Infinites(A.K.A. low-risk high-reward combos) should be limited

[Arcansi]

What is your framework, and how is mine different?

This is where I get lost, as idk.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Even if infinites remove depth from the game, the amount of players who won't enter tournaments with your rules = worse depth than if infinites were allowed.

Read my thread in the Stage boards.

 

[Alphicans]

What is your framework, and how is mine different?

This is where I get lost, as idk.

I figured the distinction was clear. You value even match-ups across the board, whereas I value lots of CPing, which requires very diverse match-up ratios.

 

[Arcansi]

I figured the distinction was clear. You value even match-ups across the board, whereas I value lots of CPing, which requires very diverse match-up ratios.

I value cping too, else I would be banning it outright(most likely)

The change to 3 regrabs is not going to remove the CP potential in anyway, and I don't see why you would think that.

 

[Alphicans]

I don't see any value in it, because I don't see any value in trying to make all match-ups in the game closer to even.

 

[Arcansi]

I figured the distinction was clear. You value even match-ups across the board, whereas I value lots of CPing, which requires very diverse match-up ratios.

I value cping too, else I would be banning it outright(most likely)

The change to 3 regrabs is not going to remove the CP potential in anyway, and I don't see why you would think that.

Also, as a quote from Grim Tuesday "Its also worth keeping in mind that the more skewed a match-up is, the less competitive it is."

How many people did you mean when you said our framework?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

There are exceptions to that rule mind you, which I pointed out in my original quote.

Just making that clear so I don't get misinterpreted.

 

[Alphicans]

Idk how many people I meant... Just replace "our" with "mine" I don't really care. I am speaking on my own behalf. If people hold that view, then I don't see their argument with you, unless they value other things that aren't compatible with your rule. Furthermore, I showed how it's possible that your rule might not even accomplish what you want, so maybe the majority of people value the same things as you, but think that limiting cgs hurts balance more than improves it. I am not sure, but that's certainly how I feel about it.

 

[Arcansi]

Idk how many people I meant... Just replace "our" with "mine" I don't really care. I am speaking on my own behalf. If people hold that view, then I don't see their argument with you, unless they value other things that aren't compatible with your rule. Furthermore, I showed how it's possible that your rule might not even accomplish what you want, so maybe the majority of people value the same things as you, but think that limiting cgs hurts balance more than improves it. I am not sure, but that's certainly how I feel about it.

Except, I proved you wrong with a chart you have yet to disprove without saying 'these matchups just don't matter'.

When in fact they do.

Even if infinites remove depth from the game, the amount of players who won't enter tournaments with your rules = worse depth than if infinites were allowed.

Read my thread in the Stage boards.

I read it, you can't prove this, can you?

I mean, when I suggested my rule be added to tournaments nobody said they wouldn't attend tournaments with it on.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I don't need to prove it, I'm not the one suggesting a ruleset change.

You're welcome to convince peeps to change the Apex ruleset, if you so desire.

 

[Arcansi]

Your trying to prove me wrong, so you do.

Why would we ever be able to assume that your argument is automatically correct?

:fluttershy:

 

[Grim Tuesday]

You don't have to agree with me, I'm not arguing for the sake of being right here.

Just telling you exactly what the problem is with your ruleset, just because it isn't something I can prove, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

 

[Arcansi]

It pales in comparison to what I say, that it won't happen.

(Read: all of grim's post, and put it into my point)

Except I have proof for mine. So mines statistically better then yours, although they both are plausible.

Best option? Testing!

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I didn't even understand that post.

 

[Arcansi]

Everything you say is applicable to my point.

Mine is better because I have proof.

:fluttershy:

 

[Grim Tuesday]

What do you have proof of? o_O

Look: If you really think people would enter your tournies, then you clearly aren't a part of a scene that is even half-way decent.

 

[Ghostbone]

I find it funny how Arcansi thinks everyone is forced to use the Unity Ruleset, and it's the reason we don't use rulesets such as his.

The Unity Ruleset is still relatively new for the Brawl scene, and up until when it was formed guess what? Most tournaments were already using rulesets that were only 1 or 2 tweaks away from being Unity. (1 stage difference, 5 starter list instead of 7, different LGL, that kind of stuff).

And then there's Apex, possibly the largest Brawl tournament so far, and it's not even running Unity!

 

[Arcansi]

I find it funny how Arcansi thinks everyone is forced to use the Unity Ruleset, and it's the reason we don't use rulesets such as his.

The Unity Ruleset is still relatively new for the Brawl scene, and up until when it was formed guess what? Most tournaments were already using rulesets that were only 1 or 2 tweaks away from being Unity. (1 stage difference, 5 starter list instead of 7, different LGL, that kind of stuff).

And then there's Apex, possibly the largest Brawl tournament so far, and it's not even running Unity!

It basically is. I mean, I'm pretty sure those changes were made to accomodate those people who are not under the influence of unity.

