Proposed Ruleset for Smash 4 Tournaments

[κomıc]

I hope the neutral stages aren't bland.

 

[Ghostbone]

To combat the tornado you basically walk away from the nado, run forward, shield and tilt your shield up so it doesn't shield poke, and then spot dodge at the appropriate time and punish when you are out of your spot dodge (leaving your shield up after costs you precious frames, so time your spot dodge correctly).

You can't spot-dodge during a fresh nado, you're completely stuck in shield stun.

Preference has not place in a stage list. None. Absolutely none.

Their reasoning is the exact same as yours. Literally the exact same.

"I don't like it, and that's not what I consider an honorable fight". The difference is only that they're just slightly more scrubby than you are. They see someone going off stage and stopping the recovery as a huge roadblock that no one should have to overcome. It doesn't matter to them that others can overcome it; they don't want to deal with it.

You're the exact same. Wario running away? Olimar having trouble on Rainbow Cruise? Boo hoo, this is awful and dumb and I want people to attack each other! No one should have to overcome camping and running out the timer, amirite?

You're an anime convention kid.

If preference has no place in a stage list, I expect you to support temple's legality.
Sonic dittos are still competitive there, just because you don't prefer that style of gameplay doesn't make it not legit, right?

Incorrect. Overswarm corrects his definition. I don't care what Quilt says or thinks. We have a standing definition, I wrote it, it was approved by about 40 people in the BBR and used in tournaments for years.

The stalling rule has, and will continue to be a stupid rule that doesn't actually do anything. (we explicitly ban stalling techniques like IDC or Peach bomber, that's how it's always been, the stalling rule is just a failsafe that confuses people because "Stalling" as defined under that is different from what most people would consider stalling)
Like, waiting out transformations on PS1 is stalling the game.
That's not bannable, under your definition it isn't stalling but it's still what stalling means, the rule's just confusing.

There's no honor. You chaingrab, you edgeguard, you camp, you spam projectiles, you pick the best stages possible, and you do it over and over again until you're shown to be so unstoppable that a legislative body has to stop you.

That's competition.

Why don't circle camping, abusing caves of life, and getting lucky (oh wait you support pictochat so I guess it does) fall under Brawl's "competition"
Because you don't like those aspects of the game?
Well guess what we don't like stages giving character's free punishes they didn't earn being legal.

Look at Falco! Falco is a HORRIBLE character. His recovery sucks in Brawl, his primary method of dealing damage early game is getting a grab at low %, he can't fight anyone on the edge, and he has serious trouble landing kill moves.

Trolling won't help get your point across
Falco has amazing tools (laser, oh god laser is amazing, jab, chain-grab, spike, aerial frame traps, side-b mix-ups, his recovery's far better than Diddy or Snake or Marth or Olimar fyi) and the best camping in the game (especially since he can reflect any projectiles from someone else camping).

Someone says "I think Rumble Falls should be legal"? You say "Oh, that'd be fun. But did you know that there are segments that characters like Bowser and Donkey Kong can't survive? If they stage goes "speed up" randomly while they are in hitstun of any sort, there are segments that will prevent them from rising fast enough to make it."

Rofl
According to you we just shouldn't pick bad characters like Bowser or Donkey Kong. (like, that's literally been your response to polar matchups on other stages)
And fyi, they can easily survive if they just learn to platform cancel everywhere on the stage, clearly the stage must be fine right?

The liberal mindset is so weird, your argument is essentially "Well we disagree on banning this stage, so it must be legit"
Since when you present reasons to legalise it, that can then be applied to Rumble Falls or Temple, your argument against that is just "Oh but we all agree that's a terrible stage so it's ok to ban it"
I don't see why you'd ban Rumble Falls and not RC.
Speed up? Don't pick a bad character that can't handle it, or learn how to platform cancel efficiently, and there's a warning, so you can plan for it right? Just like Norfair.

So many esteemed members have flocked to this thread, this is how I always imagined the backroom.

The backroom's filled with randoms, rofl.

 

[ぱみゅ]

I hope the neutral stages aren't bland.

Isn't "bland" what most people understand as "neutral" anyway?

