Important Official Custom Moveset Project

[Raijinken]

For the last time, there are no blast zone variances betwee Omega stages.

Thank you for the correction. However, this does not change the key point.

 

[T0MMY]

DFW, east coast and Midwest (mostly) confirmed dropping customs. I'm not sure about the west coast but I've heard rumors of a switch to vanilla as well. Community appears to be moving towards a unified meta.

I'm an Oregon TO and I talk with the Washington heads about this. Pacific Northwest is set for dropping customs - were really only using them to practice for Evo.
I talked with a few other prominent people while at Evo and places like Las Vegas weren't looking to use them after Evo either.
Didn't talk much with the Californians and figure they'll make their stance apparent before too long and regardless of what the rest of the west coast does.

Lastly, I have been reading David Sirlin's Playing to Win, as recommended by @ T0MMY . I've found it has much to say about bans in other kinds of tournaments, particularly Street Fighter, that could easily be applicable in this situation. Here's the link for anyone interested: http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/what-should-be-banned

The basic gist of it though is that before bans are made, elements of the game must be seen as "innocent until proven guilty". That's ultimately what we're trying to decide on here, and when answering that question I still have to give a hearty "I don't know". But customs did seem to be given a guilty verdict almost immediately for multiple reasons (mainly inconvenience which is in the process of fixing itself) and I'm not really convinced they were warranted.

Keep in mind, I do not believe "Customs" fall under a category of a "ban".
My interpretation of Playing to Win has the game being played at a competitive level at its basic settings and any change in rules requires reason to have the change take precedence.
In this case Custom Fighters being turned "On" is a change in rules for the competitive meta and we need a reason to make this change. If there is no competitive merit to changing that setting then we would not use it - it is clearly not a ban.
The irony is that those who wish to use Customs are also advocates of banning certain custom moves and/or combinations as well as other bans.

I alone can't 100% confirm that this is "the competitive player's bible" because any moron can post anything on the internet and say it's true. I'm gonna need other people in the field to back me up on this one.

But if this is a trusted source, what does the fighting game community see when they see us arguing back and forth over rulesets rather than simply "playing the game"?

I remember reading a post on Reddit about a FGC player who answered this question. He said the FGC generally sees the Smash community as children because of the arguing over rules. This kind of stuff really hurts progressing forward with some things and actually has held us back historically. The hoopla over using items at Evo essentially dropped Smash out of Evo from that point until the throw-back vote got Melee a foot in the door and helped get Smash Wii U in with it this year. If not for that SSBM and SSB4 may well have had about as much of an Evo presence as P:M did this year.

 

[TheAnomaly]

Keep in mind, I do not believe "Customs" fall under a category of a "ban".
My interpretation of Playing to Win has the game being played at a competitive level at its basic settings and any change in rules requires reason to have the change take precedence.
In this case Custom Fighters being turned "On" is a change in rules for the competitive meta and we need a reason to make this change. If there is no competitive merit to changing that setting then we would not use it - it is clearly not a ban.

I believe this is the first logical reason I have ever heard for the anti-custom side. Thank you sir for finally bringing a voice of reason to your sides argument.
However I have to disagree with it on the account of it having the merit of allowing more characters to be competitively viable. Granted correct balancing could change this in the future and this point would be moot but as it stands, this is a valid reason for customs to be allowed.

 

[Raijinken]

The irony is that those who wish to use Customs are also advocates of banning certain custom moves and/or combinations as well as other bans.

That's quite a blanket statement, on-par with "those who wish to ban miis also support banning certain characters or doubles teams".

My only issue with the "There must be a reason to turn them on" argument is that this same requirement of justification is used for very little else in Smash rulesets, or rather, is applied only when convenient. If Customs should only be added when there is a reason for change, we should also start back to square one and discuss why any stages or game settings other than those provided by the game dev (For Glory, as it were) are required.

Basically, anything recycled from our old grassroots meta is given a free pass without going through the same due process you're suggesting Customs should be required to go through. It sounds, to a pro-customs player, like an attempt to force a bureaucratic blockade based on a guilty until proven innocent attitude. And Smash history has made it painfully obvious how hard it is to un-not-allow something once it's thoroughly excluded from the prevailing meta - regardless of game-to-game changes or any generalized theory that says it's a good idea, there is always opposition (just look at the negative reaction FLSS got at EVO).

 

[Pazx]

For the last time, there are no blast zone variances betwee Omega stages.

Early tests determined that there are very very slight differences in the blast zones, but this could just have been inaccurate testing.

 

[Ulevo]

Early tests determined that there are very very slight differences in the blast zones, but this could just have been inaccurate testing.

It was inaccurate testing.

 

[Pippin (Peregrin Took)]

It was inaccurate testing.

What about Dream Land and Suzaku Castle? I heard that something was weird about those two specifically, but was that inaccurate or did they fix those?

