
Note: Customization will also allow for equipment, there's currently no way to turn Custom Moves "On" and Equipment "Off".

I don't see it a matter of questioning why Palutena should be "allowed" to use her custom moves or not, but more a matter of following proper protocol:
Select Character
Select Stage
Play the Game

Any deviation from those simple steps needs reasoning WHY you have to make a decision on a matter to begin with.

So an example would be that the Palutena player would have to use all the customs of the same number, this way you could say before the match "I'm playing Palutena 2" or something. Similar to how Mii Fighters were locked in some cases to just the 1:1:1:1 set. Thoughts on this?

Mii fighters are "locked" into that at KTAR from what I understand because it was a day-after-release tournament where settings weren't known how to function very well nor how long it would take to use an individually-created Mii. From what I read the "lock" was actually providing the general attendees with a default Mii Brawler, Swordfighter, and Gunner to be used as a first step to see how settings worked out.
It was a decent first-step decision, not one I would have made, but one that could be easily changed for future events (which should allow for individually-made Mii to be used, imo).

I have been helping with my tournament scene and right now we feel that Mii should be legal. I don't think we should ban something of off some awkward catch. We decided to try having players who plan to play a mii fighter fill out an index card that shows what set up they are using for the whole day. that way there is more transparency for what they decide to play with. The mii fighter would be an average height/weight mii. And we are using the number system for determining the moves.

A stronger solution is: Let the players come and play the game that they traveled to pay to play.
Nothing solves most situations more easily and efficiently than that, and TO's don't need to make sure they have index cards readily available.

 

[Jigglymaster]

Thought I'd share this with you guys.

Mii fighters and custom moves too time consuming? Too hard to unlock? Not a problem here!

-Mii Fighters can be made on a brand new Wii U, no need to make a mii beforehand.
-Guest Miis come in default height/weight, making them balanced
-Mii Fighter's alternate Specials are available from the start, so they don't need to be unlocked.
-Mii Fighters can use their alt specials with customization turned to OFF.
-Whole process takes less than 30 seconds. Custom controls take longer than this. No 3ds transfer required.

 

[LiteralGrill]

While that is being mentioned, Palutena also comes with all of her moves ready to go, and it would be incredibly easy to make up all of the necessary combinations beforehand on any console.

At a bare minimum if you don't want customs on do not destroy certain characters who were designed around them. You make Mii Brawler and Swordfighter use the standard moves and you've pretty much killed them. Not to mention how much better Palutena gets with her moves.

 

[Thinkaman]

Palutena without customs is like Rosalina without Luma.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Palutena without customs is like Rosalina without Luma.

So technically functional but missing everything that makes her unique/good?

 

[Thinkaman]

I mean, she gets arguably the best reflector in the game as a consolation prize. But that only goes so far, and only in certain matchups.

I'm increasingly confident that Super Speed is the best single "move" in the game. It's honestly more of a "stance" than a move; it's almost like calling Luma a "move" tbqh.

 

[Pazx]

I created a tentative version of a ruleset I hope to see adopted. I didn't mention custom moves because I believe they should be legal but I don't think it's reasonable to have them all unlocked anytime soon, even with Ampharos's proposal (which I fully support).

Spoiler

General Gameplay Rules

1. 2 Stocks
2. 6 Minute Time Limit
3. Items set to "Off" and "None"
4. Pause set to "Off"
5. All infinites and chain grabs are legal
6. The act of stalling is banned: stalling is intentionally making the game unplayable: Such as becoming invisible, continuing infinites, chain grabs, or uninterruptible moves past 300%, and reaching a position that your opponent can never reach you.
7. Any action that can prevent the game from continuing (i.e., freezing, disappearing characters, game reset, etc.) will result in a forfeit of that match for the player that initiated the action. You are responsible for knowing your own character, and must be wary about accidentally triggering one of these effects.
8. The winner will be declared by what the game says in all situations, except for when players are presented with sudden death or the match ends with a bowsercide:
a. In the event of a match going to time, the winner will be determined by who has less percent (stock difference still takes priority but will be shown in the results screen).
b. If the match ends with both players dying at the same time coincidentally, or if time ran out with both players at equal percent, a one stock three minute rematch will be played on the same stage.
c. If a match is ended via suicide move, the initiator of the move wins

