Meta Competitive Smash Ruleset Discussion

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Doesn't matter. He is still right.

Is Marth the same character as Lucina?
How about Ganon and Falcon?
Melee Fox and Falco?
Brawl MK and Marth?
Custom Palutena and Default Palutena are more different than any of the above comparisons.

 

[J_the_Man]

Here are all the points I can think of that are in the favor of giving Palutena special privilege access to her alt special moves

1). They pose no logistical issues to TOs. Her alt special moves are unlocked on every Wii U console from the get go. No unlocking necessary. Just like Mii Fighters, the time it takes to make custom Palutenas would be negligible.

2). Unlike every other character in the game, save for Mii Fighters, Palutena comes with 12 completely unique alt special moves. Every other character comes with 8 variations of the same special moves attached to the characters from the start of the game. I can't prove this as fact, but this is evidence to suggest that Palutena stands out from the rest of the cast as a unique character.

3). To follow up from point 2, Palutena's alt special moves have always been advertised along side her character. Her character reveal trailer, some player guides, her in-game trophy, ect... Palutena even has in-game tips like the Mii Fighters concerning what her alt special moves do. No other character has this save Mii Fighters. This further suggests she is a unique character among the cast.

4). Palutena is a character advertised to completely change her playstyle based on whatever combination of special moves she uses. This is actually true and verifiable by evidence. This further suggests she was designed to be a unique character, perhaps reliant upon what combination of special moves she uses.

5). Turning the Custom toggle to on to allow Palutena's exclusion from the alt special moves ban is in no way an issue. Precedents have already been set since the days of Melee that we adjust menu settings in order to achieve what we believe to be the ideal competitive standard in our tournaments. If allowing Palutena access to her alt special moves is deemed part of that standard, it should be of no one's concern that custom characters are turned on. The whole reason this conversation exists is whether or not we should make an exception for Palutena. What the menu allows or disallows should have no bearing on the matter.

Points 1-4 are why I believe it is totally fair that Palutena gets special privileged access to her alt special moves and not any other roster character (Mii Fighters being the excepion). No other character comes close to fulfilling these conditions that Palutena has to make a case for their own allowance to use alt special moves..

 

[Yikarur]

Is Marth the same character as Lucina?
How about Ganon and Falcon?
Melee Fox and Falco?
Brawl MK and Marth?
Custom Palutena and Default Palutena are more different than any of the above comparisons.

It's not about how we subjectively judge her. She is still the same character regardless of how much different the special moves are. There is objectively no difference between Custom Palutena and Custom Mario.

 

[Ghostbone]

They have the same normals, yes. The same completely garbage, barely usable normals.

I mean clearly you've never seen Palutena play if you think her normals are garbage. (her jab, fair, bair, and dash attack are all top notch) If her normals were garbage then custom Palutena would still be garbage. AND EVEN IF this was true, that doesn't justify abitrarily trying to make her better, that's up to the dev team.

 

[T0MMY]

I think most of BPC's arguments distract from the real issue.
Should custom Palutena be banned? If there is no good reason to, the default should be "no."
Other characters and other customs have nothing to do with this question.

An unfortunate demonstration of shifting the burden of proof.
Custom Characters (including Palutena) are not standard for competition - we would need reason to make a change of rules for any character, and Palutena is no exception (despite being a goddess, sorry).
To simply make an exception for her without sound reason means that rules essentially need no reason to be changed; we then have an anything-goes scrubfest, which isn't necessarily a bad thing (could be fun), but directly contradicts competition theory and thus puts it outside competitive rulesets... which is outside the scope of these boards (Competitive Smash Ruleset).

A simpler and more direct argument would simply state that Custom Fighters setting shall be toggled ON (as it is an option that may be utilized by game design and function) and then see how it performs in the Competitive Free Market.

