MELEE-FC Tournament Ruleset Discussion

[Kal]

A Scrub is also someone who makes unwarranted bans, Leffen.

How does one know if a bug destroys the game or even if a legitimate tactic destroys it? The rule of thumb is to assume it doesn’t and keep playing, because 99% of the time, as good as the tactic may be, there will either be a way to counter it or other even better tactics. Prematurely banning something is the scrub’s way. It prevents the scrub from ever discovering the counter to the Valle CC or the diamond trick. It also creates artificial rules that alter the game, when it’s entirely possible that the game was just fine the way it was. It also usually leads to an avalanche of bans in order to be consistent with the first. When players think they have found a game-breaking tactic, I advise them to go win some tournaments with it. If they can prove that the game really is reduced to just that tactic, then perhaps a ban is warranted. It’s extremely rare that a player is ever able to prove this though. In fact, I don’t even have any examples of it.

Source

 

[MattDotZeb]

MDZ:

Please, "A scrub is a player who is handicapped by self-imposed rules that the game knows nothing about. A scrub does not play to win. "

I would use this ruleset to the limit IF I ATTENDED, which I will not. I'm not handicapping myself, I'm simply making a decision based on facts.

You are essentially calling people who don't play brawl because of tripping/people who don't go to movies they have no interest in seeing a "scrub"

stfu please.

If there were facts then, great, I would love to see you make a decision based off them. Though there will not be any facts until there is a set of data to go off of.

There are great opinions for either side, and I think the Kishes are doing a fine job of arguing why the stages they chose should be allowed.

And my apologies for calling you a scrub. I was thinking you were refusing to go because of the stagelist, but if you just had no plans to go at all irregardless of stages then I take it back.




But, seriously, the bolded part of your post is probably the dumbest thing I've heard in my life. I truly mean that. Please seek help.

 

[KishPrime]

Please keep it civil, people.

Banning Peach is actually fairly easy. Boom. Done. See, the difference is that I don't think that randomness is inherently bad - it is how you DEAL with the randomness. And I don't distinguish between stage and character randomness like you choose to.

Here's your evidence - If you were on Jungle Japes, alone, would you ever get hit by a klaptrap? No, you wouldn't. Same with the lava on Brinstar, etc. They are positional hazards. Thus, your opponent must be the reason that you are being placed into more risky positions where you are vulnerable to the hazard. This rewards the player who maintains stage control over your opponent.

Leffen, I am interested in your response to this.

 

[Kal]

No, it's clear that he meant he wasn't going because of the stagelist. "well if that's the case that seals it" isn't particularly ambiguous.

Civility is overrated.

 

[MattDotZeb]

Sorry about that. Leffen aside, what do you think of the idea of gathering data from bracket matches regarding stage-strikes and counterpicks KishPrime?

I wouldn't mind looking into setting up a system to make this happen and organizing players to assist in collecting the data.

 

[Fregadero]

If there are so many people concerned w/ the list, why don't they get a TO to try running this at a local or regional.

Not that I have an issue with the stages, but if someone thinks its going to cause that much of a problem, why don't they try doing something about it instead, of speculating and complaining to some of the most successful TO's in smash history?

 

[KishPrime]

We'd be doing everything with a notecard system anyway, so if there were people managing it, it would not be a stretch.

That's assuming it doesn't change. Which it may. Or it may not. Who can say?

 

[leffen]

I INTENTIONS of going with a proper ruleset, but I was still not sure.
A terrible ruleset such as this will make sure that I don't attend because I simply would not find it worth the money, much like tripping makes it so that I don't enjoy brawl or like dragonball evolution (hollywood)having terrible actors makes me not want to go see it, I am just making a decision based around the circumstances

I have the chance of changing the ruleset by convincing the TO's through different ways. Would you not try to change that tripping was included in brawl if you could?

I have also tried to play on these stages/with a similar ruleset a number of times (even in tournament - see STIIG, which hade a even more liberal stagelist), so I know for a fact that a bad stagelist severely reduces the fun for me.


Whether or not this ban is "premature" is VERY subjective. These stages are normally banned, so I think most would argue that it is indeed not to premature.

