Pictochat needs to be legalized for our ruleset to have consistency.

[BSP]

At first I thought it was Twinkie saying this and was scared.

BTW, I doubt you have any real insight into why it was banned. Were you anywhere near the decision making process? (hint, only the URC were anywhere near it, we don't actually know s***)

No, so I'll take that back, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was close to the reason. Delux keeps bringing up that lots of tournaments have Picto banned, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, but URC takes majority opinion into account right? This means that for whatever reason, TOs think the stage isn't suitable for competitive play.

But back to what youre asking. you're expecting players to be ready to plank the right ledge at any time to make sure they don't get screwed over by the stage. That's unreasonable imo

 

[ぱみゅ]

Wait, this thread went what? How is planking even related to Pictochat's legality?

RR, the question is not how much does they interfere. The fact is that both do interfere and there is not a line that says how much they have to interfere in order to be banned.

Arcansi, you're doing a very poor job defending Pictochat.

 

[Arcansi]

Arcansi, you're doing a very poor job defending Pictochat.

Without you saying why or what I should be doing differently, this is just an insult. I mean, I love constructive criticism, but...

And why did you come here to insult me anyway? Do you think that's like, cool or something?

This has nothing to do with what I just said, and just brings up a random irrelevant point.

Well I mean, you brought up something I had never said as true and then proceeded to ignore where I said

I'm not saying the stock influence is the same.

.

So, yeah.

Yeah but I'm referring to how this adds to it being a stage itself and something YI doesn't have.

Every stage has this when compared to any other stage. Given such, this on its own does not contribute to it being bannable or legal in any way shape or form. So why say it?

You still need to deal with what gets made on stage, or even can't deal with because they are inside an object you can't pass through.

The sideways line I said I still remain is a feature that is similar to YI but worse. Planking doesn't necessarily solve some of the issues.

1. Dealing with that gets made on stage is presumable what would make it a CP.

2. Are you saying walls are unable to be dealt with, at all? Better Ban Delfino.

3. How is it similar to YI?

4. What issues does planking not solve? I mean, normally you bring up proof with an argument when you bring it up, to speed up the process and not look bad, but the closest thing you have is countered by planking the right side, what I suggested.

You don't even need proof with this, it's just analyzing the stage itself.

Picto has a lot of random transformations that spawn in different locations and even if they don't kill you, they can still do damage.

YI shares the one quality where it can affect the stock count with random, Picto has that and then some.

This isn't something you need a video to analyze just look at the layout and how ti can change over the course of 8 minutes.

See: kyokoro_pamuyo, above.



Again has nothing to do with what you quoted here.

And even then isn't comparable to YI even if it were true.[/QUOTE]

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

The community draws that line. They said Picto was too far.

 

[Arcansi]

The community draws that line. They said Picto was too far.

This seems like a competitive and consistent option.

Argumentum ad hominem all up in here.

Or, Self confirmation bias. The Mob Effect. People not practicing on it, which is more self confirmation bias.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

This seems like a competitive and consistent option.

Argumentum ad hominem all up in here.

Or, Self confirmation bias. The Mob Effect. People not practicing on it, which is more self confirmation bias.

It's the set standard the community decided.

Even with bias, it's the majority by a good amount looking at rulesets.

 

[Arcansi]

It's the set standard the community decided.

Even with bias, it's the majority by a good amount looking at rulesets.

This has nothing to do with what I just said, and just brings up a random already gone over point.

EDIT: Can you even calculate for bias, and if you have, how?

 

[ぱみゅ]

I said you're doing a poor job defending Pictochat because you're not defending it, you're attacking URS (and a lot of rulesets) with it.

URC (and others)They have stated their ban criteria: community standards.
It does not matter if it is objective or not, is just what most people do and URC, trying to provide a Ruleset most people can agree with, follow that line.
Also, it was Grim Tuesday who said that, in the "competitiveness" formula, it is important to state if people would be willing to play with the addition or removal of certain stage. So, inconsistent or not, the removal of this stage does not makes the game less competitive, as most people would still attend to the tournament, while its addition could take away some atendants, which would, in theory, make the game less comtetitive.

