Canada [Jul 26, 2014] B.C. Brawl Monthlies - Back in business, now featuring Smash 64! (Burnaby, BC)

[Arcansi]

Are you saying the use of logical deductive reasoning to reach something I can define as a superior viewpoint is a bad thing?

I don't understand.

 

[PokemonMasterIRL]

I play these kids on wifi.

sup wit it canada

 

[Raninf]

I could write a summary, but I'll leave it at that quote.

i think he means that his logic beats his emotions, not that his logic beats others'

 

[Jason!]

I play these kids on wifi.

sup wit it canada

u like wifi i like wifi lets be friends yo.

 

[Blue Yoshi]

Arcansi, have you read the book 1984? I think most people read it in their grade 12 year in English. If you have, then this analogy will work perfectly to describing my annoyance. If not, well, hopefully it works.

You assume that the BC brawl community and the smashboards brawl community as a whole is essentially random people doing exactly what one or two people say, and don't question it at all, just like everyone in the book. What they are told is right, no matter how right or wrong it may be. It's as if everyone is a computer programmed exactly the same way, and nobody will change at all.

But then you come along and you have the light that will shine the way to a better way of life. However, since it is not exactly what we are told to believe, we see it as strange, and ignore it, and proceed to make fun of you and your way of life. You then complain that nobody listens to you because we are so convinced our way is better that your way will never be nearly as good.



The way I understand it, this is how you see us. On a scale of 1 to 10, how accurate is this analogy/description?

 

[Jason!]

Arcansi and Blue Yoshi are writing a long summary. I can feel it coming.

Damnit if only i posted 30 seconds earlier FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

 

[Kantrip]

The risk when gimping, as some characters, is low. This is not constant.

Some characters are better at gimping than others. This is not constant.

The reward for getting a gimp is high: the opponent's stock. This is constant.

For SOME characters, the risk/reward of a gimp is skewed. Is this not your quarrell with characters having different grabs?

And what of SNL? Very low risk, stock reward.

 

[Arcansi]

The risk when gimping, as some characters, is low. This is not constant.

This is true.

Some characters are better at gimping than others. This is not constant.

This is true.

The reward for getting a gimp is high: the opponent's stock. This is constant.

This is true.

For SOME characters, the risk/reward of a gimp is skewed. Is this not your quarrell with characters having different grabs?

1. It is not skewed so heavily, and this is likely what matters most.

2. Gimps are much more situational, and much harder to pull off. If a gimp was as easy and as often seen as a grab, I might be against them.

And what of SNL? Very low risk, stock reward.

In an optimal ruleset, would be limited. I am not currently able to ever suggest certain things due to the communities nature of complete illogical denial. This is one of those things, currently. If you can get discussion going on it I'll support you.

 

[Blue Yoshi]

I love how Arcansi completely ignores my post entirely.

Arcansi, can you please read my last post, and give me on a scale of 1 to 10 how accurate you think that is. You claim you want to know why I think the way I think about your posts, and that I never explain my thought process, and yet you ignore every single one of my posts trying to give you an explanation.

 

[Arcansi]

I love how Arcansi completely ignores my post entirely.

Arcansi, can you please read my last post, and give me on a scale of 1 to 10 how accurate you think that is. You claim you want to know why I think the way I think about your posts, and yet you ignore my posts trying to give you an explanation.

Didn't mean too, missed it because I'm playing super mario 3D land.

After I beat this castle, sure.

 

[Kantrip]

Oops. Not sure what happened

 

[Kantrip]

Here's where things get interesting, by the way:

Jigglypuff pressing a direction on the control stick. There. The grab is done and Jiggs earned her percent reward.

Ice Climbers executing and intricate chaingrab of varying timings and inputs. At any point, if a mistake is made, it ends there. Execution without flaw is rewarded greater than messing up. The Ice Climbers earn their percent reward.

 

[Arcansi]

Gimps are NOT harder to pull off, by any stretch of the word. We are talking about executing a CHAINGRAB here, not getting a single grab. I know for certain I mess up shield cancels and I miss timings for grabs and I can't even do ICs chaingrabs at all. Gimps are cake compared to some chaingrabs.

Ganondorf getting a gimp. Meta Knight getting a gimp. One is both A LOT easier and A LOT safer. Both are equally rewarding.

Jigglypuff getting a grab. Ice Climbers getting a grab. Both are equally as difficult. Both are equally as safe. One has a MUCH GREATER reward.

Ponder this, for a bit, Arcansi.