 

[Kal]

Premature with regards to justification. Not with regards to status quo. The reality is that the justification always falls down to preference: a player doesn't like randomness or he doesn't like stage hazards. None of these stages have solid arguments suggesting that they are broken, so I would call any ban premature.

Of course, if your justification isn't that they are broken, but just that they aren't what you personally want, then "premature" is not the right word. In that case, I think you're just stomping in place trying to get your way. Not everyone shares your opinion on what makes a game better, and Kish's ruleset is certainly fairer than the MBR5 to the extent that it doesn't limit a player's options just because the majority happens to think those options are undesirable.

 

[Bl@ckChris]

leffen, why do you sound so mad? if you actually wanted something to change, then i figured you would respect the TO's wishes for the thread and discuss things a little more level-headed then starting with your condescending statements.

really, you get 3 bans. i think that this is enough to open up the game without making it busted.

 

[MattDotZeb]

We'd be doing everything with a notecard system anyway, so if there were people managing it, it would not be a stretch.

That's assuming it doesn't change. Which it may. Or it may not. Who can say?

In the event it doesn't change, as I've said, I'm completely willing to see to it that the data from bracket matches is recorded.

 

[Cactuar]

This is a Regional tournament. Regionals are encouraged to use their own variations on the ruleset, as it allows anyone from OoR to experience smash as it is played in that region. I don't want to put words in Kish's mouth here, but part of my understanding of FC is that it represents the MW scene, not the National one.

People play the game differently. To not respect an alternative approach to how another individual plays is similar to racism/nationalism/etcetc. Your problems are based on your own internal hatred for this because it is different than your own ideal. "Fair" changes between people based on their opinion. Just because you think the 6 standard stages are most fair, doesn't mean someone else can't think that MK2 is fair.

Kish+FC happens to draw a huge crowd of OoR players because we know that he is a phenomenal TO and that the FC experience is well worth it. To make the decision against going just because you don't want to experience their variation of the game is foolish.

 

[Massive]

I guess I fail to see the issue with the additional stages since most of them had never really stopped being legal as Midwest counterpicks anyway (although MK2 is a stage I literally hadn't played since 2003, and Japes since 2006).

I have a feeling most people who take issue with this will try to convince their opponent to go for the MBR5 ruleset (a proposition to which the vast majority of smashers would be complicit) or prune it down to nearly MBR5 stages in the worst-case.

Even then, I don't really have enough data to infer what effect the extra stages would have on most sets. I'm going to hypothesize that there won't be much of a change in placement.

 

[KishPrime]

This is a Regional tournament. Regionals are encouraged to use their own variations on the ruleset, as it allows anyone from OoR to experience smash as it is played in that region. I don't want to put words in Kish's mouth here, but part of my understanding of FC is that it represents the MW scene, not the National one.

People play the game differently. To not respect an alternative approach to how another individual plays is similar to racism/nationalism/etcetc. Your problems are based on your own internal hatred for this because it is different than your own ideal. "Fair" changes between people based on their opinion. Just because you think the 6 standard stages are most fair, doesn't mean someone else can't think that MK2 is fair.

I respect the vote of confidence for alternatives, but this is a national-scale tournament, not by any means a regional one. We've got an amazing venue, an awesome staff that we've built up, and plans for some really awesome and unique stuff. I don't think this is a Midwest ruleset in any way, if you look at them. It's an FC ruleset - a compromise between the national sentiment and the overriding desire to include as much of the game as possible.

It will be an amazing three days, no matter how the ruleset shakes out.

 

[Cactuar]

A tournament can be a national in scale and still be considered a Regional imo. I don't view tournaments the same way you do, but that is w/e. ^.^

 

[KishPrime]

We have a well-documented history of disagreement. ^_^

EDIT: And hopefully mutual respect.

 

[Cactuar]

Adversity that leads to progress is a positive imo. The majority of our disagreements have resulted in forward movement, so I have always had a great deal of respect for you and your opinions.

The problem is generally people who take their position and never budge because they believe they are infallible. Tremendous waste of time trying to argue anything with someone like that.