 

[MajorMajora]

An unfortunate demonstration of shifting the burden of proof.
Custom Characters (including Palutena) are not standard for competition - we would need reason to make a change of rules for any character, and Palutena is no exception (despite being a goddess, sorry).
To simply make an exception for her without sound reason means that rules essentially need no reason to be changed; we then have an anything-goes scrubfest, which isn't necessarily a bad thing (could be fun), but directly contradicts competition theory and thus puts it outside competitive rulesets... which is outside the scope of these boards (Competitive Smash Ruleset).

A simpler and more direct argument would simply state that Custom Fighters setting shall be toggled ON (as it is an option that may be utilized by game design and function) and then see how it performs in the Competitive Free Market.

Ask yourself this: why do we ban customs? There should be a reason for why we limit the choices of the player. There can be lots of reasons: Logistics, balance, etc.

Then ask yourself this: Does that philosophy also apply to Palutena's customs? They do work inherently differently, so there are definitely cases where 1 would be allowed but not the other.

And don't say we are doing customs because that's the way the rulesets are. That implies that the ruleset itself transcends common logic and needs no basis for its contents, which is completely false.

 

[ぱみゅ]

The thing is that there is no burden of proof.
We have already seen how Customs ON have plays out, we already know how it works and any possible constrain it could get, and the gain is enough to overcome it.
So, at this point there is nothing to prove, but instead, a lot to explain when it comes to ruleset decisions.

 

[Ansou]

The thing here is that the default game state is that customization is set to OFF and we need to motivate why we press the Customization button if we want to avoid it being an arbitrary decision. We need to motivate this regardless of if we want to allow all characters to customize or if we only want Palutena to be able to customize. I would say that we can easily motivate pressing the button by saying that it allows content in the game to be used, which is generally considered a good thing.
We have now motivated why we press that button, so now the burden of proof is shifted to the other side. Arguments now have to be made for why we should not press the button.
Some arguments for why we should not press the button is:

• Equipment is also a part of Customization and is seen as non-competitive.
• Customization has to be unlocked in a non-desirable way to use it in competition.

There are obviously more arguments, but these are two of them.
To answer the first argument, we can just decide that we ban all equipment from competitive play.
For the second argument, we can either ban customization for all characters except Palutena/Mii Fighter or we can handle the issue with 3DS-transfer.

If we take all arguments into consideration it becomes a bit more complex, but this is the basic reason why it can be justified that only Palutena should be able to customize while every other character can not. We get some new content without having to unlock it.

 

[Illuminose]

The thing here is that the default game state is that customization is set to OFF and we need to motivate why we press the Customization button if we want to avoid it being an arbitrary decision. We need to motivate this regardless of if we want to allow all characters to customize or if we only want Palutena to be able to customize. I would say that we can easily motivate pressing the button by saying that it allows content in the game to be used, which is generally considered a good thing.
We have now motivated why we press that button, so now the burden of proof is shifted to the other side. Arguments now have to be made for why we should not press the button.
Some arguments for why we should not press the button is:

• Equipment is also a part of Customization and is seen as non-competitive.
• Customization has to be unlocked in a non-desirable way to use it in competition.

There are obviously more arguments, but these are two of them.
To answer the first argument, we can just decide that we ban all equipment from competitive play.
For the second argument, we can either ban customization for all characters except Palutena/Mii Fighter or we can handle the issue with 3DS-transfer.

If we take all arguments into consideration it becomes a bit more complex, but this is the basic reason why it can be justified that only Palutena should be able to customize while every other character can not. We get some new content without having to unlock it.

Hi I'm not interested in joining this argument but I don't think you understand what burden of proof means. The burden of proof is always on the side that's fighting the status quo. You can't shift it because you think you're right.

 

[Ansou]

Hi I'm not interested in joining this argument but I don't think you understand what burden of proof means. The burden of proof is always on the side that's fighting the status quo. You can't shift it because you think you're right.

Maybe it's not exactly "shifted", but once one side has put forth an argument for why something should change, then the other side obviously has the burden to prove why that argument is not good enough. In this case allowing content to be used is the argument that I would use for why we enable Customization. Then the other side has to say why we should not enable Customization and so on. It kind of goes back and forth. The argument that Customization allows more content to be used can't really be disproven, unlike many other arguments on both sides. Therefore the anti-customs side needs a better argument than that which also can't be disproven.