1. Difficulty of something that is garaunteed doesn't matter, because you make rules for high level play and as long as something is reasonably doable, it is assumed it is done correctly. Good IC's will kill you once they get a grab, Landon will very rarely if ever mess up one of his chaingrabs, etc.

Gimps have a messed difficulty ratio. Grabs have a messed reward ratio.

Ability to gimp would seem to be a programmed facet of the character that would be considered in relation to the rest of the characters features in order to make them somewhat balanced.

Chaingrabs certainly aren't.

Also, chaingrabs are a lot easier to limit then gimps, and rules complexity matters.

Arcansi, have you read the book 1984? I think most people read it in their grade 12 year in English. If you have, then this analogy will work perfectly to describing my annoyance. If not, well, hopefully it works.

I'm in grade 11. No, I haven't.

You assume that the BC brawl community and the smashboards brawl community as a whole is essentially random people doing exactly what one or two people say, and don't question it at all, just like everyone in the book. What they are told is right, no matter how right or wrong it may be. It's as if everyone is a computer programmed exactly the same way, and nobody will change at all.

Not exactly, but okay.

But then you come along and you have the light that will shine the way to a better way of life. However, since it is not exactly what we are told to believe, we see it as strange, and ignore it, and proceed to make fun of you and your way of life. You then complain that nobody listens to you because we are so convinced our way is better that your way will never be nearly as good.

This is more conceptually true then literally.




6/7? You seem to be getting the concept but assuming I think things like 'all people are the same' and you missed some stuff in the second paragraph.

Here's where things get interesting, by the way:

Jigglypuff pressing a direction on the control stick. There. The grab is done and Jiggs earned her percent reward.

Ice Climbers executing and intricate chaingrab of varying timings and inputs. At any point, if a mistake is made, it ends there. Execution without flaw is rewarded greater than messing up. The Ice Climbers earn their percent reward.

It seems you removed your post in order to post again?

There is something I have come to learn from playing LoL about balance, and skill floors/ceilings.

You don't balance around them. Blitzcrank was one such champion that had a high skill ceiling and Riot knew it. They also knew at his skill ceiling he was OP.

They eventually nerfed him because players reached the skill ceiling.

Execution is never something to balance off of unless it is consistently unreliable. Chaingrabs aren't.

 

[Blue Yoshi]

My entire point is you believe that everybody was told this one belief (or in this case ruleset), and everybody has been taught to stick to that absolute ruleset as if it is their life. No other ruleset makes sense at all. Now you come along with a new ruleset that is in your opinion better, yet nobody is listening to you because it is not the ruleset that they have been taught to be absolute. And this is why nobody is considering your opinion.

Is this more or less correct? And if no, state what is not correct. This will help me in telling you what I dislike about your posts.

 

[Arcansi]

My entire point is you believe that everybody was told this one belief (or in this case ruleset), and everybody has been taught to stick to that absolute ruleset as if it is their life. No other ruleset makes sense at all. Now you come along with a new ruleset that is in your opinion better, yet nobody is listening to you because it is not the ruleset that they have been taught to be absolute. And this is why nobody is considering your opinion.

Is this more or less correct? And if no, state what is not correct. This will help me in telling you what I dislike about your posts.

No, I don't believe this. The whole thing is incorrect. I believe there are tendences of things that are like a less drastic version of what you are saying, that is all.

 

[Kantrip]

2. Gimps are much more situational, and much harder to pull off.

You brought up difficulty first.

 

[Kantrip]

Alright, if you want to disregard difficulty, that is fine. We can go with top level play. If something is within the realm of possibility, we will consider it a guarantee.

So, gimps are skewed by their risk, while infinites are skewed by their reward. Both techniques have a skewes risk/reward ratio as a result.

The difference between Ganondorf and Meta Knight's difficulty of gimping is great. Largely skewed risk/reward ratio between extremes.

The difference between Ice Climbers' and Jigglypuff's reward for a grab is great. Largely skewed risk/reward ratio between extremes.

They are the same in this regard.

 

[Arcansi]

You brought up difficulty first.

The opponents reactions and options create skill differentiation in gimping, and it's difficulty.

This does not happen in a chaingrab.

 

[Blue Yoshi]

You state why, in your opinion, you think nobody is willing to use your ruleset, and why everyone is always questioning and saying that it is bad etc. That will give everyone a better basis on what you are arguing for. Every post, what I posted above is essentially what I get from your posts. So to clear the mis-understanding, please, just state exactly why, in your opinion, you think we all disagree with your ruleset etc.