 

[salaboB]

Why don't circle camping, abusing caves of life, and getting lucky (oh wait you support pictochat so I guess it does) fall under Brawl's "competition"
Because you don't like those aspects of the game?
Well guess what we don't like stages giving character's free punishes they didn't earn being legal.

Having the stage control to ensure you're in the safe place when bad things happen and your opponent isn't is not a free punish. Your viewpoint is incorrect, you earn that stage hazard being successful by putting your opponent into a place where they can be hit by it.

If they're so bad that all you have to do is fight them normally and they'll just walk into hazards for you, then they suicided. We don't have a rule against people intentionally walking off the edge, do we?

Trolling won't help get your point across
Falco has amazing tools (laser, oh god laser is amazing, jab, chain-grab, spike, aerial frame traps, side-b mix-ups, his recovery's far better than Diddy or Snake or Marth or Olimar fyi) and the best camping in the game (especially since he can reflect any projectiles from someone else camping).

Exaggerating won't help you get your point across, either. There's a reason Falco is considered worse than everyone you just listed as him having a better recovery than.

In fact, all the things you listed are probably the only reason he is so high on the tier list -- it lets him beat up characters with even fewer options.

 

[Ghostbone]

Having the stage control to ensure you're in the safe place when bad things happen and your opponent isn't is not a free punish. Your viewpoint is incorrect, you earn that stage hazard being successful by putting your opponent into a place where they can be hit by it.

No you're wrong, rofl.
I'm not even talking about stage hazards there, and plenty of those are random, you put your opponent in a place where they can be hit by it? Well that's only because the stage randomly decided to have a wall of lava on the left side instead of the right side.

My point is referring to moving camera stages like RC.
There's nothing Olimar or Diddy or Falco or Snake or even G&W or Wario can do to prevent MK (doesn't have to be MK, can be anyone with superior mobility than you on the stage) from staying ahead of them with his superior movement options and forcing them to approach/commit to an option, and punish accordingly. Some characters handle that situation better than others, but it's still a disadvantage you can do nothing about that your opponent did nothing to earn.

If they're so bad that all you have to do is fight them normally and they'll just walk into hazards for you, then they suicided. We don't have a rule against people intentionally walking off the edge, do we?

Huh?
Of course nobody walks into hazards
But when a giant fireball comes at you from the background so you have to shield (lol Norfair), and then your opponent gets free shield pressure from that just because they got lucky, that's not at all fair.

Exaggerating won't help you get your point across, either. There's a reason Falco is considered worse than everyone you just listed as him having a better recovery than.

It's because he has 2 bad matchups, since he just can't handle ICs well (very grounded, aerials aren't safe on shield, no way to split them up from afar like Diddy or Snake), and get's chain-grabbed to kill %s by Pikachu.
Falco arguably has an advantage vs everyone besides MK/ICs/Pika (Marth's probably even though)
He's a really strong character, considered top 4 for the longest time (before the rise of ICs basically)

In fact, all the things you listed are probably the only reason he is so high on the tier list -- it lets him beat up characters with even fewer options.

........That goes for literally every high tier in the game?
They're good because they have really good tools, that help compensate for their weaknesses and abuse other character's weaknesses.
So yes, everyone who's high on the tier list is high because they can "beat up characters with even fewer (or worse) options", that's what makes them good characters rofl.

 

[MopedOfJustice]

Can we add anime convention kids to that list?

Yup

 

[MopedOfJustice]

So many esteemed members have flocked to this thread, this is how I always imagined the backroom.

I know, were you excited when you saw my name here? lol

EDIT: Not that I intend to try, but how does one achieve backroom-ness? If Eli/Luigi/ConfusedDK/Whatever-he-is can get in, it must not be that hard.
(Note: Being that I'm confused about his name, Eli may be someone else, and I don't want to offend or annoy a respected member of the community, so sorry if it's wrong.)