 

[MajorMajora]

This default game state stuff is a load of crap. Time is the default game state for crying out loud. And don't say we ignore that because time is uncompetitive, because it's not. We simply prefer how stock plays, and many of feel stock is more competitive.

This shows something about the philosophy our ruleset is based on: default game state is always trumped by what makes for better gameplay. With something as huge as customs, saying the difference in gameplay is not enough to trump default game state is a load of BS. There are arguments on both sides, let's base our decision based on which one of those arguments is most valid, not what daddy Sakurai has to say on the matter.

 

[Ghostbone]

This default game state stuff is a load of crap. Time is the default game state for crying out loud. And don't say we ignore that because time is uncompetitive, because it's not. We simply prefer how stock plays, and many of feel stock is more competitive.

This shows something about the philosophy our ruleset is based on: default game state is always trumped by what makes for better gameplay. With something as huge as customs, saying the difference in gameplay is not enough to trump default game state is a load of BS. There are arguments on both sides, let's base our decision based on which one of those arguments is most valid, not what daddy Sakurai has to say on the matter.

Yea but the majority of players feel that customs off is more competitive than customs on lmao.

 

[Ansou]

This shows something about the philosophy our ruleset is based on: default game state is always trumped by what makes for better gameplay.

Yeah, but if there would be no argument for either side we would go to what is default. Not much is required to change the game state, just something. I would definitely say that we have good enough arguments (arguments that have already been pointed out) to change it to customs on, so doing that should be worth the trouble of having to press a button.

Most arguments I've been hearing is that the meta game changes too much, but which meta game is best or most interesting is so subjective and vague that it can barely be used as an argument.

 

[vegeta18]

My local scene does a 5 starter stage list of Smashville,battlefield, fd,dreamland and lylat.

I wanted to argue that instead of town and city being a counter pick, lylat should be the counter pick stage and town and city should be starter 5. Can anyone help give me reasons that back up my argument, also does anyone know other notable tournaments that have 5 starter stage lists using smashville,bf, fd,dreamland, and town and city?

 

[ぱみゅ]

Why do you ask others to back up your argument?
Asking here means you're more likely to get recommended to switch to FLSS instead of discussing Starters.

 

[MajorMajora]

My local scene does a 5 starter stage list of Smashville,battlefield, fd,dreamland and lylat.

I wanted to argue that instead of town and city being a counter pick, lylat should be the counter pick stage and town and city should be starter 5. Can anyone help give me reasons that back up my argument, also does anyone know other notable tournaments that have 5 starter stage lists using smashville,bf, fd,dreamland, and town and city?

If you haven't come up with a reason to argue for it on your own then we don't have anywhere to start helping you from.

Once again, I personally have qualms with starter/CP lists since *reads Kyokoro's post*

Ahem. Well. Uh...

 

[T4ylor]

My local scene does a 5 starter stage list of Smashville,battlefield, fd,dreamland and lylat.

I wanted to argue that instead of town and city being a counter pick, lylat should be the counter pick stage and town and city should be starter 5. Can anyone help give me reasons that back up my argument, also does anyone know other notable tournaments that have 5 starter stage lists using smashville,bf, fd,dreamland, and town and city?

Yeah, I'd recommend that they drop Dreamland or Lylat Cruise for Town & City. SoCal generally runs it with Lylat as a counter pick now. Having Battlefield, Dreamland, and Lylat as starters is just nuts. It favors a certain set of characters far too much. Because of my main, I try to avoid platforms, so I end up on SV, Town, or FD. All balanced stages. But with your local list I'd wind up with a bad match up game 1. I wouldn't even bother attending something with that rule set to be honest.

Just think, with your local's stage list, Pikachu is guaranteed to get one of his best stages. 100% of the time.

