"Have you ever made a game?" - Sakurai
Yes. - Me
There's not a single "competitive" Smash community that will ever respect it, because it pointedly contrasts everything that/those very communit(y/ies) have spent years theorizing over.
Not everything in our rulesets is necessarily thought out or objective (nor in any), and in the rare case that something was once fully thought out and made sense, the community at large has failed to spread that reasoning and justification across time and instead has fallen back to allowing misconceptions to spread instead of re-evaluating or explaining these issues.
Our rulesets aren't thought out or objective? What!?!?! According to who, you? With the exception of the banning of Miis or Customs, name me one rule that was put into Smash competitive rulesets that has no objective reasoning.
(there are plenty of objective reasons for banning customs and miis as well, although i dont think they have anything to do with balance issues.)
Amongst fighting games, Smash has to have one of the most convoluted sets of rules, and it was in essence entirely community-made. That's a great achievement, but it means nothing from a "competitive quality" standpoint - it's all about ego.
Ego...? What?
No, this is entirely because Smash itself allows you to edit rules, yet has never formally addressed one or two minor oversights that the competitive communities have always had issue with. And with the coming of Brawl and now Smash 4, it's seeming like its entirely intentional. The ability to restrict Sudden Death and issue wins off damage % is a braindead option to include, and it's unlikely they didn't realize competitive players never used it.
What makes For Glory bad, competitively? I've seen a lot of subjective reasons (time outs happen more often, sudden death is used, only one stage type, etc), but never an objective analysis (or supportive evidence grounded in competitive theory or game design principle) enumerating what makes For Glory bad. And frankly, if there's something simple about it, simple issues often come with simple solutions (like sudden death).
Lol first off, just because you call something subjective doesn't mean it really is. If you disagree on the reasoning, just say so. But i refuse to believe you've actually looked up any of these issues and have come to the conclusion that there's no objective reasoning behind why people think For Glory is garbage.
1) It's okay for time out to be a valid strategy, this isn't an issue
2) Except for when Sudden Death exists, which renders everything that happened in that final stock irrelevant and turning the deciding match into a game of one-strike that, in itself, is an unbalanced mode of gameplay depending on your choice of character
3) All flat stages that also slant the match in favor of specific types of movesets with no option for counterplay.
No one wants to override our ancient customs with something that was, at one point, presumably considered a "terrible competitive ruleset" (disregarding that such a ruleset wasn't even possible until Melee). No TO with a successful event and reputable playerbase wants to risk the test-run to either make a point or give it a valid trial. I don't blame them. But nor do I think a, to many eyes, unjustified claim of "because it's bad" is a sufficient explanation for why we use one ruleset over another. Especially when our baseline for each game has been to clone the last game's rules until matches start taking too long.
Bringing up any rulesets that existed before Melee is a bit silly, Smash64 is quite far removed from any other 2 version of Smash. And off that fact, it should be understandable why nobody wants to deviate from our "ANCIENT" customs. They've been working. Brawl and Smash 4 are damn near the same game with slight differences (and less stuff), this is the closest 2 iterations have been to one another.
No, Smash 4 has just confirmed what everyone already knew from playing Brawl -- Sakurai does not like competitive play. He doesn't like the idea of players being objectively better than one another. He would prefer matches to stay lighthearted, and for another player to always have a chance to come back. Hence, stale move reduction, tripping, rage, nerfs to hitstun, nerfs to defense mechanics, a competitive ruleset (BY REQUEST OF THE PLAYERBASE) that ignores competitive rulesets that have been in use (by the same players) for over a decade, and a tournament mode that is so poorly designed in 2015, it would have to have been made bad on purpose.
I mean, f--ing seriously. For Glory FFA and Team Battles are 2 minutes, no stock. No Team Attack i can completely understand...but timed matches? The only explanation i can come up with is "clueless" or "intentional". This being a 4th iteration in a long-running series, there really is no room for anything else.