Another EDIT: Why is OS so fixated on Anime Convention Kids? My thinking is that there is some subliminal, acronym based connection that makes him associate than with something he hates.
For possible OS phobias to be used against him in the future, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACK
I also see it as being possible he had a bad experience as a kid. Perhaps playing in an SSB tournament at an anime convention (IDK his age, so it's a shot in the dark) and he spiked someone while they were recovering, and that someone was a small child who, shocked at his cruelty, screamed "YOU CAN'T DO THAT!" and runs off crying. OS is booed away by people accusing him of bullying, and he forever carries this pain in his heart, meteoring whenever possible, because anyone who complains might be that child who caused him so much suffering all those years ago. If it is, then he can take his revenge, if it isn't, it may as well be.

All of that may seem stupid, arbitrary and childish, but that's because it is, but no more than calling someone something they aren't over the internet for vaguely resembling an arbitrary archetype that I made up.

(Lastly, OS, I'm actually on your side of the debate, and mean no personal insult, I just felt the need to lighten the thread a little.)

 

[κomıc]

Isn't "bland" what most people understand as "neutral" anyway?

Pretty much... I never liked how the competetive scene has turned Smash Bros. into this "serious" fighting game. I like diverse stages and enjoyed how a handful of stages in Brawl wanted to get rid of you with stage changes and hazards. It makes it more fun because you're always on your toes. Never liked the campiness of Brawl.

Anyhow, I hope the neutral stages are visually appealing and not so generic. I would also love the option of turning "gimmicks" on and off. 40 stages in Brawl and only like 8 were allowed to be played on- often, 3 of them are consistently chosen. I would like to fight in the various worlds represented in the game. Not Final Destination or Smashville all day :l

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

But when a giant fireball comes at you from the background so you have to shield (lol Norfair), and then your opponent gets free shield pressure from that just because they got lucky, that's not at all fair.

It may not be at Allfair, but is Norfair.

 

[smashbrolink]

I hope the neutral stages aren't bland.

If we let the 1% who absolutely **** at the game decide what is and isn't allowed, then we're certain to end up with mostly flat stages, maybe a couple with stationary/slightly moving platforms, as the main-stays of competitive play.
Again.

Until we find a way of changing the mind-set towards stages with lots of hazards and random elements, we won't be seeing many of the more interesting stages getting used in competitive play.
And since that's not going to happen, barring some sort of earth-shattering miracle, we might as well make a choice here and now:
Get used to the idea that competitive play stages will always be the blandest of the bunch, or avoid official competitive play like the plague and go with the smaller, alternative-tournament crowd that some people on these boards are going to make an effort to set up once the new game is out.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Is a good thing Smash 4 is a new beginning isn't it?
I may actually have a substantial input there, instead of here where I pretty much am just an added number. I just have to insist hard enough.

Currently the BBR has been kicking people out of inactivity (at least they did it once or twice since I joined), but it isn't very noticeable as, well, Brawl is pretty much dying.

As for the formats, I really believe third-parties have to be able to look at the site and find a very simplistic ruleset they can remember and follow even when they don't know anything about the game (better to follow that than to just say "this ruleset is too long, we'll just go FD-only, 5-stock matches!").
The advanced format would be supposed to be directed to more experienced COMMUNITIES that know what they are doing and are able to translate their "basics" to a more complex scenario. If a TO or community as a whole doesn't want to follow a more complex ruleset, is their fault (and their loss, in case they travel to a big one using the advanced format). At least, that's how I idealize it.

Also, another ideal is to have actual data and feedback for every tournament and result used, the more feedback the more useful the S4BR will be, as we WILL have the tools to work, unlike in Brawl where it was all about pleasing the whiny masses, which included the disbanding of the URC and everyone adopting the Meta Knight infested metagame.

Hopefully, HOPEFULLY Smash 4 can mean a new beginning where the Backroom can begin do things well done.

The only big issue I saw here was S4BR.

S3DSBR and SWiiUBR please. A ton of top players are already laughing off the 3DS version in every way, without a room for itself no one is going to truly take it seriously, and you are going to need a ruleset for the game separate from the Wii U game as well, and I don't want that randomly decided on possibly by people who are only playing the Wii U version.