What I mean is that URC can't go like BBR and say that, in optimal conditions, it is possible to play in such stages, or deal with planking, or with MetaKnight.
That was what made BBR Ruleset not to be followed.

 

[Arcansi]

I said you're doing a poor job defending Pictochat because you're not defending it, you're attacking URS (and a lot of rulesets) with it.

Okay, then where did I say I was defending picto? All I'm defending is consistency.

URC (and others)They have stated their ban criteria: community standards.

This is actually a horrible competitive criteria, for the reasons described above.

It does not matter if it is objective or not, is just what most people do and URC, trying to provide a Ruleset most people can agree with, follow that line.

And what ends up happening is most people hate a part of it, for some reason. Some of this is legit, some is not. And...that's not exactly good.

Also, it was Grim Tuesday who said that, in the "competitiveness" formula, it is important to state if people would be willing to play with the addition or removal of certain stage. So, inconsistent or not, the removal of this stage does not makes the game less competitive, as most people would still attend to the tournament, while its addition could take away some atendants, which would, in theory, make the game less comtetitive.

Only if the amount of people quitting would be significant. People have quit because of tons of other rule changes before, heck M2K quit when we banned MK!

What I mean is that URC can't go like BBR and say that, in optimal conditions, it is possible to play in such stages, or deal with planking, or with MetaKnight.
That was what made BBR Ruleset not to be followed.

Please note that the URC has said in optimal conditions planking is completely fair when not used to stall a game to time.

Metaknight was simply overcentralizing, which sucks but had to be dealt with for competitive depth.

Are you saying what made the BBR ruleset not be followed is an extension of a tournament player telling someone else to stop being a scrub?

If so, why hasn't the community noted this, ever?

 

[ぱみゅ]

Okay, then where did I say I was defending picto? All I'm defending is consistency.

Sorry if I misjudged that when you seemed upset after I said you were defending it poorly. My bad.

This is actually a horrible competitive criteria, for the reasons described above.

Yes, it is bad.
But it is the only one people can agree with.

And what ends up happening is most people hate a part of it, for some reason. Some of this is legit, some is not. And...that's not exactly good.

Only if the amount of people quitting would be significant. People have quit because of tons of other rule changes before, heck M2K quit when we banned MK!

We, TOs, can't make everyone happy. At best, we can have a large majority to be okay with our rulesets.

Please note that the URC has said in optimal conditions planking is completely fair when not used to stall a game to time.

No, they only stated that people may not attend if they allow people to freely do that.
Is the same reason a lot of stages got banned: because people simply don't like them.

Metaknight was simply overcentralizing, which sucks but had to be dealt with for competitive depth.

I won't argue over MK.

Are you saying what made the BBR ruleset not be followed is an extension of a tournament player telling someone else to stop being a scrub?

If so, why hasn't the community noted this, ever?

I wanted not to be the one to say this, but yes, Brawl players, for the most part, don't know what is best for their game, they just want to play exactly how they want, and even worse, they only want to win. If there is any obstacle, why would they try to improve and surpass it if they can only whine and remove it?. By always wanting to remove almost every element the game have like stages there's nothing wrong with, and even some powerful characters or non-broken tactics, in my opinion, Brawl community is one of the most scrubby ones as far as videogame communities go.
I said it. I'm off.

 

[KirbyandSonicrock14]

I rather allow port town aero drive instead of pitochat if you are going to allow something like that. There's not randomness on port town aero and it's easy to avoid the cars.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Here's the low down I got from reading this thread, since it is my job.

1. People think this stage is comparable to YI.

- It isn't, stop comparing Ghost's to what this stage does. Yeah both are random, the effects of either aren't the same and trying to play with them aren't the same.