Set Procedure

1. Player Priority is determined if it cannot be determined (see below)
2. Each player selects one controller port
3. Each player selects on character. A double blind pick may be called by either player
4. The first game is played on a Stage selected from the Starter Stage List through the Stage Striking Method. The order of Stage Striking will be 1-2-2-1 (Player 1 strikes one stage, Player 2 strikes two stages, Player 1 strikes two stages, Player 2 strikes one stage)
5. The first match is played
6. The player that lost the previous match may opt to re-pick controller ports
7. The player that won the previous match may announce two "Stage Bans"
8. The player that lost the previous match announces the stage for the next match from either the Starter or the Counterpick Stage List. Any Stage named as a "Stage Ban" by either player may not be selected. A player may not counterpick to the last stage they have won on in the current set
9. The player that won the previous match chooses their character
10. The player that lost the previous match chooses their character
11. The next match is played
12. Repeat steps 6-11 for all remaining matches in the set

Determining Player Priority
If there is a dispute in controller port selection or initiating Stage Strike use the following method:
Players will use a random method such as Rock-Paper-Scissors, Coin Flip, or Game and Watch Judgment, where the winner selects either first choice in port selection or first choice in stage striking. Whichever player does not receive first choice in port selection will be compensated with first choice in stage striking.
Note: In Doubles, port selection is ordered 1-2-2-1 fashion (with Team-1 having first choice in controller slot select, Team-2 having both second and third choice, and the final slot going to Team-1).

Misc. Rules

1. The Gentleman Rule: Players may play on any stage, including banned stages, if all players in the match agree to it. If there is a dispute, standard procedure is followed.
2. The Colourblind Rule: During doubles matches, a player on either team can elect to have the opposing team change either their team or their characters's palette swap so that they match (eg. players on Blue Team must use Blue colours for their character)
3. The Omega Stage Rule: In the event that the Stage selected through Game One Stage Striking is Final Destination/Omega Stage and players are unable to agree on which stage, the Stage Striking Procedure is repeated with the Omega Stages List in a 1-2-2-2-1 fashion beginning with the player who struck second in the initial striking procedure. If Final Destination/Omega Stage is selected as a Counterpick by the player who lost the previous match they may select any Omega Stage they wish.

Stage List

Starters (7)

Battlefield
Smashville
Final Destination/Omega Stages
Lylat Cruise
Town and City
Skyloft
Kongo Jungle 64

Counterpicks (10)

Delfino Plaza
Wuhu Island
Halberd
Pokemon Stadium 2
Castle Siege
Duck Hunt
Big Battlefield
Yoshi's Wooly World
Pilotwings
Wii Fit Studio/Coliseum

Omega Stage List (9) - Information

Garden of Hope - Straight walls down to the bottom blast zone
Luigi's Mansion - Indented walls under stage
Bridge of Eldin - Wall is comprised of 2 straight walls above and below a curved guiding lip
Kalos Pokemon League - Guiding lip guides recoveries to ledge
Mario Circuit (Brawl) - Floating stage, Small guiding lip, limited wall jump area
Norfair - Floating stage, guiding lip
Temple - Floating stage, flat wall above narrow guiding lip
Lylat Cruise - Floating stage, no guiding lip, no wall cling/jump
Final Destination - Floating, large guiding lip, wall jump and cling

The tournament is to be ran in a Double Elimination bracket and all sets are to be Best Out Of Three, aside from Winners Finals, Losers Finals and Grand Finals which are to be played Best Out Of Five.

 

[Mangoh862]

Jungle Japes is an absolutely horrible stage for competitive play. Seriously, being slightly underneath the stage is enough to send you flying into the left blast line.

didnt think bout that XD never happened to me in 3ds but i guess its the same as in brawl.

 

[BestTeaMaker]

I mean, she gets arguably the best reflector in the game as a consolation prize. But that only goes so far, and only in certain matchups.