 

[T0MMY]

That's quite a blanket statement, on-par with "those who wish to ban miis also support banning certain characters or doubles teams".

A blanket statement would have been: all those support banning...
I simply said "those who wish", which can be verified by checking the posts by them (any singular truth would make the conditional statement true).
Please avoid tangents like these as my point, whether hyperbole or not, seems to becoming overlooked.

My only issue with the "There must be a reason to turn them on" argument is that this same requirement of justification is used for very little else in Smash rulesets, or rather, is applied only when convenient. If Customs should only be added when there is a reason for change, we should also start back to square one and discuss why any stages or game settings other than those provided by the game dev (For Glory, as it were) are required.

The reason why we do NOT start at square one (or not overtly so) is that there has already been an established standard.
Until Items change, the rules which involve them would not reasonably change.
Customs are a different element to the game and thus they start anew with the same standards that other rules change started with - I think it would be competitively disrespectful not to give Customs the same opportunity to be proven on a competitive level as other rules were given.

It sounds, to a pro-customs player, like an attempt to force a bureaucratic blockade based on a guilty until proven innocent attitude.

I'm sure most of the pro-customs side are smart enough to understand a very basic logical standard: burden of proof.
If not, they can always look it up.

 

[FSLink]

But if this is a trusted source, what does the fighting game community see when they see us arguing back and forth over rulesets rather than simply "playing the game"? I know a lot of fgc people already look down on all the smash bros. games, and their opinion is not the most important, otherwise we wouldn't still be playing smash. But EVO set both melee and smash for wii U alongside other fighting games as one of their own, so we really do need to
take the fact that we just might be part of the fgc into consideration.

Coming from a SF/Marvel background, my two cents are that, yes, there are good arguments against custom moves, but banning all of them after most communities only played around with it for 3-4 months when EVO hasn't shown any major problems is just baffling to me. I feel they add an interesting dynamic like Assists in Marvel or different Ultra/Super selections in SF and it's a shame the community mostly seems to be moving away from it.

 

[deepseadiva]

The reason why we do NOT start at square one (or not overtly so) is that there has already been an established standard.

This is whats messed up about this logic; it grandfathers in the rules from previous games as "the competitive standard". This is dangerous since every new game, and and any new game elements have to pass a subjective popularity contest to be considered "normal".

Its better to admit there is no standard when a new game is introduced, and only ban things when necessary.

Otherwise we get nasty distorted rulesets that keeps desperately trying to be Melee.

 

[T0MMY]

This is whats messed up about this logic; it grandfathers in the rules from previous games as "the competitive standard".

Are you saying we should run tournaments with 2min Time and Items ON?
As much as your logic may be valid when looking at this extreme, there is something to say about practicality.

Its better to admit there is no standard when a new game is introduced, and only ban things when necessary.
Otherwise we get nasty distorted rulesets that keeps desperately trying to be Melee.

I disagree, it is not "better" to disregard years of competitive verification. The same philosophy holds in all competitions; Street Fighter IV did not assume rules changes such as a change to the 99 sec timer to infinite timer simply because it was the next iteration from 3rd strike, nor would this argument hold for any competitive game I can think of at the moment (do not take this as a case of falsely attributing a ruling of non-Smash games to be a precedence, this is simply pointing out a very real philosophical reasoning and comparison of competition in a variety of games was necessitated due to its encompassing nature).

With that said, there are some rulings that have been grandfathered in I have been insistently advocating for an evaluation. Thankfully one of the "big offenders" has been brought to case (Suicide Rules), I am very much in favor of a full and proper evaluation of Time Out rules as well as Smash Balls (not saying we must immediately implement these game settings, just asking for a proper competitive evaluation).

But, sorry to say, even in my strong call for justice regarding grandfathered rulings I would not be so quick as to mistake it as means to a folly to allow for some kind of wriggle room in reasoning. Once "meleefication" is shown as a real issue maybe we can worry about that, but the trend seems to be to fall away from this issue and progress is (slowly) being made to have very real competitive values rather than the opposite (see suicide rulings).

 

[Raijinken]

This is whats messed up about this logic; it grandfathers in the rules from previous games as "the competitive standard". This is dangerous since every new game, and and any new game elements have to pass a subjective popularity contest to be considered "normal".

Its better to admit there is no standard when a new game is introduced, and only ban things when necessary.

Otherwise we get nasty distorted rulesets that keeps desperately trying to be Melee.

I was about to say roughly the same thing until I finished this page.

We grandfather the item ban because the issues with them are identical to those in past games (random spawning, disproportionate risk/reward). We ban permanent walkoffs because a valid issue with them (not chaingrabs as some think, but centralizing 50/50s) has not changed. Those are fair to grandfather in, because despite other gameplay changes, those functions remain problematic.