 

[Pazx]

My local scene does a 5 starter stage list of Smashville,battlefield, fd,dreamland and lylat.

I wanted to argue that instead of town and city being a counter pick, lylat should be the counter pick stage and town and city should be starter 5. Can anyone help give me reasons that back up my argument, also does anyone know other notable tournaments that have 5 starter stage lists using smashville,bf, fd,dreamland, and town and city?

(IN MY OPINION) A better 5 stage list than the one you suggested would be the following. (spoiler: it omits Dream Land)

Battlefield
Smashville
Town and City
Lylat Cruise
Final Destination

DL and BF are too similar to be on 5 stage starter lists imo, even with 7 starters I feel a little bit apprehensive about it.

 

[vegeta18]

Good stuff guys but I kinda wanna try rephrasing my question. Do you think lylat should be a starter or a counter pick, and why?

 

[MajorMajora]

Good stuff guys but I kinda wanna try rephrasing my question. Do you think lylat should be a starter or a counter pick, and why?

This is a wuestion that confuses me a lot. Not because it's hard to grasp, but the philosophy behind it. What makes a stage a 'good starter'? What is the criteria? The closest I've come to is that it 'has minimal dynamic elements'. In this sense, I suppose Lylat works as a good starter, though I'd simply T&C above it since people complain about that a lot and it'd be easier. Can't think of any way the change would improve competition or anything like that, but hey, that's because starter/CP stage lists are inherently illogical.

 

[Ghostbone]

Starter lists are pretty arbitrary.
Town and City is a better starter than lylat since more people like it. That's the only relevant reason (and if your region likes lylat more then that's fine too)

 

[T0MMY]

Ask yourself this: why do we ban customs? There should be a reason for why we limit the choices of the player. There can be lots of reasons: Logistics, balance, etc.

This presupposes that customs are being banned to begin with. I find this to be faulty reasoning as I see that customs are not "banned", simply the reasoning to use them isn't there to begin with. Turning Custom Fighter to "ON" then allows for bans, but I find it to be ridiculous to turn that on and then use an out-of-game ruling to ban them when the standard of not turning it on is much simpler.

Then ask yourself this: Does that philosophy also apply to Palutena's customs? They do work inherently differently, so there are definitely cases where 1 would be allowed but not the other.

Yes, the philosophy holds true and entails a true conclusion thus having a sound argument. I also believe it is the stronger argument at this time.

And don't say we are doing customs because that's the way the rulesets are. That implies that the ruleset itself transcends common logic and needs no basis for its contents, which is completely false.

Tangent, nobody has tried to argue from that avenue here, so no need to bring it up.

This default game state stuff is a load of crap. Time is the default game state for crying out loud. And don't say we ignore that because time is uncompetitive, because it's not. We simply prefer how stock plays, and many of feel stock is more competitive.

Are you attempting to argue against the Principle of Software Authority?
You do realize that Stock vs Time has not only been successfully argued for competitive value but also very solidly demonstrated, yes? When Time was being used due to it being the default setting a formal process underwent to have it changed to Stock - to deny the same successful treatment for Custom Fighters would be a travesty to our competitive process.

This shows something about the philosophy our ruleset is based on: default game state is always trumped by what makes for better gameplay.

If you believe the philosophy says otherwise I would suggest you read my Competitive Philosophy guide here on Smashboards and please show where this is so. Otherwise I'm not sure where else you are getting this idea on philosophy for our competitions.

There are arguments on both sides, let's base our decision based on which one of those arguments is most valid, not what daddy Sakurai has to say on the matter.

I would suggest that your actions follow your words. I am anxiously awaiting response to my requests above.
Also, I would like to point out that "most valid" isn't really my goal in reasoning, because there is either Valid or Invalid (given that we do not have an indeterminate) when it comes to logic. Not sure where daddy Sakurai has come into any argument, but it's safe to say if it ever does then we can call out fallacy when needed.

Hi I'm not interested in joining this argument but I don't think you understand what burden of proof means. The burden of proof is always on the side that's fighting the status quo. You can't shift it because you think you're right.