 

[leffen]

Premature with regards to justification. Not with regards to status quo. The reality is that the justification always falls down to preference: a player doesn't like randomness or he doesn't like stage hazards. None of these stages have solid arguments suggesting that they are broken, so I would call any ban premature.

Of course, if your justification isn't that they are broken, but just that they aren't what you personally want, then "premature" is not the right word. In that case, I think you're just stomping in place trying to get your way. Not everyone shares your opinion on what makes a game better, and Kish's ruleset is certainly fairer than the MBR5 to the extent that it doesn't limit a player's options just because the majority happens to think those options are undesirable.

Whether or not the several arguments that people have are enough to justify a ban is subjective, and clearly, in most cases these arguments seem to be enough.

If you cannot find any arguments that justify the ban then that is your opinion, but saying that I "prematurely" gave up on spending $1500 on traveling to a tournament to not enjoy myself is ********.
I have lots of experience with these stages, I've discussed this matter a number of times and I have also had strong desires to quit the game after paying a lot to go to a tournament that turned out to have ******** rules... so you calling my decision "premature" is without ground and stupid.


How is this ruleset more fair to the ones who don't support it? Its entirely subjective honestly...
Most if not all tournaments are okay with you playing on a stage that is normally banned if both players agree on it, while this ruleset forces you to play on these, normally banned, stages.
The people who support Kish's ruleset also clearly think that the normally allowed stages are fine to play on, while in reverse, the supporters of the MBR5 do not think that the stages they now will be forced to play on are fine.

If there was a rule that said "you can ban Brinstar, MK2, Mute City , RC and JJ or you can choose to ban one neutral stage" it would be way more fair to the ones that don't support this ruleset, and I'd be a lot more okay with the ruleset overall myself.


Whatever, as I said, if you turn out to run this ruleset, my chances of attending are severely decreased, and I think that this goes for a lot of players that are waging on going. How many players are really still in the smash scene that will only go to a tournament if it has a ruleset that is never used? I seriously hope that you will change your mind for the best of the community, but remember, even if you do later down the line, it may be too late since the prices on tickets rise very fast, esp for european players.

I honestly think that you don't get the situation my situation at all Cactuar. When you probably have to decide between Apex2013 and FC (unless you happen to win some money, which is a risk I do not want to take) I know I will (and every other swede, armada included) choose Apex over FC.
I know the FC crew is known for arranging great tournaments, but so is Alex strife, and he tries to improve the scene in so many ways that the FC crew doesn't AND he has a ruleset that I think is both better and more enjoyable. I was doubtful to go to FC anyway, but if you're gonna front with a imo terrible ruleset it just seals the deal, it just makes my decision (and probably many others) so much easier.

 

[TaFoKiNtS]

Leffen, I don't think have a problem that you have a strong opinion, but you're using appeal to authority fallacies to your argument. You've had "plenty of experience" with these stages. Can you pin point what exactly makes these stages terrible. You're throwing out vague arguments with no back-up. I'm not trying to antagonize you, but I would love a more elaborate explanation.

 

[Violence]

^What Tafokints said.

Also, I am never going to another tournament hosted by Alex Strife ever again.

I can understand why this tournament would not be something Internationals would like to fly in for, given the hoops that Norcalians are jumping through to attend. The airport location and similar logistics make for incredibly high airfares, and trying to travel to this from out of the country, across the ocean, is pretty insane.

I'm going to practice on these new stages, but if they're anything like I remember, I'm probably going to end up asking my opponent to revert to MBR5.

 

[Kal]

Whether or not the several arguments that people have are enough to justify a ban is subjective, and clearly, in most cases these arguments seem to be enough.

We don't ban Sheik, despite how powerful she is, so we know that there is some lower-bound to what we will consider broken. My point is that, with the exception of a few stages (like Hyrule and Pipes), nothing comes close to as broken as Sheik. And yet so many things are banned.

Sure, plenty of people consider it enough. But many of these people aren't thinking about what actually warrants a ban. They, like you, are thinking strictly about what they personally prefer. About what constitutes "worthwhile" competition to them. Not about what makes a ban warranted.