Other things, however, warrant re-testing before setting a standard. Even had the Metaknight ban stuck, nobody would reasonably try to grandfather his banned status, because he was significantly changed. A lot of people grandfathered in certain stage ban assumptions, or stage legality assumptions, without giving them valid re-evaluation. Some that were formerly legal, when re-evaluated, come very close to being pushed past the legal line depending on other factors (Lylat causing seemingly random transitions to air pre-patch caused worthwhile doubt to its validity, yet it was kept. Castle Siege is increasingly cut from lists, though, as standards of what constitutes a fair stage in a conservative ruleset change. Dream Land, despite changed blastzones and a remaining random element, is automatically given a pass). Previously banned stages like Stadium 2, though, which have been changed notably, are still given a ban with only a handful of players like @ ParanoidDrone and @ Budget Player Cadet_ appearing to put in effort to look for reasons to ban the stage (or even gather accurate data on them).

Each side of customs is essentially on a different end of the ban policy. Banning customs offhand for anything less than logistical complaints is jumping the gun and ignoring the due process. We banned equipment (outside of the experimental SLHG ruleset) for its polarizing, random, non-finite nature (in simpler words, because it's objectively noncompetitive within everything we know about Smash). But never in the history of Smash has a special move been banned. It requires exploration and evaluation on multiple fronts before such a ban should even be considered, because there is not (yet) a provably uncompetitive thing about them.

Basically, there's a degree to which grandfather banning is reasonable - when the ban reason is unchanged. Any case in which the ban reason was changed (or if the ban reason was vague to begin with) should be re-tried, and personally, I'm a fan of giving everything an honest shot and some discussion.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

I was about to say roughly the same thing until I finished this page.

We grandfather the item ban because the issues with them are identical to those in past games (random spawning, disproportionate risk/reward). We ban permanent walkoffs because a valid issue with them (not chaingrabs as some think, but centralizing 50/50s) has not changed. Those are fair to grandfather in, because despite other gameplay changes, those functions remain problematic.

Other things, however, warrant re-testing before setting a standard. Even had the Metaknight ban stuck, nobody would reasonably try to grandfather his banned status, because he was significantly changed. A lot of people grandfathered in certain stage ban assumptions, or stage legality assumptions, without giving them valid re-evaluation. Some that were formerly legal, when re-evaluated, come very close to being pushed past the legal line depending on other factors (Lylat causing seemingly random transitions to air pre-patch caused worthwhile doubt to its validity, yet it was kept. Castle Siege is increasingly cut from lists, though, as standards of what constitutes a fair stage in a conservative ruleset change. Dream Land, despite changed blastzones and a remaining random element, is automatically given a pass). Previously banned stages like Stadium 2, though, which have been changed notably, are still given a ban with only a handful of players like @ ParanoidDrone and @ Budget Player Cadet_ appearing to put in effort to look for reasons to ban the stage (or even gather accurate data on them).

Each side of customs is essentially on a different end of the ban policy. Banning customs offhand for anything less than logistical complaints is jumping the gun and ignoring the due process. We banned equipment (outside of the experimental SLHG ruleset) for its polarizing, random, non-finite nature (in simpler words, because it's objectively noncompetitive within everything we know about Smash). But never in the history of Smash has a special move been banned. It requires exploration and evaluation on multiple fronts before such a ban should even be considered, because there is not (yet) a provably uncompetitive thing about them.

Basically, there's a degree to which grandfather banning is reasonable - when the ban reason is unchanged. Any case in which the ban reason was changed (or if the ban reason was vague to begin with) should be re-tried, and personally, I'm a fan of giving everything an honest shot and some discussion.

I think a good chunk of the current rules and debates over rules are ultimately influenced by Melee. It's mostly speculation and I can't prove any of it, but consider that Dream Land was a starter in Melee. In my more cynical moments I wonder how many players actually realize its blast zones have shrunk without being told first. Meanwhile, even though I'm decidedly a stage liberal, I can see a lot of the more conservative arguments making sense when viewed in the context of "would this stage work in Melee?" (cue Peach_v_Ganondorf.avi)

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Don't look at me. I gave up trying to go against the flow. It's not worth it. The game gets marginally better and everyone ****ing hates you. What's the point?

 

[GeneralLedge]

I'm still largely convinced that the only people who actively hate on changes to the rules, don't actually engage with those rules.

Like I don't really get it: I've seen people go "so customs are done now?" as soon as EVO ended. But I don't know if these people are attendees or participants. Would be super nice if there were a means to know who has grounds for argue and who doesn't.

Of course, I'm one to talk having never attended a tournament and trying to actively participate on the opposite side of the argument, so I'm probably rather hypocritical about questioning those people.