Also, out of the last 30 posts in this thread, how many of them (estimation is fine) had nothing to do with arguments at all, would you say? This is completely unrelated to the last question. I believe it to be 30 (i.e. all), but I skipped most of your posts, so I don't know for sure, and who better to know than the person who posted the posts.

 

[Captain L]

guys I'm down for a smashfest on wednesday


Jason you'd better be there!!


Also I chose Pikachu to be my main, and I like having my +3 matchups that I wouldn't be able to deal with otherwise.


For the record I have said (multiple times) that I'm opposed to an LGL.


And even if we're keeping it, I'm STRONGLY opposed to lowering it, I've easily gone over the limit in a legit match just last tourney, while not even ending up timing my opponent out.


Luckily I know that jj is also opposed to lowering it for yoshi reasons <4

 

[Jason!]

guys I'm down for a smashfest on wednesday


Jason you'd better be there!!


Also I chose Pikachu to be my main, and I like having my +3 matchups that I wouldn't be able to deal with otherwise.


For the record I have said (multiple times) that I'm opposed to an LGL.


And even if we're keeping it, I'm STRONGLY opposed to lowering it, I've easily gone over the limit in a legit match just last tourney, while not even ending up timing my opponent out.


Luckily I know that jj is also opposed to lowering it for yoshi reasons <4

I go over 40 in almost every match I play LOOOOOOOL

 

[DeLux]

Is this Arcansi's home region?

 

[Arcansi]

You state why, in your opinion, you think nobody is willing to use your ruleset, and why everyone is always questioning and saying that it is bad etc. That will give everyone a better basis on what you are arguing for. Every post, what I posted above is essentially what I get from your posts. So to clear the mis-understanding, please, just state exactly why, in your opinion, you think we all disagree with your ruleset etc.

They're probably questioning it because they're resistant to change or find fault in my rule/the reasoning behind it.

People aren't willing to use it for a variety of (mostly illogical) reasons. Aisight doesn't like it because he believes that my rule is only able to be proven based on LGL existing, which doesn't exist in his area. This is not proven, and I don't believe it is true.

Alphicans doesn't like the rule because he doesn't believe it will actually make the game better. I might have some logical proof against the list, as far as I remember it didn't include DDD on Bowser (And DK on Bowser? I forget) Or Falcon on Peach, which I haven't evaluated yet, but that's something else.

A bunch of people don't like it because 'it's stupid' (or atleast, that's all they've given me)

Captain L (and probably others)doesn't like it for selfish reasons, it nerfs his character and he feels (from what I can tell, mind you) entitled to his +3 matchups for some reason. Ima ask him why.

There are still others that I don't know why they don't support me, because they haven't told me.

Also, out of the last 30 posts in this thread, how many of them (estimation is fine) had nothing to do with arguments at all, would you say? This is completely unrelated to the last question. I believe it to be 30 (i.e. all), but I skipped most of your posts, so I don't know for sure, and who better to know than the person who posted the posts.

Your definition of argument is different then mine. You mean with emotion? I could only count yours. Then again I never consider my posts to have emotion, and you seem to all the time.

As in to do with debates? 7-12.

Also I chose Pikachu to be my main, and I like having my +3 matchups that I wouldn't be able to deal with otherwise.

(Assuming my rule is good for the game) This is a reason to keep balance out of our game?

For the record I have said (multiple times) that I'm opposed to an LGL.

Why?

And even if we're keeping it, I'm STRONGLY opposed to lowering it, I've easily gone over the limit in a legit match just last tourney, while not even ending up timing my opponent out.

Legit proof is cool.

Luckily I know that jj is also opposed to lowering it for yoshi reasons <4

The name of the person that wants X change should never matter on universal rules...

Is this Arcansi's home region?

Yes.

How did you find this, and why?

 

[Captain L]

More or less. He's been to one tourney cause he lives on an island and it costs like 200 for him to get over here, on top of the fact that he has to make housing arrangements and stuff. He stayed at my dad's house the time he came over.


it's not necessarily that I'm "entitled" to my +3 matchups, it's that those matchups are part of the game. Just like MK players are "entitled" to have a +2/3 over more than half the cast. Falco players are aware that they are hard countered by pikachu, so they can either pick up secondaries or just try not to get grabbed.

 

[DeLux]

I would very much like for this locality to run a side event, letting Arcansi TO said event.

 

[Kantrip]

Are you planning on responding to me, Arcansi?