2. Peoples perception of playing with random generators.

- Look, I understand Brawl has a lot of random stuff in it even with characters, but when how random this stage can be can clearly affect a match.

[yt]vY0VN77EKgw[/yt]

Yeah I get that people can play around it, but it can be extremely unreasonable to anticipate these effects and even then it's not consistent which is what a lot of people have qualms with it.

3. This thread is made to poke holes in the URC.

- If that is the case, then why not make a thread about the criteria they have an why it is flawed instead of one about a stage even people not in the URC have.

 

[Kink-Link5]

I don't think most people who want this stage legal know why it was banned in the first place.

 

[ぱみゅ]

I can argue hours about that match and how Larry didn't know the stage well, received a lot of damage on the wind transformation and got wrecked because of getting grabbed while the stage was blank.
But I don't think that's gonna be necessary.

I¡ll just put the question, we can't expect people to play extremely careful, or we can't expect people to will to play like that?
Really, community opinion, as good or bad it can be, is the less worse of the criteria we can set for a controversial stage like this.

 

[GunmasterLombardi]

The variety of stage hazards can put you at an advantage or disadvantage against your opponent.

It is not fair to BOTH players to change the pace of the match at random intervals.

 

[Arcansi]

Well, it's great to see some action back in here.

Here's the low down I got from reading this thread, since it is my job.

Cool.

1. People think this stage is comparable to YI.

- It isn't, stop comparing Ghost's to what this stage does. Yeah both are random, the effects of either aren't the same and trying to play with them aren't the same.

Assuming taking a stock == saving a stock (with small % differentiators, but you get what I'm saying.) they are quite compareable. See: T-Block's posts on the subject. Your going to need to explain why this is wrong, because you've obviously seen it, having read the thread.

2. Peoples perception of playing with random generators.

- Look, I understand Brawl has a lot of random stuff in it even with characters, but when how random this stage can be can clearly affect a match.

: video :

Yeah I get that people can play around it, but it can be extremely unreasonable to anticipate these effects and even then it's not consistent which is what a lot of people have qualms with it.

First off, you should know that for every example you bring up, I can find one that isn't on pictochat, and is just as bad if not worse.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBJZRV7IjLs#t=7m33s

You should also note that both of them didn't play well on the stage, and deserved every hit they took from it.

Along with the fact that YI can affect a match just as much, as can

3. This thread is made to poke holes in the URC.

- If that is the case, then why not make a thread about the criteria they have an why it is flawed instead of one about a stage even people not in the URC have.

It was made because I noticed a consistency issue in the URC. Did you not read my response to this? If not, you really should. And it's even there in the title. The only reason the title even has the word pictochat in it is because I forgot banning YI (and possibly Halberd) would be options to fix the consistency issue.

RR: I could, but I don't think it would matter. I could literally tell them they're using a **** ruleset and point to argumentum ad hominem, tell them why their poll meant nothing in terms of stastics, and they would just go 'Yeah? The General Public likes it. If you don't, just host your own tournies'

They don't seem to care.

I¡ll just put the question, we can't expect people to play extremely careful, or we can't expect people to will to play like that?
Really, community opinion, as good or bad it can be, is the less worse of the criteria we can set for a controversial stage like this.

How is it the less worse?

The variety of stage hazards can put you at an advantage or disadvantage against your opponent.

It is not fair to BOTH players to change the pace of the match at random intervals.

See the above video. Should peach be banned too?

 

[DeLux]

???

I told you how the URC passes policy and the reasons on how I typically vote >_>

You saying there isn't a criteria is either biased or false

 

[T-block]

- It isn't, stop comparing Ghost's to what this stage does. Yeah both are random, the effects of either aren't the same and trying to play with them aren't the same.

you clearly didn't read the thread carefully enough if you think that's a satisfactory response to the comparison

nobody denies that each stage's randomness affects the match in different ways.

 

[Arcansi]

???