If you cannot find any arguments that justify the ban then that is your opinion, but saying that I "prematurely" gave up on spending $1500 on traveling to a tournament to not enjoy myself is ********.

Sorry, that's not what I meant. Merely that, if you want these things banned, then the ban is premature. If you so much hate the game with these stages enabled, of course I wouldn't think you should go anyway (unless you have a really good shot at winning, and even then, it seems like an unnecessary risk).

I have lots of experience with these stages, I've discussed this matter a number of times and I have also had strong desires to quit the game after paying a lot to go to a tournament that turned out to have ******** rules... so you calling my decision "premature" is without ground and stupid.

Just calling it "without ground and stupid" doesn't make it so. It's cool that you've discussed the matter, but so has everyone else. What evidence do you have that these stages are broken, i.e., that they severely degenerate gameplay?

If you don't have any, instead opting to reference "randomness" and "stage hazards," then there isn't much point in arguing. We just have a difference of opinion on what warrants a ban. And, for the record, Sirlin says that difference of opinion makes you a scrub.

How is this ruleset more fair to the ones who don't support it? Its entirely subjective honestly...

It's more fair in the sense that you aren't limiting anyone's options simply because you don't find these options fun or "competitive."

Most if not all tournaments are okay with you playing on a stage that is normally banned if both players agree on it, while this ruleset forces you to play on these, normally banned, stages.

It doesn't force you to play on the stages anymore than it forces you to face off against Jigglypuff. Surely you don't think this is remotely valid reasoning.

The people who support Kish's ruleset also clearly think that the normally allowed stages are fine to play on, while in reverse, the supporters of the MBR5 do not think that the stages they now will be forced to play on are fine.

We don't just take the intersection of all stage-sets everyone is ok with, or else we would have Battlefield only. Unless there happens to be a single person in the community that doesn't think Battlefield should be legal. In which case we play D&D Melee with a paper and pencil.

Obviously, I think striking a balance between what ruleset you think is appropriate and what ruleset your attendees want is a good thing to do. It just isn't necessarily as straightforward as "more than half of your attendees only want five stages, so ban everything else."

If there was a rule that said "you can ban Brinstar, MK2, Mute City , RC and JJ or you can choose to ban one neutral stage" it would be way more fair to the ones that don't support this ruleset, and I'd be a lot more okay with the ruleset overall myself.

I'm not a big fan of that rule because it's isolating a set of stages for no discernible reason, and it just seems biased as all ****. It just doesn't seem fair to a character who relies on those counterpicks, but not the starters, to be forced to counterpick to a starter-stage just because people don't like playing there. But it's certainly worth discussing, and I think it would be more prudent for you to try discussing that rule than to convince the guy who's run every single FC with a "non-standard" ruleset to run the next FC with the MBR5.

 

[leffen]

Leffen, I don't think have a problem that you have a strong opinion, but you're using appeal to authority fallacies to your argument. You've had "plenty of experience" with these stages. Can you pin point what exactly makes these stages terrible. You're throwing out vague arguments with no back-up. I'm not trying to antagonize you, but I would love a more elaborate explanation.

What's worst with the stages is that they are all so incredibly different, and at the same time, random.

If there were 10 stages that all looked and played like MK2, I would have way less of a problem with the stage. As it is now, the walk off properties, the randomness of the "logs" and Birdo and the flying platform are incredibly unique, not to mention gamechanging while still fast and random enough that you aren't able to properly react and change your gameplan after what the dice shows.

Evaluating if these stages cause "random" wins are also incredibly hard, since we do not have a proper "skill" rating (and how well that player happens to be playing) and we have no data either. But, we still have the fact that these stages contain things that are impactful enough to that the alone, decide the distribution of hundreds of dollars off the result of a RNG that you could not react to.


While it is true that you have a lower chance to not be hit by a klaptrap if you never stand close to one, the fact remains that if player A does a combo that moves you from the side platforms into the area where a klaptrap would kill you (this would be incredibly common if the stage was used all the time) and it doesn't come, your opponent recovers and wins.
Next game on the same stage, he then proceeds to do the EXACT same combo, during the exact time, with the same klaptrap pattern, and he wins because of a ****ing dice roll that you again, CANNOT REALLY REACT TO.