Actually... not the definition I use (and the first regarding "status quo" I have seen). Here: Burden of Proof

 

[ParanoidDrone]

This presupposes that customs are being banned to begin with. I find this to be faulty reasoning as I see that customs are not "banned", simply the reasoning to use them isn't there to begin with. Turning Custom Fighter to "ON" then allows for bans, but I find it to be ridiculous to turn that on and then use an out-of-game ruling to ban them when the standard of not turning it on is much simpler.

Honestly, I think you're splitting hairs. Trying to draw a meaningful distinction between "customization toggle set to OFF" and "customization toggle set to ON but customs are still banned" strikes me as being extremely nit-picky since the end result is the same.

EDIT: Small reading comprehension fail. Sorry if my reply doesn't make total sense WRT what you said.

 

[ぱみゅ]

At this point, I'd like to bring to the table a point:
How is turning Customs On not comparable to turning Team Attack On?
I'm honest interested in hearing people's opinions.

 

[Ansou]

At this point, I'd like to bring to the table a point:
How is turning Customs On not comparable to turning Team Attack On?
I'm honest interested in hearing people's opinions.

It is comparable, but it's another game setting. It's not obvious from the start that we should set team attack to On, but we have decided that setting it to On has more benefits than keeping it to Off. The same thing goes for Customization. If we decide that setting Customization to On has more benefits than keeping it to Off, then we should set it to On. Those benefits could be, for instance, being able to use already made content that we otherwise wouldn't be able to use.

 

[Ghostbone]

You don't have to spend weeks grinding to properly unlock team attack on.

 

[Ansou]

Neither do you have to spend weeks grinding to "properly" unlock Customization On. Customization isn't even something you unlock; Custom Specials and Custom Equipment is. Equipment can be ignored because it is not suited for competitive play. For Custom Specials you can just 3DS transfer on meetups and tourneys. If you want to practice at home, trying to practice against bots is probably not the way to go regardless. So, no need to grind for weeks here either.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Running a major with all Mii sizes and Palu customs legal. Also probably more stages than is usual in my region.

Get @ my level.

 

[Ansou]

Running a major with all Mii sizes and Palu customs legal. Also probably more stages than is usual in my region.

Get @ my level.

So only some custom specials are legal? That's a bit odd...

 

[T0MMY]

Honestly, I think you're splitting hairs. Trying to draw a meaningful distinction between "customization toggle set to OFF" and "customization toggle set to ON but customs are still banned" strikes me as being extremely nit-picky since the end result is the same.

EDIT: Small reading comprehension fail. Sorry if my reply doesn't make total sense WRT what you said.

I cannot fathom what kind of speculation you seem to be freely taking with my entailing argument. Nowhere did I say customs are still banned (because you used quotation marks I request you link me to this quote).
I simply described the obvious reality: Button functions either ON or OFF (not both or neither); standard is OFF and is default OFF from the start; sound reasoning is necessary for motivation of switching to ON (please provide sound reasoning if making the call for the change).

Until this is done I don't advocate banning anything, not even Customs, but would find it a travesty to not allow the same formal process to be granted possible to allow for a change in rules the same way Items and Time were changed. The pro-custom side deserve that much respect.

 

[ぱみゅ]

You don't have to spend weeks grinding to properly unlock team attack on.

The only reason I asked is because of Palutena and the Miis.
Why are them not allowed to have their effort-free Customs, the main point I hear is the "toggle Customization ON" part, but it's literally just as difficult as toggling Team Attack ON (it's actually even easier, as Customs is in Page 1 while Team Attack is in Page 2).
It's still a honest question.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I cannot fathom what kind of speculation you seem to be freely taking with my entailing argument. Nowhere did I say customs are still banned (because you used quotation marks I request you link me to this quote).
I simply described the obvious reality: Button functions either ON or OFF (not both or neither); standard is OFF and is default OFF from the start; sound reasoning is necessary for motivation of switching to ON (please provide sound reasoning if making the call for the change).