I told you how the URC passes policy and the reasons on how I typically vote >_>

You saying there isn't a criteria is either biased or false

Don't have criteria is wrong. Sorry, my bad.

Will edit to fix.

 

[Kink-Link5]

you clearly didn't read the thread carefully enough if you think that's a satisfactory response to the comparison

nobody denies that each stage's randomness affects the match in different ways.

Except that the original post argues that randomness alone is the deciding factor, then sure.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

you clearly didn't read the thread carefully enough if you think that's a satisfactory response to the comparison

nobody denies that each stage's randomness affects the match in different ways.

You can't tell me the they affect is equally, T-Block.

YI and Picto affect it similar, the difference is in my stance is that Picto does that and more.

Everything with saving and taking stocks it does, then in throws in more affects which in addition are random with it.

 

[T-block]

i'm not saying the affect the match in the same way

i'm saying it doesn't matter that they affect the match in different ways =\

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Assuming taking a stock == saving a stock (with small % differentiators, but you get what I'm saying.) they are quite compareable. See: T-Block's posts on the subject. Your going to need to explain why this is wrong, because you've obviously seen it, having read the thread.

Yes they are similar, but not the same in effect or influence. I think Picto goes further.

First off, you should know that for every example you bring up, I can find one that isn't on pictochat, and is just as bad if not worse.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBJZRV7IjLs#t=7m33s

You should also note that both of them didn't play well on the stage, and deserved every hit they took from it.

Along with the fact that YI can affect a match just as much, as can

Randomness by choice is perfectly fine, because Peach choose to start something that had a random chance instead of something that was forced on her, yeah her opponent can be boned from it, but it was of her own choice to start it. Peach initiated a move that she had a chance to pull a Bom-omb, and she did.

Randomness by choice of the player, over one where it is completely out of either player's control.

Whether that is too intrusive or not is another story.

It was made because I noticed a consistency issue in the URC. Did you not read my response to this? If not, you really should. And it's even there in the title. The only reason the title even has the word pictochat in it is because I forgot banning YI (and possibly Halberd) would be options to fix the consistency issue.

RR: I could, but I don't think it would matter. I could literally tell them they're using a **** ruleset and point to argumentum ad hominem, tell them why their poll meant nothing in terms of stastics, and they would just go 'Yeah? The General Public likes it. If you don't, just host your own tournies'

They don't seem to care.

Difference is they drew a line of how much. And the community, agreed.

The minority doesn't get their way in this situation, which is fine.

Honestly the poll was one of the best ways to get it done, there really isn't another way to gauge the communities opinion better than a poll.

 

[Kink-Link5]

i'm not saying the affect the match in the same way

i'm saying it doesn't matter that they affect the match in different ways =\

In the same way that different platform layouts don't affect the match, I guess.

EDIT: That makes 120 backhanded, passive-aggressive posts from me! Do I get a free life now?

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

i'm not saying the affect the match in the same way

i'm saying it doesn't matter that they affect the match in different ways =\

It does matter.

I mean, what if we played on Warioware and tried to compare it with the randomness of SV. They influence differently and with different frequency.

In the same way that different platform layouts don't affect the match, I guess.

Layout isn't a problem with Picto even on some of the changes.

 

[BSP]

i'm not saying the affect the match in the same way

i'm saying it doesn't matter that they affect the match in different ways =\

Would you ban SV too if pictochat is banned?

 

[Kink-Link5]

I'm aware, I was drawing a separate comparison. I could have listed examples like Battlefield compared to PS2, but I wanted to emphasise the brevity of the statement.

 

[Arcansi]

Yes they are similar, but not the same in effect or influence. I think Picto goes further.

Not a matter when we talk about consistency.

Already-gone-over please.

Randomness by choice is perfectly fine, because Peach choose to start something that had a random chance instead of something that was forced on her, yeah her opponent can be boned from it, but it was of her own choice to start it. Peach initiated a move that she had a chance to pull a Bom-omb, and she did.