And as mentioned before, I do hope the BR will consider opening up at least a few spots for "new blood" where people could apply to join the BR who are incredibly invested in the game. Possibly have a way for them to prove themselves by showing they can present data from a previous game in a guide of some sort, or find some other good way to judge. Some people won't have hosted tons of tournaments or been placing first at every event, they came here just to make a name in a Sm4sh game. Let them have a shot at it.

As for the ideal of having more data to work with, PLEASE PM me. I am working currently on a project that will be able to collect and present data from brackets at tournaments. (The current goal is to at least be able to run it with double elim and round robin pools to try and show it at Apex, then add some other not as often used formats like Swiss and single elim after depending on how fast we can program it.) I have a feeling this could be a MAJOR asset to the BR and if I could ask members what features would make it better for them and TOs in general, it could be an even more massive success. I'd love the chance to talk with someone before we get too much further into the project.

 

[Overswarm]

Don't forget when OS said (2-3 posts above) that knives increase a murder rate as much as guns, and that you have a choice to be Christian, but not to follow the "Ten Commandments," when in fact the opposite is true on all three accounts (with some exceptions to the second). He likely put several other things in there, but I gave up trying to read novels of straw man dialogue.
EDIT: He also mentioned Slavery, women's rights and child labor: "Slavery used to be too. Jim Crow laws, women can't vote, women can't hold office, women can't preach, children have to work, etc., were all preference-based, not evidence-based. Good argument for me."
I think that "These are humans" as evidence along with the logic "treat humans as humans unless you have a reason not to (on an individual basis)" is fairly objective, or at least logical with or without bias.

This is why I have so much trouble. This Moped guy gets angry about agreeing with me. I know reading comprehension is difficult, but I mean come on. How little do you have to care to read:

Do you go to church and say "Well, this is all preference, isn't it? What we say the 10 commandments are is just a choice!" because attending church was a choice made by preference. An existing concept is not defined by the methods of approaching that concept, nor can you redefine that concept by the factors existing within it.

And come out the other side saying "He thinks believing in the 10 commandments is just a choice for Christians!"

I mean what the hell. That paragraph literally said the exact opposite and was in a specific context that happened to have neon arrows pointing at it.

 

[Ulevo]

If we let the 1% who absolutely **** at the game decide what is and isn't allowed, then we're certain to end up with mostly flat stages, maybe a couple with stationary/slightly moving platforms, as the main-stays of competitive play.
Again.

Until we find a way of changing the mind-set towards stages with lots of hazards and random elements, we won't be seeing many of the more interesting stages getting used in competitive play.
And since that's not going to happen, barring some sort of earth-shattering miracle, we might as well make a choice here and now:
Get used to the idea that competitive play stages will always be the blandest of the bunch, or avoid official competitive play like the plague and go with the smaller, alternative-tournament crowd that some people on these boards are going to make an effort to set up once the new game is out.

Or you could try to actually be good at the game, establish some credentials, and when defending your perspective come up with some cohesive, logical arguments that are both reasonable and agreeable.

Unfortunately I'm not seeing that in this thread. I'm mostly seeing mile long posts about nothing. If you can't convey the importance of something concisely, and have to resort to religious analogies to get your point across because all else has failed, it's usually the sign of a failed discussion.

I'm not even sure why people are still talking about this.

 

[MopedOfJustice]

This is why I have so much trouble. This Moped guy gets angry about agreeing with me. I know reading comprehension is difficult, but I mean come on. How little do you have to care to read:





And come out the other side saying "He thinks believing in the 10 commandments is just a choice for Christians!"

I mean what the hell. That paragraph literally said the exact opposite and was in a specific context that happened to have neon arrows pointing at it.