Positional advantage that only is an advantage if your opponent has bad luck? Yes, that is so competitive.

 

[KishPrime]

If there was a rule that said "you can ban Brinstar, MK2, Mute City , RC and JJ or you can choose to ban one neutral stage" it would be way more fair to the ones that don't support this ruleset, and I'd be a lot more okay with the ruleset overall myself.

I like that you actually threw out a new and unique alternative here.

I don't envy the decision to spend $1500 on a plane ticket. I understand that it is a huge commitment, and I would certainly understand that you'd want to get the most for your money and choose a ruleset that you would enjoy the most. All totally understandable. I appreciate your contributions to the thread as well, even though you're aware that you might not be coming.

It's tough to make everyone happy, and by that, I mean impossible. Still considering a multitude of options.

 

[KishPrime]

While it is true that you have a lower chance to not be hit by a klaptrap if you never stand close to one, the fact remains that if player A does a combo that moves you from the side platforms into the area where a klaptrap would kill you (this would be incredibly common if the stage was used all the time) and it doesn't come, your opponent recovers and wins.
Next game on the same stage, he then proceeds to do the EXACT same combo, during the exact time, with the same klaptrap pattern, and he wins because of a ****ing dice roll that you again, CANNOT REALLY REACT TO.

Positional advantage that only is an advantage if your opponent has bad luck? Yes, that is so competitive.

This sounds to me like Peach getting a zombie or beam sword that gives her the win. I mean, I'm not just trying to be difficult. I just seriously see no difference. I've been eliminated from two FCs in part due to Peach pulls.

EDIT: By the way, I would love to see two top players who hate the MK2 stage record ten matches and try to break the heck out of it. I would watch.

 

[Kal]

I won a match against a Peach player in tournament by catching her Bob-Bomb in the air with z and throwing it back at her. Ok, it didn't end the match, but it helped. And it looked pretty cool.

 

[KishPrime]

See I should've done that.

This, alternatively.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMTBZQuGvGs

 

[Violence]

This sounds to me like Peach getting a zombie or beam sword that gives her the win. I mean, I'm not just trying to be difficult. I just seriously see no difference. I've been eliminated from two FCs in part due to Peach pulls.

But these are reactable. I can see you have a stitch and try to avoid it. I can't see that there's a klap trap about to kill me while I'm being combo'd and avoid that. I think this is Leffen's point.

 

[KishPrime]

So what you're saying is that if I can perfectly outwit and outplay my opponent so that he can't hit me with what he wants to hit me with, then the randomness of the fact that he got the pull is irrelevant?

But if you can do that, then you wouldn't be getting combo'd on Japes to begin with.

AKA Don't get hit.

 

[leffen]

Kal, you base your post about shutting down my posts for being "subjective" when you yourself say that your definitions aren't. Your definition of premature isn't mine, and your definition of what is a "warranted ban" isn't mine or others.
You may think that the ban isn't warranted, but that doesn't make it a fact.

Instead, present your own arguments. You have never said WHY we should play on these stages...



@Kish: I agreed already on the fact that Peach is random. However, no one MAINS JJ. A character and a stage is two entirely different things. If you disagree, then why can we ban 3 stages each?

Peach's turnip pull having stichfaces etc are perks of the character that make her stronger and help balance the game. A random stage hazard that both characters can take use of if they're lucky does not help anyone in particular and therefor, can more easily be banned because of its "unfair" traits.

You can also react to what turnip is pulled, and in 99,9% of cases you have a chance of changing your decisions because of that reaction. Yes, in some very very rare cases you cannot react and that bomb pull ends up killing the opponent, but those are very rare and it does not warrant a ban...

The Klaptrap, Birdo, Logs, Lava, have CONSTANT RNG. You cannot react to the klaptrap in most crucial situations, the lava can randomly choose to go down just before you slam into it, and how severe/often these things happen is vital when valuing how competitive they are.
Yes, the wind on DL64 is RNG based, and so is shyguys. But these things have such low impact that you cannot really compare them to a OHKO as the Klaptrap, a recovery booster, combo extender... the world isn't black and white, just because things have similarities doesn't mean that they are identical.