 

[Captain L]

I would forsee the results of that side event being exactly the same as the results of a regular event. None of our top players use characters that CG eachother forever. Like, we have a dedede player and a mario player, but the guy who plays dedede has like 10 other viable characters anyways so it's no big deal. The only thing that might change is I might lose to our falco player if we meet in bracket.

 

[Jason!]

So whos down for a smashfest on Wednesday?

1. Jason
2. Captain L

anyone else?

 

[Captain L]

I would abduct drive skidd on my way

 

[DeLux]

So if I understand correctly, you guys would be willing to try an event of Arcansi-run nature?

 

[Arcansi]

it's not necessarily that I'm "entitled" to my +3 matchups, it's that those matchups are part of the game. Just like MK players are "entitled" to have a +2/3 over more than half the cast. Falco players are aware that they are hard countered by pikachu, so they can either pick up secondaries or just try not to get grabbed.

Is this a reason to not change the game?

If it is, are you saying because the game exists, we should not change it? If not, what are you saying?

I would very much like for this locality to run a side event, letting Arcansi TO said event.

What is the purpose of this? Just so I know what to do. E.G. I could test a bunch of s***, or I could test what I know is more or less good.

 

[Captain L]

only if he promises to stop arguing in our thread after it happens

 

[Kantrip]

I would be willing to try an event, sure, provided close to free entry and enough time.

 

[Arcansi]

Alright, if you want to disregard difficulty, that is fine. We can go with top level play. If something is within the realm of possibility, we will consider it a guarantee.

Realistically. 1 Frame links and stuff excluded.

So, gimps are skewed by their risk, while infinites are skewed by their reward. Both techniques have a skewes risk/reward ratio as a result.

No, because gimps have a higher difficulty.

The difference between Ganondorf and Meta Knight's difficulty of gimping is great. Largely skewed risk/reward ratio between extremes.

This is true.

The difference between Ice Climbers' and Jigglypuff's reward for a grab is great. Largely skewed risk/reward ratio between extremes.

This is true.

Are you planning on responding to me, Arcansi?

I only look at new posts, sorry.

:fluttershy:

 

[Jason!]

NONONONONONONONONON. Only because I want time for Crews.

 

[Arcansi]

only if he promises to stop arguing in our thread after it happens

Are you serious? I can't tell.

 

[DeLux]

More or less is this: new people do not like infinites

So if you were looking to expand your scene, removing infinites from gameplay through your ruleset might be a way to attract new people and get them into the game. Of course, the cost would be that the characters that get infinited would be competitive only on a local level, as they would get destroyed by a non-infinite limiting ruleset and its players. But the net benefit is that it might actually increase the depth pool of options for characters that do get their infinites limited, as out of region they'll have an additional powerful weapon to pull from. Without commenting on the balance of the game

Spoiler

(which I feel it doesn't help balance based on CGs he wants to limit not being a centralizing factor in the overall metagame)

, it might prove beneficial to the development of different skills, some of which may translate into the next level of play.

However, if the cost of implementing such rules is that it's nearly 3x as difficult to attract a new player as it is to retain a current player based on most commonly accepted marketing models. If there is a low risk of trying said side event, you might use it as a stepping stool to expand your scene, thus reaping the benefits of the non-infinite rules without the cost of people quitting because the game is changing on them for really no good reason outside of Arcansi believing firmly he's changing it for a good reason.

 

[Arcansi]

More or less is this: new people do not like infinites

[good stuff]

However, if the cost of implementing such rules is that it's nearly 3x as difficult to attract a new player as it is to retain a current player based on most commonly accepted marketing models. If there is a low risk of trying said side event, you might use it as a stepping stool to expand your scene, thus reaping the benefits of the non-infinite rules without the cost of people quitting because the game is changing on them for really no good reason outside of Arcansi believing firmly he's changing it for a good reason.

1. Your important point is spoilered, so I won't respond to it. Would you mind posting it in the relevant thread?

You seem to be convincing everyone but me. -_- I mean, I look at this post and your basically telling me my rule is bad but it could be used for good. This is obviously not something I agree with (that being the former).

 

[DeLux]

No, I said your rule doesn't necessarily promote balance. Generally accepted game theory seeks to remove perfect dominant strategies from play. It doesn't mean limiting strategies that are easily counterable.

I think if you really wanted to adhere to balance as a value, you'd make a mod/play a different game. There are factors that aren't CG related that skew matchups even more so than combos.

 

[Jason!]

I think Arcansi would enjoy Street Fighter :3