Randomness by choice of the player, over one where it is completely out of either player's control.

Whether that is too intrusive or not is another story.

Are you telling me neither player picks which CP to go to? Because, if not, I can see how your argument makes sense.

Difference is they drew a line of how much. And the community, agreed.

The minority doesn't get their way in this situation, which is fine.

Where's the line, RR? Is it noted ANYWHERE? Can you actually tell me what the line is, with words other then 'between YI:B and Pictochat'?

Please do.

Honestly the poll was one of the best ways to get it done, there really isn't another way to gauge the communities opinion better than a poll.

The poll was statistically useless. Effectively, useless. Did you miss where someone knowledgeable on statistics said it, somewhere in some thread?

Basically, we have a false distribution of the community (not everyone voted, some people voted ways just to see what would happen, etc.)

Stastically useless is one of the best ways to get it done? What were the other options, flip a coin?

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Not a matter when we talk about consistency.

Already-gone-over please.

It's very relevant.

If you don't think is then let's make Warioware legal.

Are you telling me neither player picks which CP to go to? Because, if not, I can see how your argument makes sense.

Peach initiated the chance to pull a Bom-omb. Yes the risk of her being wrong is very little if at all but she chooses to do it.

Then Mr. G&W, he chooses to go for a 9 with judgment. Risk again is little to him on anything outside of a 1 but he chose to take a chance with it.

Picto doesn't really do the same since, either do the other stages, but pictos effect is much greater.

Where's the line, RR? Is it noted ANYWHERE? Can you actually tell me what the line is, with words other then 'between YI:B and Pictochat'?

Please do.

It doesn't matter if it listed as a clear line or not, one just has to be drawn.

Clarity is irrelevant.

The poll was statistically useless. Effectively, useless. Did you miss where someone knowledgeable on statistics said it, somewhere in some thread?

Basically, we have a false distribution of the community (not everyone voted, some people voted ways just to see what would happen, etc.)

Stastically useless is one of the best ways to get it done? What were the other options, flip a coin?

You mean Cassio or Tuen? I already went over this with them. It wasn't useless, people voted in our community on the issue.

If people choose not to vote, that is their choice not a concern of the poll. If people choose to vote for reason X, that is also not a concern of the poll. It's all about choice, we gave people that option if they choose to not use it that isn't the poll's problem

There is no good way to gauge people without someone having a problem.

 

[T-block]

with different frequency.

bingoooo

look, all i want is for people to acknowledge that it's an issue of frequency. i haven't found a way to test that assertion, and i even agree that it's likely valid.

but don't spout bs about how YI saves stocks instead of takes them, or how it's localized to certain zones on the stage. that **** doesn't make an ounce of difference in the big picture.

what matters in the big picture is overall impact, which ultimately depends on frequency.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I fully agree frequency is a factor.

 

[T-block]

no ryu

it is THE factor

THEEEE factor

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I think it's one factor.

We disagree on the degree of influence in relation to frequency if I'm understanding this. Either than or I'm an idiot.

 

[T-block]

most people say the randomness on pictochat is "worse" than yoshi's island.

for that to be valid, they NEED to be talking about frequency of impacts of randomness.

anyone who tries to say "yoshi's is okay because the randomness is localized to zones", or "yoshi's is okay because it doesn't take stocks, only saves them" (which isn't even true), is assigning undeserved weight to a completely arbitrary distinction. YI is okay because it only saves stocks? why is saving your opponent's stock better than pictochat taking yours, from an objective competitive standpoint? "YI is okay because it doesn't take stocks". isn't this in the same line of thought as those who say "hazards are bad because they can hurt you"? WHY is it that hazards hitting you is bad? WHY is it okay that YI only saves stocks? these things come about because of what people FEEL - there's no foundation for these statements from a competitive standpoint. if you look at it from the big picture, YI can change the match by saving stocks at 0%. that is a HUGE impact. that's all there is to it.

but this line of thinking suggests that YI and picto should be both legal or both banned, as suggested by the OP, and intuitively, everyone can see there is something "wrong" with that. so what separates them?

it must be frequency. HOW OFTEN these events happen, and HOW OFTEN is acceptable.

so, attack pictochat if you want. there's definitely substance to be found behind that stance. but DO NOT try to fluff up your argument with garbage like "YI only saves stocks, so it's acceptable". that is NOT why YI is acceptable.