NO, the randomness does still matter, but the ****ing consequences of the randomness matters too! Peach is HEAVILY limited (no dashattack, dsmash or grab... among tons of other things) when she pulls a turnip, and the affect it has on the match is so much less than the randomness of a klaptrap..

How about you stop using the stupid argument that if other randomness is allowed, so should this, when they aren't even comparable. Justify why these stages should be on in the first place, regardless of whether or not Peach is banned or not.

Oh, and the fact that Junglejapes has water, that brinstar has stupid **** and that MK2 has walkoffs are all very important factors in this debate. The stages themselves are also imo unfit for play.

I think almost everyone would like for it to be more like traditional 2d fighters in the sense that they don't have any RNG. However, banning a character and a stage is not the same thing

 

[baka4moé]

I really like Leffen's alternative ban suggestion. This is similar to Taj's Stupid Rule, iirc, which has been in effect at some arizona locals (and NYTE) for a while. As in, you can choose to either ban all (or one) of the counterpick stages, or just one neutral. Any possibility of using this?

Also, Kish could you please elaborate what your counter argument is to the fact that stitches are reactable to, while a klaptrap isnt? I don't understand..

 

[KishPrime]

Most of our disagreements will be permanent, simply because you think RNG is inherently terrible, whereas I accept it as a part of the game of Melee, just like Poker players accept it in Poker.

Peach's turnip pull having stichfaces etc are perks of the character that make her stronger and help balance the game. You can also react to what turnip is pulled, and in 99,9% of cases you have a chance of changing your decisions because of that reaction. Yes, in some very very rare cases you cannot react and that bomb pull ends up killing the opponent, but those are very rare and it does not warrant a ban...

I'm sorry, but this doesn't make sense per your entire argument. You're the one that says over and over again that random stage hazards that affect the results of matches are terrible, yet the fact that I was eliminated from two major national tournaments in no small part because of the random effect of Peach's turnips was intended to be a balancing mechanism? Randomly shifting positional hazards are actually more avoidable than turnips!

Baka (summed up): Opposing players, generally speaking, have a far easier time hitting you with turnips than forcing you into a disadvantageous portion of the stage, thus the random effect cannot be written off as "don't get hit."

What I'm saying is that it's even easier to see lava coming and select a position where it will not hit you than it is to see a good Peach player's turnip coming while she is also pressuring you. If I'm running around a stage trying to avoid stage hazards, I'll never get hit, but if a Peach is chasing me around a neutral throwing turnips at me, eventually I'm going to make a mistake.

Yes, the wind on DL64 is RNG based, and so is shyguys. But these things have such low impact that you cannot really compare them to a OHKO as the Klaptrap, a recovery booster, combo extender... the world isn't black and white, just because things have similarities doesn't mean that they are identical.

Actually, you can very much compare Shyguys and Randall to all of those things, because all of them can extend or cost stocks. You can debate how similar or different they are, but that's the bottom line possibility of all of them, and it's not even uncommon on Story. Yet that stage remains a paragon of neutrality?

 

[Armada]

Don't feel to take this discussion (again) about what stages should be on or not.
Just saying I really don't like those rules and hope the traditional rules will be the ones you guys are useing for this tournament.

 

[Dan Salvato]

I really like Leffen's alternative ban suggestion. This is similar to Taj's Stupid Rule, iirc, which has been in effect at some arizona locals (and NYTE) for a while. As in, you can choose to either ban all (or one) of the counterpick stages, or just one neutral. Any possibility of using this?

Also, Kish could you please elaborate what your counter argument is to the fact that stitches are reactable to, while a klaptrap isnt? I don't understand..

Leffen said a random zombie pull is "okay" because you have time to react to it and the chance to outwit your opponent into not getting hit by it. Kish says by this argument, random klaptraps are also "okay" because you're capable of outwitting your opponent to not controlling your position on the stage. Both cases are based upon whether or not you get hit by your opponent's attacks, so it all comes down to "don't get hit".