Note that I never said it was the reason we don't use rulesets such as mine and I don't appreciate you saying so.

What do you have proof of? o_O

Look: If you really think people would enter your tournies, then you clearly aren't a part of a scene that is even half-way decent.

What do you mean when you say my tournaments?

Also, I never said anything about my own tournaments, as I don't host any.

:fluttershy:

 

[Alphicans]

Except, I proved you wrong with a chart you have yet to disprove without saying 'these matchups just don't matter'.

When in fact they do.




I read it, you can't prove this, can you?

I mean, when I suggested my rule be added to tournaments nobody said they wouldn't attend tournaments with it on.

You didn't prove me wrong... You've never proved anything lol. Are you trolling me or something, like you're making very little sense now :/.

 

[Arcansi]

You didn't prove me wrong... You've never proved anything lol. Are you trolling me or something, like you're making very little sense now :/.

Are you saying the chart proves nothing, or that your analysis of what actually matters was more correct then my analysis of all changes?

 

[Alphicans]

I am saying your chart proves nothing. Limiting cgs doesn't change match-ups in identical fashions, and that's what you think happens. I've never once said certain match-ups don't matter, I wouldn't be that naive. I've been treating every match-up equally, and from what I can tell, your rule hurts balance more than improves it.

 

[Arcansi]

I'm working on gathering info from character mains on this, so hold on if you don't mind.

Also, isn't it a double standard to have the LGL and not have this? (The LGL is a tactic-limiting rule that removes a tactic because it makes matchups one sided and promotes stalling. (only when the former is true, however) My rule is a tactic-limiting rule that removes a tactic because it makes matchups one sided (and also could be used to promote stalling, given the current stalling rule))

It wouldn't be if the LGL only removed stalling tactics (what DeLux told me to tell me the LGL doesn't help my case) but it doesn't. It also removes effective tactics to do damage for some characters, and in some matchups.

 

[-LzR-]

Why is this thread still alive?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Everyone just stop posting. :D

 

[Arcansi]

What we can infer from this is that a game with more effectively different situations will be harder to master, and the harder a game is to master, the more competitive it becomes (to a point, as if a game is too difficult to master, such as predicting a coin toss, the players will be equally bad at it). With that in mind, competitive will be used in the way I have described for the remainder of this thread as I believe it is the most logical definition for it.

Doesn't the rule fit this?

 

[Ghostbone]

Yea except you're removing situations, go figure.

The game is too complex for you to simply say that your rule creates more effectively different situations because it limits some others even if it does create more balance overall (which it doesn't necessarily)

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Read what I said in the thread about how the competitive merit of a decision is also directly related to its popularity.

 

[Arcansi]

Yea except you're removing situations, go figure.

The game is too complex for you to simply say that your rule creates more effectively different situations because it limits some others even if it does create more balance overall (which it doesn't necessarily)

Adds situations overall because of this.

A match in which IC's gets a chaingrab immediately all 3 stocks has less situations then a match in which IC's gets a chaingrab at 1:00 after start of the match or last chaingrab.

Read what I said in the thread about how the competitive merit of a decision is also directly related to its popularity.

So basically, your just going on beliefs? I mean, my locality didn't say they would quit with it on, nobody in this thread has...so really that wouldn't seem to apply at all, now would it?

 

[Ghostbone]

Adds situations overall because of this.

A match in which IC's gets a chaingrab immediately all 3 stocks has less situations then a match in which IC's gets a chaingrab at 1:00 after start of the match or last chaingrab.

So a 99 minute match is more competitive because there are more situations? Go push for that.

 

[Arcansi]

So a 99 minute match is more competitive because there are more situations? Go push for that.

It defines skill better but is less practical.

I don't understand your purpose in posting this, as it is quite obvious the impracticality of such a thing outweighs how much more it defines skill.

:fluttershy:

 

[Grim Tuesday]

*Entire argument*

=

It defines skill better but is less practical.

Saving us from doing the work, thanks.

 

[Arcansi]

=



Saving us from doing the work, thanks.

I don't see how my rule is so impractical that it should not be added.

Can you explain?

 

[Ghostbone]

It's impractical because few people would go to your tournaments

 

[Grim Tuesday]

inb4 you can't prove that so I'm allowed to disregard it

 

[Arcansi]

It's impractical because few people would go to your tournaments

inb4 you can't prove that so I'm allowed to disregard it

Is that not a logical conclusion.

NOTE: On a survey of my local area conducted by someone other then me, it was found that all but 1 person would play in a tourney with my ruleset on.

Am I supposed to just think nobody would go even though this exists?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Name a single good player in your area and ask them what they would do if given a choice.

 

[Arcansi]

Define good.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

If I don't know their name, they aren't good noteworthy.

 

[Arcansi]

Who do you know the name of that lives in BC, Canada?

 

[DeLux]

To be fair Arcansi, it was all but 2 would agree to a free side event for testing, although one was 50/50 because he also wanted to do crews lol