So my only remaining wonder, is whether or not these players have played the game itself or used the customs for themselves. If nothing else, I've manually unlocked all the customs (insert Nam flashback here), and I've played with many of them. I think they make the game fun. Have other players unlocked customs and think they make the game unfun? Have other players unlocked customs to think that? Or are we still stuck on the "need to unlock" thing?

Foremost, we might want to wipe the slate clean on that bit. It's probably a pain in the ass for TOs to unlock all the customs! Yes indeed! We're aware. Thanks random spectator dude number 5542. How is this a detrimental factor? They need to unlock all the locked characters. Isn't the one requiring Cruel Smash a pain in the ass too? Isn't shelling out an extra $40 per console for DLC also a pain in the ass? Why aren't we asking to ban DLC characters?

Ultimately, we should assume every TO has every custom available, regardless of if it's realistic. Because otherwise you've a really flimsy argument. I mean if you're a TO yourself and can't do it then that's fine, whatever, host customs-off -- nobody's going to be angry at you. But plenty of TOs do it for the players and if the players turn around and scream at them for doing a good job then I can't help but wonder where the problem actually lies.

That's my triple-tangent rant of the day.

 

[LanceKing2200]

^This

If you are a player that regularly attends events, and you have an opinion about customs, talk to your TO. Find out why they are or aren't running customs, and if you disagree with their reasoning try to convince them, or talk to other players at your events to see what they think and why. People who don't attend actual events voicing their opinions online is fine, but TOs are going to run the rulesets that their regular players want to play.

We ran customs at my events for 6 months, and dropped them after EVO. The announcement that they were going away was met with cheers and applause. I've had only 2 people come up to me and ask why they were removed and if they were coming back, while I had dozens of players asking me when they were going away before EVO.

As far as I can tell (Boston MA) players pretty universally don't want customs, even if that doesn't match up with what I see in polls online.

 

[GeneralLedge]

I've had only 2 people come up to me and ask why they were removed and if they were coming back, while I had dozens of players asking me when they were going away before EVO.

That's kinda disheartening, but if the tournament is for the players and that's what the players want then w/e. Sucks for the other two though.

I still can't help but wonder if there was a reason for the anti-customs players to be so strongly against it. I have my suspicions, but the context lacks evidence to make my suspicions honest.

All the power to them though, if that's what they want.

 

[Raijinken]

I'm still largely convinced that the only people who actively hate on changes to the rules, don't actually engage with those rules.

Like I don't really get it: I've seen people go "so customs are done now?" as soon as EVO ended. But I don't know if these people are attendees or participants. Would be super nice if there were a means to know who has grounds for argue and who doesn't.

Of course, I'm one to talk having never attended a tournament and trying to actively participate on the opposite side of the argument, so I'm probably rather hypocritical about questioning those people.

So my only remaining wonder, is whether or not these players have played the game itself or used the customs for themselves. If nothing else, I've manually unlocked all the customs (insert Nam flashback here), and I've played with many of them. I think they make the game fun. Have other players unlocked customs and think they make the game unfun? Have other players unlocked customs to think that? Or are we still stuck on the "need to unlock" thing?

Foremost, we might want to wipe the slate clean on that bit. It's probably a pain in the *** for TOs to unlock all the customs! Yes indeed! We're aware. Thanks random spectator dude number 5542. How is this a detrimental factor? They need to unlock all the locked characters. Isn't the one requiring Cruel Smash a pain in the *** too? Isn't shelling out an extra $40 per console for DLC also a pain in the ***? Why aren't we asking to ban DLC characters?

Ultimately, we should assume every TO has every custom available, regardless of if it's realistic. Because otherwise you've a really flimsy argument. I mean if you're a TO yourself and can't do it then that's fine, whatever, host customs-off -- nobody's going to be angry at you. But plenty of TOs do it for the players and if the players turn around and scream at them for doing a good job then I can't help but wonder where the problem actually lies.

That's my triple-tangent rant of the day.

As an infrequent competitor myself, I think it's somewhat valid to argue for (or against) a ruleset even if you don't compete. Personally, I'm not interested in competing in the current standard Smash 4 ruleset. Add customs and my interest is piqued enough, and thus I continue advocating for the ruleset I find more enjoyable to both watch and play. If my opinion is invalid due to lack of experience, then I accept that ruling, but will not attend or otherwise financially support tournaments that don't interest me. Personally, anti-customs players should have done the same (a lack of high-reputation players at EVO, who are known for opposing customs, would have spoken far louder than polls or rants or flimsy complaints about time investment).

I, too, am interested in why the aforementioned players were begging for customs to go away. Remember, no johns.

 

[LanceKing2200]

I still can't help but wonder if there was a reason for the anti-customs players to be so strongly against it. I have my suspicions, but the context lacks evidence to make my suspicions honest.

I, too, am interested in why the aforementioned players were begging for customs to go away. Remember, no johns.