I'm increasingly confident that Super Speed is the best single "move" in the game. It's honestly more of a "stance" than a move; it's almost like calling Luma a "move" tbqh.

Are you talking about Lightweight? Super speed is an actual move. Lightweight is more of a stance change.

 

[Terotrous]

I created a tentative version of a ruleset I hope to see adopted. I didn't mention custom moves because I believe they should be legal but I don't think it's reasonable to have them all unlocked anytime soon, even with Ampharos's proposal (which I fully support).

1. 2 Stocks
2. 6 Minute Time Limit

I still disagree with 2 stock but I'll let it slide at this point.

4. Pause set to "Off"

Is this in the game? I was looking for this option and didn't find it. It's possible I'm just stupid.

8. The winner will be declared by what the game says in all situations, except for when players are presented with sudden death or the match ends with a bowsercide:
a. In the event of a match going to time, the winner will be determined by who has less percent (stock difference still takes priority but will be shown in the results screen).
b. If the match ends with both players dying at the same time coincidentally, or if time ran out with both players at equal percent, a one stock three minute rematch will be played on the same stage.
c. If a match is ended via suicide move, the initiator of the move wins

Not related to the ruleset specifically, but Smash really needs to start allowing you to customize what happens when time runs out.

7. The player that won the previous match may announce two "Stage Bans"

Only 2 bans for a 17 stage list? I would expect at least 3 bans if not 4-5.

9. The player that won the previous match chooses their character
10. The player that lost the previous match chooses their character

I know you didn't include customs, but I'd just like to say that for a match with customs on, I would say it would then have "winner picks customs", "loser picks customs", then the match starts.

Determining Player Priority

Is it known if Port Priority is in Smash4 at all?

3. The Omega Stage Rule: In the event that the Stage selected through Game One Stage Striking is Final Destination/Omega Stage and players are unable to agree on which stage, the Stage Striking Procedure is repeated with the Omega Stages List in a 1-2-2-2-1 fashion beginning with the player who struck second in the initial striking procedure. If Final Destination/Omega Stage is selected as a Counterpick by the player who lost the previous match they may select any Omega Stage they wish.

Bleh, this is so tedious. There's got to be a better way to handle this. Perhaps just allowing the player who did not have the last ban to pick the FD form or something.

Starters (7)

Battlefield
Smashville
Final Destination/Omega Stages
Lylat Cruise
Town and City
Skyloft
Kongo Jungle 64

I'm feeling pretty good with this starter list. I'm really feeling it!

Counterpicks (10)

Delfino Plaza
Wuhu Island
Halberd
Pokemon Stadium 2
Castle Siege
Duck Hunt
Big Battlefield
Yoshi's Wooly World
Pilotwings
Wii Fit Studio/Coliseum

Not as happy with the last 3. I would definitely rather see Mario Circuit Wii U or Windy Hill over any of those.

 

[LiteralGrill]

I need to ask, why does everyone think we need more stage bans for these larger lists?

Does anyone remember when MLG Brawl had like 19 stages and one ban and it worked just fine?

Every time you add another stage ban you're adding one more arbitrary rule to our ruleset that could possibly mess with balance. If characters really need two bans on perfectly good stages to be legal, maybe they just less viable. When you start getting into the realms of 3, 4, or some folks even 5 bans you are going WAY too far.

 

[zephyrnereus]

I mean, she gets arguably the best reflector in the game as a consolation prize. But that only goes so far, and only in certain matchups.

I'm increasingly confident that Super Speed is the best single "move" in the game. It's honestly more of a "stance" than a move; it's almost like calling Luma a "move" tbqh.

even though I'm all for customs being allowed, I don't think palutena should be allowed customs if they are going to be off... this is mainly because this gives palutena the ability to counter pick customs each match. "oh, I'm fighting a falcon first match. I'll go with super speed. I won! now for match two on a different system. a samus? I'll keep reflect then when I make my customs."

if anything, the person playing palutena should stick to the same custom moveset for the entire tournament. this rule should only apply if customs are off though.