Until this is done I don't advocate banning anything, not even Customs, but would find it a travesty to not allow the same formal process to be granted possible to allow for a change in rules the same way Items and Time were changed. The pro-custom side deserve that much respect.

My use of quotations was to set apart hypothetical clauses in a ruleset from the rest of my prose, I was not quoting anyone in particular. When I do that here, I generally use quote tags so it pops up in the boxes.

That aside, I find the following two statements of yours to be contradictory:

Button functions either ON or OFF (not both or neither); standard is OFF and is default OFF from the start[...]

Until this is done I don't advocate banning anything, not even Customs[...]

Because regardless of how you dress it up semantically, leaving the customization toggle set to OFF (regardless of reason; I'm not touching that argument right now) is functionally identical to banning customs in my eyes. Because, after all, if the toggle is set to OFF as dictated by the ruleset, then they are de facto banned even if the hypothetical ruleset in question does not explicitly use the word "banned" anywhere.

tl;dr you're playing a semantics game and I don't like it

 

[b2jammer]

ParanoidDrone I agree that customs OFF and customs banned should mean the same thing, but here's the problem: Miis can use custom moves even with the toggle OFF, and Palutena has to use her customs with the toggle ON, meaning if we were to allow one or both of those options and nothing else for whatever reason, some potentially arbitrary banning/legalization would have to be done. I assume that this whole semantics issue wasn't the point T0MMY was arguing to begin with, but that's just me.

The thing here is that the default game state is that customization is set to OFF and we need to motivate why we press the Customization button if we want to avoid it being an arbitrary decision. We need to motivate this regardless of if we want to allow all characters to customize or if we only want Palutena to be able to customize. I would say that we can easily motivate pressing the button by saying that it allows content in the game to be used, which is generally considered a good thing.
We have now motivated why we press that button, so now the burden of proof is shifted to the other side. Arguments now have to be made for why we should not press the button.
Some arguments for why we should not press the button is:

• Equipment is also a part of Customization and is seen as non-competitive.
• Customization has to be unlocked in a non-desirable way to use it in competition.

There are obviously more arguments, but these are two of them.
To answer the first argument, we can just decide that we ban all equipment from competitive play.
For the second argument, we can either ban customization for all characters except Palutena/Mii Fighter or we can handle the issue with 3DS-transfer.

If we take all arguments into consideration it becomes a bit more complex, but this is the basic reason why it can be justified that only Palutena should be able to customize while every other character can not. We get some new content without having to unlock it.

I'd just like to throw a question out: is more content necessarily more competitive? Why? I'd just like to know because that doesn't exactly seem to me like a good reason to turn on customs, even though I'm sure that wasn't your focus.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Having more non-broken viable tools is in fact more competitive than "No items, Sheik only, Smashville".
Increasing character diversity seems like a good reason to me.



EDIT: Just in case it gets nitpicked, I'm not saying Sheik is the only good character with Customs OFF, or that Customs ON will suddenly invalidate her dominance.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

So mini Mii is legal at my tournament and I already am getting complaints that we're gonna have Mii Brawler dittos in grand finals.

Which is funny, because there are only two people who play the character in Germany, and neither have really been winning tournaments with them.

And because grand finals of almost every major here in Germany is Shiek dittos.

This community, man...

 

[ParanoidDrone]

ParanoidDrone I agree that customs OFF and customs banned should mean the same thing, but here's the problem: Miis can use custom moves even with the toggle OFF, and Palutena has to use her customs with the toggle ON, meaning if we were to allow one or both of those options and nothing else for whatever reason, some potentially arbitrary banning/legalization would have to be done. I assume that this whole semantics issue wasn't the point T0MMY was arguing to begin with, but that's just me.


I'd just like to throw a question out: is more content necessarily more competitive? Why? I'd just like to know because that doesn't exactly seem to me like a good reason to turn on customs, even though I'm sure that wasn't your focus.