There are a number of legit reasons to be anti customs, but the few I hear most are:

1. "Fighting against campy or degenerate strategies isn't fun/is annoying". Referring to things like campy custom villager, windy kong, runaway custom sonic, and others. Yes, I and they are aware that these strategies are beatable but that isn't the issue. The problem they bring up is that it isn't interesting to play against, and it makes them feel like training doesn't matter. Many of these strategies are beaten in very simple, predictable ways, and players don't have fun dealing with them even when they win. What it comes down to is that most of our players came to the decision that vanilla is just more fun to play. The cool customs that really change up the character (Ganondorf, Charizard, Palutena, etc.) aren't worth it if they also have to deal with campy villagers and other annoying strategies.

2. "There's so much stuff to learn that it creates a huge barrier of entry, especially for new players". This doesn't even necessarily refer to unlocking customs on your machine (although that is part of it), the bigger piece is learning how to deal with multiple sets per character MU. Regardless of how you feel about customs, it's a fact that adding customs adds a LOT more information that you have to know to be competitive. Some people consider this to be a good thing, and that's fine, but not everyone sees that massive influx of new info to be productive. A lot of people see it as inviting a situation where a really good player will lose to some random custom tech they've never seen, which isn't fair to either competitor really. Now some people may call this a John, and I guess technically it is, but the fact of the matter is that smash players are human beings, with lives, jobs, SOs, etc. Not everyone has the additional time to learn all the custom MUs on top of the vanilla ones. There are games out there that offer that level of deep customization in a competitive multiplayer setting, like LoL and other MOBAs, but what I hear from players on a regular basis is that they don't want to play that, if they did they'd pick up one of those games, they want to play a simple Nintendo mascot fighter where they can pick up a character they like and play other people.

As an infrequent competitor myself, I think it's somewhat valid to argue for (or against) a ruleset even if you don't compete. Personally, I'm not interested in competing in the current standard Smash 4 ruleset. Add customs and my interest is piqued enough, and thus I continue advocating for the ruleset I find more enjoyable to both watch and play. If my opinion is invalid due to lack of experience, then I accept that ruling, but will not attend or otherwise financially support tournaments that don't interest me.

It's not that arguments about rulesets aren't valid from people who attend few/no tournaments, it's that players who do attend events provide money and spread information about their venue, which the venue needs. It isn't some grand conspiracy to silence the masses or anything, but the fact of the matter is that venues cost money. To cover that cost you get lots of players to come and pay venue fee, and then also shop at the venue, buy food/drinks there, come to other events they hear about while there, and tell their friends to come and join them. If the players who are actually coming week to week don't like the ruleset, eventually they'll stop coming, which costs us money.

It sounds really capitalistic (Come to our venue and give us money and we'll do whatever you want!) but you have to think about it like this: Events like this are really a contract between the TO/venue and the players, The players provide money, bodies, and hype for the event, and the venue/TO provide the location, equipment, time, and sometimes prizes/gifts. The venue needs the money to stay open and the players want a place to play. If we try to force a ruleset on players that they don't want and they stop coming, then the venue will stop holding the event and everyone loses.

And the NE players that come to events every week have overwhelmingly voted against customs. Even Miis have been reduced to 50/50 1111 and the request of the players.

 

[GeneralLedge]

1. "Fighting against campy or degenerate strategies isn't fun/is annoying".

I always wonder if this actually happens, or they just pre-emptively don't want it to happen, even if it never does.

A proper solution would be to just... Not allow those customs? Customs is a rather large blanket. It'd be like banning Fanta soft drinks because grape and lime taste awful[citation needed]. I mean, universally we should strive to allow as many as we want; but if the local players hate a handful of sets, I don't know how "cut the whole arm off" is a good solution.

Also I can't think of any reason why Sonic would exclusively need customs to play degenerate and campy if he wants.

2. "There's so much stuff to learn that it creates a huge barrier of entry, especially for new players"

This is at least one problem whose solution is "named sets" I think.

Let's say we wipe the slate clean on customs and Ike happened to only get 2222 for whatever bizarre reason, and we name it my aforementioned "Windy Ike".

If players understand what "Windy Ike" plays like, it's an effect of one additional 'character' into the roster, instead of 'four moves we need to learn'. 2111/2211/2221/etc wouldn't be factors, there'd just be "Ike" and "Windy Ike", who both happen to act sorta similar until they press the B button. But they'd be able to identify the differences pretty quick, and players could play as either one. Just need to say "I'm going Windy Ike", commentator can say "It looks like player x is picking Windy Ike", and eventually everyone'll understand who Windy Ike is.

If #2 is a true problem, then 'named sets' is a true solution. (I don't mean to hijack your response like that).