 

[Jaxas]

even though I'm all for customs being allowed, I don't think palutena should be allowed customs if they are going to be off... this is mainly because this gives palutena the ability to counter pick customs each match. "oh, I'm fighting a falcon first match. I'll go with super speed. I won! now for match two on a different system. a samus? I'll keep reflect then when I make my customs."

if anything, the person playing palutena should stick to the same custom moveset for the entire tournament. this rule should only apply if customs are off though.

The only way this would work would be if Mii fighters worked the same way; they can counterpick their movesets too, correct?
I see what you're going for, and you have a decent point, but there's no reason why 1 character should act differently on this than other fighters with the same gimmick

 

[zephyrnereus]

The only way this would work would be if Mii fighters worked the same way; they can counterpick their movesets too, correct?
I see what you're going for, and you have a decent point, but there's no reason why 1 character should act differently on this than other fighters with the same gimmick

the rule would be the same for mii fighters, only one moveset is allowed if customs are off. once again, this is only because of no customs. I personally think that counterpicking movesets makes the game even more interesting, but it's not fair if only a handful of characters are allowed to do this when all of them have the ability to do so, even if they're locked.

 

[T0MMY]

I need to ask, why does everyone think we need more stage bans for these larger lists?

Does anyone remember when MLG Brawl had like 19 stages and one ban and it worked just fine?

I was a participant in MLG tournaments (as well as other national level events like EVO and Genesis) and I remember the huge outrage that imposing those ridiculous stages caused where it caused nearly every other national tournament to promote their events by advertising they were NOT using that ruleset.

(Also trying to play a legitimate tournament match on a ridiculously random Stage like Green Greens while right next to hardcore FGC events mocking us for being so "casual" was not working out just fine for some of us...)

Edit: And I think we were given 2 bans, not 1.

 

[Pazx]

I need to ask, why does everyone think we need more stage bans for these larger lists?

Does anyone remember when MLG Brawl had like 19 stages and one ban and it worked just fine?

Every time you add another stage ban you're adding one more arbitrary rule to our ruleset that could possibly mess with balance. If characters really need two bans on perfectly good stages to be legal, maybe they just less viable. When you start getting into the realms of 3, 4, or some folks even 5 bans you are going WAY too far.

I agree, and it's worth noting that the more stage bans you have the smaller your stage list will be.

Using my stage list as an example (sorry), if Little Mac wins game 1 against someone who requires platforms he would arguably ban these stages in this order:
Wooly World, Big Battlefield, Kongo Jungle, Delfino, Town and City/Duck Hunt/BF

With 5 bans, they end up going to Town and City/Duck Hunt/Battlefield. The fewer the number of bans, the stronger the counterpick is and the more diverse stages we see. With only 2 bans you can actually choose a stage that gives you the advantage, eg Kongo Jungle or Delfino.

I still disagree with 2 stock but I'll let it slide at this point.

I feel as though that should be discussed. I think in the infancy of the game we should be attempting to keep it quick.

Is this in the game? I was looking for this option and didn't find it. It's possible I'm just stupid.

It's in the Wii U version for sure.

Only 2 bans for a 17 stage list? I would expect at least 3 bans if not 4-5.

See above.

I know you didn't include customs, but I'd just like to say that for a match with customs on, I would say it would then have "winner picks customs", "loser picks customs", then the match starts.

Sounds good to me.

Is it known if Port Priority is in Smash4 at all?

No clue, I'm fairly sure each player has a designated starting place on each stage though so we could include Melee's neutral start rule here instead.

Bleh, this is so tedious. There's got to be a better way to handle this. Perhaps just allowing the player who did not have the last ban to pick the FD form or something.

It is rather tedious and I'm hoping that most people will simply not care about it that much. It should really come down to "FD or one with straight walls?" most of the time and I think players will be happy to play on FD/Omega BF/Garden of Hope simply to save time. Very few characters and at this stage in the game very few players can discern a sizable advantage from getting their choice of obscure Omega stage.

I'm feeling pretty good with this starter list. I'm really feeling it!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRo8n7N50X8

Not as happy with the last 3. I would definitely rather see Mario Circuit Wii U or Windy Hill over any of those.