I forgot about the Miis, but given that they can use their customs regardless of toggle status and that you can make variously sized Miis, I would think a competently crafted ruleset would specifically address them anyway. EDIT: Regardless of how it addresses everyone else's customs.

 

[T0MMY]

My use of quotations was to set apart hypothetical clauses in a ruleset from the rest of my prose, I was not quoting anyone in particular. When I do that here, I generally use quote tags so it pops up in the boxes.

Ok, so I could assume that saying "no u" is just to make an otherwise stronger argument appear to be a weak one. That, if it is the case, would be rather disreputable and embarrassing (both to the one who uses the underhanded tactic and to the conversation). Because this is a very possible interpretation (by myself or others reading this) I would suggest restraining from using the quotes in such a manner and just stick with the quote tag (at least just with me, if you'd like to encourage a respectable conversation between us).

That aside, I find the following two statements of yours to be contradictory:
Button functions either ON or OFF (not both or neither); standard is OFF and is default OFF from the start[...]
Until this is done I don't advocate banning anything, not even Customs[...]

From my understanding the Custom Fighter button does in fact function as described, so that premise seems to be true.
The second premise that "this" is to be done is pertaining to providing sound reasoning for any change in standard.

I am sorry, but this is not an obvious contradiction: Could you please demonstrate how a description of a button as programmed in the software and requiring sound reasoning for an action is contradictory?

leaving the customization toggle set to OFF [...] is functionally identical to banning customs in my eyes. Because, after all, if the toggle is set to OFF as dictated by the ruleset, then they are de facto banned even if the hypothetical ruleset in question does not explicitly use the word "banned" anywhere.

I would agree with you, but there is a very important reason for rulecrafters to word it this way:

First off, by all technicality this isn't a "ban"; you may call it splitting hairs or playing semantics (as I would assume to provide a fragile avenue to argue against "bans" by fudging the fringes of its definitions) but those of us who have more extraordinary definitions recognize it as something precise. By definition Time or Coin is not banned when we choose Stock the same way Team Attack ON does not "ban" being unable to hurt your teammate. You see, with your concept of "ban" this way it becomes silly and really does become a game of semantics that I want no part of as a serious rulecrafter.

Secondly, for reasons regarding Mii fighters specifically there is an argument for ban using the same kind of fragile avenue (kind of ironic) - Mii fighters are accused of using "custom moves" for their special attack choices even though the game does not define them as customs nor custom fighters. Because of this, if we use the wording "Customs are banned" we could entail that Mii fighters are using customs and therefore are banned. It would create a predicament for TOs who want to have a Custom Fighter OFF setting that allow for Mii (and all their Special Attacks to be utilized when creating them) but would actually be contradictory in this way.
Because some may argue Mii fighters are using "customs" and create unnecessary ruling issues, rulecrafters would be wise to stay away from proclaiming Custom Fighters: OFF equates to Customs are "banned". Which is why I hesitate to agree with you and instead stay with the standards found in Competitive Theory.

tl;dr you're playing a semantics game and I don't like it

Glad I could clear that up for you; all fears of my definitions being a game of semantics should be appeased as I have put a lot of serious thought into what it is I am saying/defining/proclaiming/communicating.

 

[ぱみゅ]

By definition [...] Team Attack ON does not "ban" being unable to hurt your teammate. [...]

I'll tackle on this point because it relates to the one question I made some posts earlier.

While it does not directly ban the ability to hurt your teammate, it effectively nullifies teams that use that tactic to be particularly good, namely Lucario/ZSS/Pikachu+Lucas/Ness, so they are downgraded, and possibly unviable in the overall competitive environment.
When you turn OFF Customs, it's the same. You do not directly ban characters that use customs, but certain characters that need customs to compete like Palutena, Charizard and WFT will be nullified as well, so they won't be seen at competitions often either.

The name might be different, but the result is the same: You're not banning it, but you're rendering a trait unusable.

 

[Ghostbone]

Charizard is awful either way, WFT is just as good without customs with them on, Palutena is the exception being basically the only character who actually becomes appreciably better with customs (from unviable to barely viable).