On a side note, the ledge of every stage becomes a klaptrap when you're against Falco.

 

[KishPrime]

Leffen said a random zombie pull is "okay" because you have time to react to it and the chance to outwit your opponent into not getting hit by it. Kish says by this argument, random klaptraps are also "okay" because you're capable of outwitting your opponent to not controlling your position on the stage. Both cases are based upon whether or not you get hit by your opponent's attacks, so it all comes down to "don't get hit".

On a side note, the ledge of every stage becomes a klaptrap when you're against Falco.

Better summarized than me!

 

[Kal]

Leffen, the default position is for something to not be banned. I don't need to justify why we shouldn't ban Brinstar anymore than I need to justify why we shouldn't ban Jigglypuff.

I don't think that my definitions aren't arbitrary. When I say a ban is "warranted," I'm referring to it within the context of Sirlin's "Playing to Win." If it bothers you, I can say "broken." Or I can come up with a new term to be even clearer. What's important is that I'm not basing ban-decisions on preference. I don't look at Brinstar or Mute City and ask "what don't I like about these stages?" I ask "are these stages broken?" And if the answer isn't a resounding "yes," then I leave them alone. This is how I handle all aspects of the game. And yes, whether something is "broken" is somewhat subjective. This doesn't invalidate anything.

The point isn't to suggest that my definition of what warrants a ban is the same as yours. It's that yours is unfair: players are forbidden from utilizing certain strategies solely because the majority or the TO or whoever decides they dislike it. You can use the exact same nonsense to justify a ban of anything by simply claiming it doesn't fall into some poorly defined notion of "competitiveness" which really just equates to "what I prefer." There is not nearly this potential when you restrict what you ban to what is broken. And everyone can agree that what is broken needs to be banned, almost by definition. Hence why I argue for a fair ruleset. Not one that just conforms to my preferences. Otherwise, I'd lobby for a Falco ban.

In the end, this entire argument seems to be you just misunderstanding my point. I'm not saying we have the same criteria for banning things. I'm saying that mine is fairer. Also, I took the time to respond to each of your points individually, and all you do is respond with a blanket statement that completely ignores who the burden of proof is on. Please try and address all of my points.

 

[Dan Salvato]

From the FC rules:

"Players may agree to begin with MBR5 shortened stage list. If there is agreement, players strike from there using the pattern P1-P2-P2-P1, and counter-stages are limited to those stages only."

That means if you choose to play with the standard 5 neutrals, you can NOT choose Pokemon Stadium as a counterpick. :C

Besides that, the stage list is as follows:

Final Destination
Battlefield
Dream Land 64
Pokémon Stadium
Yoshi’s Story
Brinstar
Rainbow Cruise
Mushroom Kingdom 2
Jungle Japes
Fountain of Dreams
Mute City

 

[Sizzle]

I'm guessing the majority will just agree to go to MBR5 and it won't be a huge deal. There will likely be one or two matches that will be "controversial" due to this ruleset out of the thousands that will be played.

 

[ORLY]

Oh baby I know that won't happen with any of my sets. I'll even propose my opponent and I strike down from the CPs only. NO NEUTRALS.

 

[Kal]

Yeah, my three bans will be neutral stages, probably. It will be fun as ****.

 

[JPOBS]

All this talk about randomness and "Fairness" is dandy but theres something that hasn't been touched on yet:

Kish, what is your response to the fact that japes heavily promotes camping? Haing the stages split into 3 platforms like that means that certain styles of camping on the side platforms with some characters would be ridiculously powerful.

Nevermind the klaptrap, but have you considered this as a fault of japes?

nationals should NEVER differ their ruleset from the standard... If this ruleset was actually used somewhere else then I might be okay with it

Actually, its the other way around. Nationals have a tendency to deviate from the standard and then create a new "standard"

Pound 4 deviated from the standard by dropping corneria/mute city and altering the way bans/strikes worked. The P4 ruleset then became the new standard.

Genesis 2 deviated from the standard set by Pound 4 and made a new standard of only the MBR5 + stadium.

Nationals actually have a tendency to go against the grain, and in doing so, progress is made.