I'm a huge advocate to have 1 walkoff stage in Coliseum or Wii Fit Studio. I'd be wary about Mario Circuit U as it removes an entire blast zone at times (similar to WFS) and has quite dangerous hazards (moreso than most stages beside Halberd). I hated Wooly World until I played on it some more and I'm adamant it should be legal now. This is a discussion for the stage analysis thread.

 

[smashmachine]

I need to ask, why does everyone think we need more stage bans for these larger lists?

Does anyone remember when MLG Brawl had like 19 stages and one ban and it worked just fine?

Every time you add another stage ban you're adding one more arbitrary rule to our ruleset that could possibly mess with balance. If characters really need two bans on perfectly good stages to be legal, maybe they just less viable. When you start getting into the realms of 3, 4, or some folks even 5 bans you are going WAY too far.

16 stages, actually

and when other tournaments go like "hey we DON'T have those stupid MLG stages", oops

 

[san.]

I liked the MLG stages, and the only odd one out was Green Greens which people generally handled fine since they knew what to expect. The only bad part was the fact that there were laggy TVs. MLG had some of the most varied results in the game's history afaik.

 

[Hippieslayer]

When you consider stages it's a matter of what type of gameplay you're looking for, where you want the focus to be. There are plenty of stages that are viable competitively but which center the metagame more around knowing how they work and developing strategies to utilize them.

Ultimately it is a matter of what kind of game you want Smash 4 to be. I don't think there's any rush either, the stagelist can always be adjusted to be more liberal in order to spice things up if the metagame starts looking a bit stale. Implementing custom moves should be the focus.

 

[LiteralGrill]

We Have a stage Legality Poll On /r/smashbros Right Now!​

Since we're on the subject of stages and all. I hope some of you guys come in and vote. In case you missed it on there we are considering running another stage testing tournament as well. A lot of the voting there is going to determine that, so if you want stages tested go in there and ask for them. I'm also opening to floor in that thread for all stage discussion so if you want to defend/lambast a stage and let the public know all about it that is a great place to do so!

However, to also respond to something:

When you consider stages it's a matter of what type of gameplay you're looking for, where you want the focus to be. There are plenty of stages that are viable competitively but which center the metagame more around knowing how they work and developing strategies to utilize them.

Ultimately it is a matter of what kind of game you want Smash 4 to be. I don't think there's any rush either, the stagelist can always be adjusted to be more liberal in order to spice things up if the metagame starts looking a bit stale. Implementing custom moves should be the focus.

Never ban until proven banworthy. What you are suggesting would possibly have us end up banning perfectly legal stages "because we could add them back in later". I refuse to arbitrarily ban something that way. If it's not broken, it should just be legal right now until proven otherwise.

 

[Hippieslayer]

Uh yeah? Big deal. Stages aren't characters. It doesn't matter nearly as much if they get banned as it does if characters do.

Never ban until proven banworthy is a silly dogm, with that reasoning any stage that doesn't have random stuff in it should be legal. You can adapt to stage hazard after all, and even if some characters might not be able to do that how are we to tell? Best start out with a bunch of stages legal which no one wants to play on and which will just make the game lame causing its scene to shrink because "nevur ban untl provd banwart"

 

[LiteralGrill]

Uh yeah? Big deal. Stages aren't characters. It doesn't matter nearly as much if they get banned as it does if characters do.

It still matters. What reasons to you have to cut out these other stages if they're not broken?

Never ban until proven banworthy is a silly dogm, with that reasoning any stage that doesn't have random stuff in it should be legal. You can adapt to stage hazard after all, and even if some characters might not be able to do that how are we to tell? Best start out with a bunch of stages legal which no one wants to play on and which will just make the game lame causing its scene to shrink because "nevur ban untl provd banwart"

It's not silly in any way at all. It's clear and logical. The other option is "ban what we don't like because we don't like it." People who use such arbitrary mental constructs to decide how we play the game are scrubs pure and simple. I wont be a scrub. I'll take the logical route.