Customs don't really help any other character's viability, even custom DK placed worse than current DK.

Claiming certain character's need customs to compete is to say that those characters have no meaningful potential in their base kits.
And tbh, anyone with bad attributes/standard attacks won't be viable extra gimmicky specials, Palutena again is an exception only because her customs change her attributes/the way her standard attacks are utilised. But we don't make rulesets to favour specific characters.
I mean look at evo, top 32 was basically exactly what you'd expect from a customs off tournament.
Customs don't increase character diversity, there's no evidence for it.

 

[Ansou]

Charizard is awful either way, WFT is just as good without customs with them on, Palutena is the exception being basically the only character who actually becomes appreciably better with customs (from unviable to barely viable).

Customs don't really help any other character's viability, even custom DK placed worse than current DK.

Claiming certain character's need customs to compete is to say that those characters have no meaningful potential in their base kits.
And tbh, anyone with bad attributes/standard attacks won't be viable extra gimmicky specials, Palutena again is an exception only because her customs change her attributes/the way her standard attacks are utilised. But we don't make rulesets to favour specific characters.
I mean look at evo, top 32 was basically exactly what you'd expect from a customs off tournament.
Customs don't increase character diversity, there's no evidence for it.

Even if Charizard is awful either way he is better with customs. WFT is also better with customs. I don't know why you're saying that he/she is just as good without. Kirby is better with customs. Duck Hunt. Ganondorf. Dr. Mario. The thing is that there is no black and white when it comes to the term viable. You could argue that Sheik is the only viable character, but she is just better than everyone else. Characters don't go from unusable to usable just because we turn Customization to on, but the motivation to use some of them becomes significantly higher. Also, they don't have to be "extra gimmicky specials", often times they are just good tools that a character has use of.

I'd just like to throw a question out: is more content necessarily more competitive? Why? I'd just like to know because that doesn't exactly seem to me like a good reason to turn on customs, even though I'm sure that wasn't your focus.

Palutena's Custom Moves require Custom Fighters setting to be toggled ON and there has yet to be any sound reason why that game setting should be changed from OFF to ON.

Alright, I'll try to explain my reasoning for why allowing content to be used is a good reason to turn Customization on. First I would like to say something about software authority and burden of proof. While I do believe that the burden of proof is on the party that wants to change what the software's default game state is, I do not believe that something revolutionary or fantastic is needed to change the in-game settings. What is needed simply has to be better than what is offered in the default game state. So if changing something makes the game better, even just slightly, that should be a reason to change the in-game setting. Obviously, what makes the game better is subjective and therefore hard to define. What T0MMY defines as making the game competitively better (please don't nitpick on my wording here, you may formulate it in another way) in his guide is the following:

• Fairness - neutrality for the competitors
• In-game rulings - native design of the software
• Reward to skill - promoting the better skilled player

So what is so good with more content? Well, first and foremost, allowing customization is allowing everyone to choose whatever they want. If there is more content, there is a higher chance that everyone will find something that suits them. Does this fit in any of the above mentioned criteria? It may not seem like it at first, but actually, yes, it does. Every player being able to choose what suits them clearly corresponds to neutrality and fairness. It also gives players more enjoyment because they can play with whatever they want, although that is not a part of T0MMY's definition of competitive principles. Obviously, there will still be people that find that the game has nothing that suits them regardless of if Customization is On or Off, but the chance is higher that they find something that works if it is On.

Secondly, I have a point that some might find more important and more directly linked to making the game more "competitive". It's regarding depth and choices. I firmly believe that more content leads to more Reward to skill. Why? Because if there are more things to learn in the game, that increases the skill ceiling which leads to more things you need to master to be truly skilled at the game. Basically, more content gives the players chances to prove their skill in more ways.

It seems very clear that I and T0MMY don't interpret the competitive principles in the exact same way, but I hope that I have at least cleared up why I think that enabling Customization is a good idea for competitive play regardless of what is written in that guide.