I'm not sure what the difficulty is with the last bit, but, if it makes you feel better, I'm not angry about anything. You'd have to try pretty hard to illicit any sort of emotional reaction from me outside of a laugh or an exasperated sigh, being that this is a forum about a videogame.
To clarify about the 10 commandments and church thing: You said that it is a choice to be Christian, but not one to, if you are Christian, follow the 10 commandments. I said that the opposite is largely true for the following reasons:
Most people stay in the religion they were raised in for their entire life, because they were essentially programed to think X deity is real, no matter what. For this reason I say that religions, especially the obsessively indoctrinating ones, aren't a choice. This is under the assumption that you meant "Go to church" interchangeably with "Be a Christian," though, in retrospect, it could just be that you think of Christianity as a universal default, and you meant "Go to church" as literally going to church, on the assumption that your hypothetical person is Christian. Due to the analogy with "joining tournaments" or whatever it was, the latter case seems unlikely but is possible.
And for the 10 commandments: I often questioned Christians about their religion, specifically cherry picking things like rules. I found that many Christians believe that Jesus's 2 rules (Love God and thy neighbor) are the rules Christians must follow (apparently loving something doesn't imply not murdering it, but I digress). Whether or not a Christian adheres to the 2 rules, most don't see the 10 as still being mandatory, preferring to think of the New Testament as a whole somehow vaguely overwriting rules the don't like in the Old Testament. Not to mention, what with all the sects there are, there is no universal anything that all Christians follow.
Also, about me not reading enough to suit your tastes: I read large posts all the way though, if they are independent or use just a couple of quotes, but when they build some sort of artificial conversation, or the poster feels the need to answer 20 different posts separately by saying the same thing 20 times, I don't read that. The insults don't help it either.

EDIT: I did not say that you think the 10Cs (yes, I just called them that) are a choice, my complaint was that you said just the opposite, so you may have misread something, or I may have not been clear enough. Tell me what confused you and I can edit it or something.

 

[Overswarm]

Or you could try to actually be good at the game, establish some credentials, and when defending your perspective come up with some cohesive, logical arguments that are both reasonable and agreeable.

Unfortunately I'm not seeing that in this thread. I'm mostly seeing mile long posts about nothing. If you can't convey the importance of something concisely, and have to resort to religious analogies to get your point across because all else has failed, it's usually the sign of a failed discussion.

I'm not even sure why people are still talking about this.

Because logic doesn't work.

You want concise?

The largest pool of players are those that play with default settings, but this has trouble creating a competitive environment due to a combination of overcentralization and random results on with various items and stages and techniques. Since our goal is to have large tournaments and a healthy community everywhere, not just one big tournament every year or so, we should do what we can to entice as many players as possible while simultaneously having a skill-based environment.

To do this, we simply leave everything legal until it shows it needs to be banned, then ban it. We can ban anything on the merits of overcentralization or if they produce random results, but other than that they are competitively viable. We have already seen that there are leagues of players out there who love smash and would love to play in tournaments but abhor the "No Items, Fox Only, Final Destination" mentality and voluntarily remove themselves from the community within a few months of play


Sounds logical to me, and I could go into detail on every point. Problem is, some people say "Well I don't want certain things and we should have only what I and people like me want" and seriously believe they aren't being illogical.

You want a 10 word response to a complicated question? You can have it, but you can't ask questions because then it isn't a 10 word response.

"Only banning things with evidence makes for a healthier community"

Complicated questions require complicated answers. When the guy with the mewtwo avatar says "But WHO is to say what is best?" and doesn't realize that there IS an obvious best, you have to explain it slowly and carefully. Lots of people aren't bright enough to understand the underlying features, many don't even stop to think about it. Hell, even after explaining it I doubt many of the people in this thread could explain the difference between choosing Time and Stocks.

Sometimes those take walls, so you can explain details. Analogies are meant to explain fundamental concepts in a different light so that you can say "ohhhhhhhh, okay" when you aren't looking at it through a biased lens. If a vegetarian wanted me to see the eating meat was cruel, simply saying "eating meat is cruel" wouldn't do it, but describing a situation where humans were being cultivated for their meat would be something that would make me look at it in a different view. Na mean?