 

[smashmachine]

We Have a stage Legality Poll On /r/smashbros Right Now!​

Since we're on the subject of stages and all. I hope some of you guys come in and vote. In case you missed it on there we are considering running another stage testing tournament as well. A lot of the voting there is going to determine that, so if you want stages tested go in there and ask for them. I'm also opening to floor in that thread for all stage discussion so if you want to defend/lambast a stage and let the public know all about it that is a great place to do so!

However, to also respond to something:



Never ban until proven banworthy. What you are suggesting would possibly have us end up banning perfectly legal stages "because we could add them back in later". I refuse to arbitrarily ban something that way. If it's not broken, it should just be legal right now until proven otherwise.

so where's the results?

 

[LiteralGrill]

so where's the results?

People are still voting silly! I'll have detailed results posted up on smashboards when this is done. I promise to link everyone here to that when it's ready.

 

[Hippieslayer]

It still matters. What reasons to you have to cut out these other stages if they're not broken?



It's not silly in any way at all. It's clear and logical. The other option is "ban what we don't like because we don't like it." People who use such arbitrary mental constructs to decide how we play the game are scrubs pure and simple. I wont be a scrub. I'll take the logical route.

except no ones really taking that route cause then we'd have a lot more stages legal, reasons being the ones I mentioned

there is nothing arbitrary about not wanting the meta-game to be centered around stage knowledge either, this whole "so long as it makes the game more complicated its good" mentality is what's scrubby

we could easily make chess more complicated by adding more rules to it, or more pieces, there's no saying that would make it a better game

 

[LiteralGrill]

except no ones really taking that route cause then we'd have a lot more stages legal, reasons being the ones I mentioned

there is nothing arbitrary about not wanting the meta-game to be centered around stage knowledge either, this whole "so long as it makes the game more complicated its good" mentality is what's scrubby

we could easily make chess more complicated by adding more rules to it, or more pieces, there's no saying that would make it a better game

I never said I wanted to game to be more complex. I just said I don't plan on banning anything unless it deserves it. To use Chess, I wont ban the Queen just because it's strong or someone might not want it.

 

[Hippieslayer]

If it's not a matter of what type of gameplay we want then what is your reason for allowing all stages that aren't ban worthy if not the increase in complexity that more stages yield?

Reason I'm saying this is because you're making it awfully easy for yourself by simply stating that if it isn't ban worthy it should be allowed, when the truth of the matter is it has never worked that way in practice because people don't want to play on all stages that aren't ban-worthy. You have to consider what type of metagame that is desired, whether you want it or not, calling people scrubs isn't going to change that.

 

[infomon]

One philosophy: we compete in order to determine who is the best at Smash 4. The game, the actual game for what it is.

Our rule lists (e.g. no items, stock with timer, ban ban-worthy stages) are basically the minimum reasonable setup in order to enable competition. So we are playing the most universal and valid form of Smash that allows us to compete to determine the winner.

Sure you can play no-queen chess, but then you're not really playing Chess, the universal game. Same philosophy here.

Minimum-modification philosophy prevents scrubby ("I'm bad at x so ban x from being considered") arguments, but more importantly, it means that our competitions are a valid way to aim for best skill at the game that is played all over the world and by many people who at this time might not even be in the competitive scene. If we deviate too strongly from the real smash bros then we lose legitimacy; there will never be new players entering tournaments because they won't be playing the same game.

Edit: This isn't the only valid philosophy for determining a ruleset, but I think it's a pretty compelling one, especially in light of Sirlin's famous play-to-win article.

 

[LiteralGrill]

people don't want to play on all stages that aren't ban-worthy.

Those people then have constructed ideas on what they FEEL should beb legal and are banning things out of dislike only. The exactliteral definition of a scrub. So yes, I'm going to call them a scrub, because they're acting like one. I hate being rude and insulting that way, it seriously makes me sad. But I'm going to just be truthful and ignore people who act that way.

 

[Hippieslayer]

One philosophy: we compete in order to determine who is the best at Smash 4. The game, the actual game for what it is.