 

[Krysco]

1. "Fighting against campy or degenerate strategies isn't fun/is annoying". Referring to things like campy custom villager, windy kong, runaway custom sonic, and others. Yes, I and they are aware that these strategies are beatable but that isn't the issue. The problem they bring up is that it isn't interesting to play against, and it makes them feel like training doesn't matter. Many of these strategies are beaten in very simple, predictable ways, and players don't have fun dealing with them even when they win. What it comes down to is that most of our players came to the decision that vanilla is just more fun to play. The cool customs that really change up the character (Ganondorf, Charizard, Palutena, etc.) aren't worth it if they also have to deal with campy villagers and other annoying strategies.

This is my biggest issue with customs. I'd like for both the customs and vanilla metas to co-exist and evolve but of the two, I'd rather play the vanilla meta and custom Villager is the only reason I say that. I don't care if the trip sapling and exploding balloons are beatable, they look as boring to fight as Brawl MK ledge stalling and they're on a character with projectile aerials, aerials that can randomly be really good (uair, dair), a slow moving projectile and a ridiculous recovery, something the exploding balloons are supposed to nerf but hardly do. Plus the character annoys me as it is in vanilla but customs Villager just makes me say '**** this'.

 

[LanceKing2200]

I always wonder if this actually happens, or they just pre-emptively don't want it to happen, even if it never does.

Our 2nd quarter Power Rankings (which ended just before EVO, and was 100% customs AFAIK) had 2 campy Villagers, a windy kong, and a runaway sonic in top 10. One of those villagers was the #2 ranked CaptAwesum, so yes, it does happen.

 

[Raijinken]

I always wonder if this actually happens, or they just pre-emptively don't want it to happen, even if it never does.

A proper solution would be to just... Not allow those customs? Customs is a rather large blanket. It'd be like banning Fanta soft drinks because grape and lime taste awful[citation needed]. I mean, universally we should strive to allow as many as we want; but if the local players hate a handful of sets, I don't know how "cut the whole arm off" is a good solution.

Also I can't think of any reason why Sonic would exclusively need customs to play degenerate and campy if he wants.


This is at least one problem whose solution is "named sets" I think.

Let's say we wipe the slate clean on customs and Ike happened to only get 2222 for whatever bizarre reason, and we name it my aforementioned "Windy Ike".

If players understand what "Windy Ike" plays like, it's an effect of one additional 'character' into the roster, instead of 'four moves we need to learn'. 2111/2211/2221/etc wouldn't be factors, there'd just be "Ike" and "Windy Ike", who both happen to act sorta similar until they press the B button. But they'd be able to identify the differences pretty quick, and players could play as either one. Just need to say "I'm going Windy Ike", commentator can say "It looks like player x is picking Windy Ike", and eventually everyone'll understand who Windy Ike is.

If #2 is a true problem, then 'named sets' is a true solution. (I don't mean to hijack your response like that).

As a Dota player, #2 as an issue is literally un-graspable to me. Competitive games thrive off of stupidly high levels of strategic variety and complexity, even if they have simple controls (which, Smash and Dota both do relative to their base genres of fighting game and RTS).

I like the idea of named sets, but without anything resembling a Backroom (which I don't think we want or need on the larger scale), even debating names for sets would get tricky. Especially since sets are likely to change over time with revisions to the moveset project.

 

[clydeaker]

Here we go again.

Now that EVO's over, DLC character's are now becoming more legally accepted in tournaments. We have decided to give them official custom move set's as well.

After much debate and communication with the DLC character specific forums we've finally gathered enough data to determine the DLC character's official custom move set's.

Without further adieu, here are the move sets in 3DS and Wii U character select screen order for convenience:
Moveset List:

Spoiler

Mewtwo :
1111, 1111, 1111, 1111, 1111, 1111, 1111, 1111, 1111, 1111

Lucas :
1111, 1111, 1111, 1111, 1111, 1111, 1111, 1111, 1111, 1111

Roy :
1111, 1111, 1111, 1111, 1111, 1111, 1111, 1111, 1111, 1111

Ryu :
1111, 1111, 1111, 1111, 1111, 1111, 1111, 1111, 1111, 1111

Because each DLC character has only 1 custom move for each special move (i.e. Neutral, Side, Up, Down) We have decided to get the most of of that. There is a possible of 1 custom set (0 aside from the default set) as oppose to the 81 possible sets with all other characters (80 aside from the default). Each character can hold up to 10 custom sets at a time (11 if you include the default set or 99 if you include the 3 collective Mii Fighters.) In order to give the DLC characters just as much custom moves to the best of our ability as all other characters we have decided to include these set's into the official custom moves sets list.

 

[John12346]

I don't agree with that 3rd set for Ryu. He should have 1111 there, not 1111. You shouldn't always base custom sets around simple permutations of the first, most accepted set after all.