 

[Kink-Link5]

If a single hitbox spawned on top of a character randomly one time within every 6 minute interval, is that infrequency of occurrance something that makes it more desirable than YI's more frequent, less impacting random events?

This is a more extreme example, but it illustrates the point that the effect randomness has is a very important aspect, even more so than the frequency of the random event.

 

[T-block]

i guess i should clarify. i don't mean that frequency should be our only criterion for any such decision. i mean that frequency is the only non-arbitrary difference between YI and picto.

your example is a good one. of course the nature of the random event matters in that case. whether this hitbox dealt 5%, or instantly KO'd, or somehow instantly took two stocks would affect whether such an event is acceptable. so yes, generally speaking, you guys are correct in saying we must consider more than just frequency.

however, in the case of YI vs picto, i'm saying that if you consider the absolute worst thing that pictochat can do and compare it to the absolute worst thing that YI can do, the impact on the match in each of these cases doesn't differ by that much.

so, in general, yes, there may be a difference that we should consider.

but in this case, that difference doesn't exist, or is negligible.

 

[Arcansi]

It's very relevant.

If you don't think is then let's make Warioware legal.

Warioware's main problem is that it both edits the characters (statistics) and is unavoidable.

The randomness in picto is extremely avoidable due to planking being such a strong stalling tactic.

And the randomness in YI is extremely avoidable if you wanted too, due to the same thing.

Peach initiated the chance to pull a Bom-omb. Yes the risk of her being wrong is very little if at all but she chooses to do it.

There's no risk.

Then Mr. G&W, he chooses to go for a 9 with judgment. Risk again is little to him on anything outside of a 1 but he chose to take a chance with it.

Okay.

Picto doesn't really do the same since, either do the other stages, but pictos effect is much greater.

Your grammar makes like half of this sentence mean nothing, unfortunately (as in I actually can't tell what your saying) so I'll respond to the second half.

How is Picto's effect EVER greater then a nine or a bomb?

It doesn't matter if it listed as a clear line or not, one just has to be drawn.

Clarity is irrelevant.

Okay, sure.

Except that Picto actually has very little intrusion if played right.

In fact, it has the same amount as YI, if played correctly to avoid intrusion, by planking during the 5 second window where it could happen. (T-Block, what's the time for possible appearance of YI ghosts?)

So the line can't exist between the two.

You mean Cassio or Tuen? I already went over this with them. It wasn't useless, people voted in our community on the issue.

If people choose not to vote, that is their choice not a concern of the poll. If people choose to vote for reason X, that is also not a concern of the poll. It's all about choice, we gave people that option if they choose to not use it that isn't the poll's problem

There is no good way to gauge people without someone having a problem.

So your saying that the poll being biased in any way is a completely fine outcome for a poll that decides a rule?

 

[Kink-Link5]

I deliberately play Picto "Wrong" to force its effects to hinder the match and make it unplayable for the opponent as well as myself. I guess it's my own fault that the stage allows this to happen.

 

[Arcansi]

I deliberately play Picto "Wrong" to force its effects to hinder the match and make it unplayable for the opponent as well as myself. I guess it's my own fault that the stage allows this to happen.

Because whoever you play can easily stop good planking within 5 seconds of it starting?

 

[T-block]

The ghost rises 6-10 seconds after its previous descent. It stays for 2-5 seconds.

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=305369

Arcansi, please refrain from mentioning how people "should" play on Pictochat. You don't understand the stage enough (I'm not sure even I understand the stage enough) to be making such claims, and I don't have time to correct you =P