Our rule lists (e.g. no items, stock with timer, ban ban-worthy stages) are basically the minimum reasonable setup in order to enable competition. So we are playing the most universal and valid form of Smash that allows us to compete to determine the winner.

Sure you can play no-queen chess, but then you're not really playing Chess, the universal game. Same philosophy here.

Minimum-modification philosophy prevents scrubby ("I'm bad at x so ban x from being considered") arguments, but more importantly, it means that our competitions are a valid way to aim for best skill at the game that is played all over the world and by many people who at this time might not even be in the competitive scene. If we deviate too strongly from the real smash bros then we lose legitimacy; there will never be new players entering tournaments because they won't be playing the same game.

Edit: This isn't the only valid philosophy for determining a ruleset, but I think it's a pretty compelling one, especially in light of Sirlin's famous play-to-win article.

We've already adjusted the game to make it play the way we want it to; by your logic we are not playing smash bros. The game we play is the result of what you would call arbitrary scrubby decisions (something Capps obviously doesn't understand either). Stop thinking you have Sirlin's support on this, you don't. You've misunderstood him in that case. He isn't that categorical.

@ LiteralGrill : How nice of you to Cherry pick what you reply to so that you can repeat your dogma once more. You don't seem to understand what I'm writing.

 

[LiteralGrill]

We've already adjusted the game to make it play the way we want it to; by your logic we are not playing smash bros. The game we play is the result of what you would call arbitrary scrubby decisions (something Capps obviously doesn't understand either).

One philosophy: we compete in order to determine who is the best at Smash 4. The game, the actual game for what it is.

Our rule lists (e.g. no items, stock with timer, ban ban-worthy stages) are basically the minimum reasonable setup in order to enable competition. So we are playing the most universal and valid form of Smash that allows us to compete to determine the winner.

I think he answered you quite clearly. Arbitrary? We made the decisions to do these things logically so we could compete in the game.

@ LiteralGrill : How nice of you to Cherry pick what you reply to so that you can repeat your dogma once more. You don't seem to understand what I'm writing.[/quote]

If it's not a matter of what type of gameplay we want then what is your reason for allowing all stages that aren't ban worthy if not the increase in complexity that more stages yield?

I think I explained this. Maybe I don't get what you are saying, but I'm not striving to create a kind of gameplay. I plan on not banning anything unless it's broken so the game is played as close to its initial design as possible. What that turns out to be means nothing in terms of ruleset creation.

 

[Uniit]

I'm might be with Hippieslayer on this one. Nothing personal here, but infzy's philosophy is against a ruleset at all, since the game already have rules. The best smash player is the one who win a (lot of) tournament with 4man FFA, items and all stages, like sakurai want us to play the game (well, maybe not anymore, because of For Glory i think). I'm maybe borderline and ironical on this one, but the game is competively suposed to be played on FD stages, according to the devs. For Glory IS the initial design of competitive smash !

The chess metaphore made me laugh a little, because if you want smash to be the same, better go back to "no item, fox only, final destination" since it's like chess, no hasards, one stage and one (set of) character. My guess is that smash rely on matchups, on different stages, to be competitive, or at least not boring :D.

Back to the subject, I might be a scrub on this one, but i would prefer a game where read, and/or outsmarting your opponent is the core of the game, instead of fighting the stage better than your opponent. Again, fighting the stage is not a well chosen word, as it might mean litteraly fighting the stage (Willy's Castle, Gaur's Plain, ...) or learning stage specific things (like how much time before transition/transformation/hasards ?).

I sure think that everthings not ban worthy shouldn't, but let's take a example : What if nobody want to play on a specific legal stage ? Should it still be in, although nobody giving a damn about it ?

It may just be my opinion, but a stage should be legal because players can use it, not because it's not annoying enough.

On a final note, more stage indeed means the game becoming more complicated (it's pretty obvious), but this isn't the goal of people defending stage diversity. As explained before, the game needs number of stages, and since sakurai pleased us for once with plenty of legal material stages, i would be silly to not taking them into account,. Certain stage require some tests on tounaments (with a S) before allowing/banning them.