 

[thehard]

I'm still wary of legalizing DLC characters at all, let alone their customs. The cost of purchase is a potential barrier of entry for new players. We shouldn't expect them to have to shell out ~$20 and counting just to be able to practice the game.

Also Ryu's 1111 has a really stupid early-killing Up-B with setups, ugh

 

[Raijinken]

I'm still wary of legalizing DLC characters at all, let alone their customs. The cost of purchase is a potential barrier of entry for new players. We shouldn't expect them to have to shell out ~$20 and counting just to be able to practice the game.

Also Ryu's 1111 has a really stupid early-killing Up-B with setups, ugh

Seeing as it cost me $400 to be able to practice the first 51 characters, I think an extra $20 (for single-system players) is fine.

 

[DEEK4Y]

Seeing as it cost me $400 to be able to practice the first 51 characters, I think an extra $20 (for single-system players) is fine.

.... Wut? My Wii-U cost $300-400 and smash $60. Saying "it cost me $400 to be able to practice the first 51 characters" is really misleading as I did not purchase my Wii-U solely for smash, it plays other games too lol.

 

[Raijinken]

.... Wut? My Wii-U cost $300-400 and smash $60. Saying "it cost me $400 to be able to practice the first 51 characters" is really misleading as I did not purchase my Wii-U solely for smash, it plays other games too lol.

I, on the other hand, DID purchase my Wii U just for Smash (aside from infrequent Mario Kart or the Virtual Console titles that I already own cartridge copies of, more than 98% of my Wii U's playtime is in Smash). $300 plus $60 for Smash plus $20 for the adapter, plus tax. From that (admittedly deliberately silly) frame of reference, I actually spent nearly $8 per character. That's twice as much as any DLC character but Ryu cost!

Either way, I think it's pretty reasonable to disregard any sort of cost- and time-investment complaints, seeing as it takes time and money to practice against the regular roster when you consider that most communities don't have full-roster representation at tournament level-skill on-hand at all times.

It's hard for me to find the "customs take too long to unlock and otherwise I can't practice against them" idea when one cannot practice any sort of matchup without a skilled human opponent who plays the character. At least specials fall under the "can be experimented with and effectively learned on one's own" category.

 

[SomeDumbAcs]

Are people still forced to use EVO sets even though EVO is over now?
Because I want to use Heavy Blade and Smash Counter

 

[A_Kae]

Are people still forced to use EVO sets even though EVO is over now?
Because I want to use Heavy Blade and Smash Counter

Look, I support your choice to use whatever customs you want, but please, don't use Heavy Blade.

It depends on the tournament. Some will use the 8 sets+2 free slots, some will use EVO's 10 sets.

 

[ZarroTsu]

Never forced to begin with, just a tournament standard.

Contact your TO in advance I guess. EVO sets 9 and 10 are exchangeable.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Are people still forced to use EVO sets even though EVO is over now?
Because I want to use Heavy Blade and Smash Counter

The custom project has explicitly encouraged on-site set creation from the very beginning. EVO is the one that disallowed that due to the sheer scale of the event, hence the existence of 10 sets per character instead of 8.

 

[thehard]

I, on the other hand, DID purchase my Wii U just for Smash (aside from infrequent Mario Kart or the Virtual Console titles that I already own cartridge copies of, more than 98% of my Wii U's playtime is in Smash). $300 plus $60 for Smash plus $20 for the adapter, plus tax. From that (admittedly deliberately silly) frame of reference, I actually spent nearly $8 per character. That's twice as much as any DLC character but Ryu cost!

Either way, I think it's pretty reasonable to disregard any sort of cost- and time-investment complaints, seeing as it takes time and money to practice against the regular roster when you consider that most communities don't have full-roster representation at tournament level-skill on-hand at all times.

It's hard for me to find the "customs take too long to unlock and otherwise I can't practice against them" idea when one cannot practice any sort of matchup without a skilled human opponent who plays the character. At least specials fall under the "can be experimented with and effectively learned on one's own" category.

You'll be happy to know I was being facetious then.

 

[Raijinken]

You'll be happy to know I was being facetious then.

That's good! I'd hate to have to think you're an unreasonable person.

 

[T0MMY]

I was about to say roughly the same thing until I finished this page.

I agreed with pretty much all of your post, but will stress that not using Customs is NOT banning them.
I too like to give things a chance, but I have demonstrated too many times the folly of trying to argue from the position of the Ban Argument. It's like if I don't have the customs unlocked and can't even use them if I wanted to somehow I am now some kind of scrub banning them?... no... my logical mind dies at this dreaded position of argument!

Rulesets need to be clearly and concisely posted as game settings: "Items OFF" and "Custom Fighters OFF" would NOT be the same as saying "Items and Customs are banned" - the first makes a clear statement that Diddy can use his banana (Down-special) and protests that Mii fighters shouldn't be allowed are to be completely ignored (even if assumed to be using "customs"); whereas the second ruling would put these into some grey areas that would require "rules lawyering" by the TO.

I'm still largely convinced that the only people who actively hate on changes to the rules, don't actually engage with those rules.
Like I don't really get it: I've seen people go "so customs are done now?" as soon as EVO ended. But I don't know if these people are attendees or participants. Would be super nice if there were a means to know who has grounds for argue and who doesn't.

I went to Evo and attended events locally that ran custom fighters on. Like most people I talked to who actively attended these events I can say i do not want Custom Fighters on in events I attend.
What convinced you contrarily to begin with? Do you attend events (please link me to the event pages/brackets)? Talk to people at events in person (and if so, who)?

Since you brought it up though... What I'd like to know is why Evo decided to use Customs - speaking of people who want customs, just how did anyone figure for the attendees and what they wanted or was it some kind of unilateral decision largely ignoring the community like Evo did back in 2008 with their decision to use Items? If history is any indicator I'd be suspicious of the latter...

We ran customs at my events for 6 months, and dropped them after EVO. The announcement that they were going away was met with cheers and applause.
As far as I can tell (Boston MA) players pretty universally don't want customs, even if that doesn't match up with what I see in polls online.

Pretty much how it is in my area. They are pretty much not well liked in the Northwest either.
And you said something along the lines of how a TO provides rules for attendees being "capitalistic" as if there were a bad thing? (note the question mark if this is the case) Not to get too much on a tangent on that topic, but I think a capitalistic approach with free market philosophy and supplying for demand would actually be a great way to look at tournaments. If there is a place where players want Customs as an option then the demand will make it happen. Just my opinion on the matter.

 

[Raijinken]

I agreed with pretty much all of your post, but will stress that not using Customs is NOT banning them.
I too like to give things a chance, but I have demonstrated too many times the folly of trying to argue from the position of the Ban Argument. It's like if I don't have the customs unlocked and can't even use them if I wanted to somehow I am now some kind of scrub banning them?... no... my logical mind dies at this dreaded position of argument!

Rulesets need to be clearly and concisely posted as game settings: "Items OFF" and "Custom Fighters OFF" would NOT be the same as saying "Items and Customs are banned" - the first makes a clear statement that Diddy can use his banana (Down-special) and protests that Mii fighters shouldn't be allowed are to be completely ignored (even if assumed to be using "customs"); whereas the second ruling would put these into some grey areas that would require "rules lawyering" by the TO.

I can just imagine the riots if Diddy was denied one of his best tools. Wait......
I can also understand a TO with no free time declining to allow Smashville because it takes single-player time to unlock and he and his pro friends can't bother to touch Solo mode. Wait......

It makes no functional difference how a functional omission is stated. Saying "Items set to None and Off" means exactly the same thing as "Items which are not generated as a part of a character's moveset are Banned." Similarly, saying Customs Off versus Customs Banned makes no difference, it means exact same thing (contrast Equipment which, when not running a preinstalled setup like the Moveset Project, requires an explicit ban). The only actual difference is there's some vague distinction between off and banned in the eyes of anti-customs players, while the net result is that customs fall to the wayside and will likely (I hope I'm wrong) not gain either the attention nor support (and thus, prize pool) required to warrant even a side-event at a tournament.

In short, "customs off" is like lying by omission. You accomplish essentially exactly your goal (disallowing customs vs deceit, in the analogy), without being able to directly be accused of banning a feature without competitive justification.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

Well, even if the switch for Custom Moves and Equipment is set to Off, Miis can still use movesets with different special attacks.

 

[Raijinken]

Well, even if the switch for Custom Moves and Equipment is set to Off, Miis can still use movesets with different special attacks.

Provided a TO doesn't say "Setting up all of the Miis movesets takes too much time, and having two players play the same Mii leaves them visually indistinguishable unless you make a ton of miis or equip different headgear and costumes, which are all hidden and take time to unlock. Plus no one can really decide what size or shape of Mii is the best. So 1111 Guest-only it is!"

The sheer hypocrisy in a ruleset that allows fully customized Miis (they can use equipment without Customs On, too) but no other customs is just baffling.

 

[Pippin (Peregrin Took)]

The sheer hypocrisy in a ruleset that allows fully customized Miis (they can use equipment without Customs On, too) but no other customs is just baffling.

Actually they can't. I checked it out and so have others (@Pegasus Knight). Neither effects or stats apply.

Coming from someone who is pro customs, I don't see why miis have to lose them in a customs off meta if they can still be used in a custom off meta. They're what make those characters unique in that particular meta a la Rosalina or Ryu. The only exception would be if any of the moves were game-breakingly op, which despite complaints of helicopter kick (we'll see what happens tomorrow) doesn't seem to be the case