 

[Overswarm]

I'm not sure what the difficulty is with the last bit, but, if it makes you feel better, I'm not angry about anything. You'd have to try pretty hard to illicit any sort of emotional reaction from me outside of a laugh or an exasperated sigh, being that this is a forum about a videogame.
To clarify about the 10 commandments and church thing: You said that it is a choice to be Christian, but not one to, if you are Christian, follow the 10 commandments. I said that the opposite is largely true for the following reasons:
Most people stay in the religion they were raised in for their entire life, because they were essentially programed to think X deity is real, no matter what. For this reason I say that religions, especially the obsessively indoctrinating ones, aren't a choice. This is under the assumption that you meant "Go to church" interchangeably with "Be a Christian," though, in retrospect, it could just be that you think of Christianity as a universal default, and you meant "Go to church" as literally going to church, on the assumption that your hypothetical person is Christian. Due to the analogy with "joining tournaments" or whatever it was, the latter case seems unlikely but is possible.
And for the 10 commandments: I often questioned Christians about their religion, specifically cherry picking things like rules. I found that many Christians believe that Jesus's 2 rules (Love God and thy neighbor) are the rules Christians must follow (apparently loving something doesn't imply not murdering it, but I digress). Whether or not a Christian adheres to the 2 rules, most don't see the 10 as still being mandatory, preferring to think of the New Testament as a whole somehow vaguely overwriting rules the don't like in the Old Testament. Not to mention, what with all the sects there are, there is no universal anything that all Christians follow.
Also, about me not reading enough to suit your tastes: I read large posts all the way though, if they are independent or use just a couple of quotes, but when they build some sort of artificial conversation, or the poster feels the need to answer 20 different posts separately by saying the same thing 20 times, I don't read that. The insults don't help it either.

EDIT: I did not say that you think the 10Cs (yes, I just called them that) are a choice, my complaint was that you said just the opposite, so you may have misread something, or I may have not been clear enough. Tell me what confused you and I can edit it or something.

HOLY ****

I just explained to you that that is the opposite of what I said.

I did not say "it is a choice to be a christian, but not to follow the 10 commandments if you are a Christian". I literally said the exact opposite. As in every way shape and form. Do you think Swift was proposing we eat babies too?

What in the world do you think you're reading? If you have trouble parsing something just ask.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

...we might as well make a choice here and now: Get used to the idea that competitive play stages will always be the blandest of the bunch, or avoid official competitive play like the plague and go with the smaller, alternative-tournament crowd that some people on these boards are going to make an effort to set up once the new game is out.

Here's a novel idea for you: The vast majority of people aren't playing competitively for the stages.

If we let the 1% who absolutely **** at the game decide what is and isn't allowed, then we're certain to end up with mostly flat stages ...as the main-stays of competitive play. Until we find a way of changing the mind-set towards stages with lots of hazards and random elements, we won't be seeing many of the more interesting stages getting used in competitive play.

Expecting or even asking a competitive community that has been around significantly longer than your stake in it has to change their minds about something they've established is bad form not just on Smashboards but everywhere. They've got a lot more invested than you, it shouldn't just be the choice of some new people who will eventually become good themselves and arrive at the same conclusions. Suppose you think another sport is boring because of some element and needs a change, like how the pieces in Chess don't have HP, or the game isn't played in real-time, or the game would just be more fun on a bigger board and without rooks. You have your own right to play a game any way you want to but you can't hope to change a format that evolved for a specific kind of play long before you probably even knew it existed.

 

[nat pagle]

Here's a novel idea for you: The vast majority of people aren't playing competitively for the stages.

I wonder if those 135k live viewers from EVO were just there for the Dreamland, FD, and Battlefield stages and not there for the fighting.

Expecting or even asking a competitive community that has been around longer than your stake in it has to change their minds about something they've established is bad form not just on Smashboards but everywhere. They've got a lot more invested than you, it shouldn't just be the choice of some new people who will eventually become good themselves and arrive at the same conclusions. Suppose you think another sport is boring because of some element and needs a change, like how the pieces in don't have HP, or the game isn't played in real-time, or the game would just be more fun on a bigger board and without rooks. You have your own right to play a game any way you want to but you can't hope to change a format that evolved for a specific kind of play long before you probably even knew it existed.

I don't think the guy you're responding to even understands why stages with hazards and random elements get banned anyways. The random factors are blatantly banned because the competition will be taken away from because a random function might benefit a player simply at random instead of taking skill into account. That's why items are banned, if stages with random properties are allowed, why not items?

Hazards are quite similar, they impede upon the skill of the players and often times benefit certain characters over others. And you can't simply just tell everyone "well, you should have came up with a strat to overcome it". That's just a weak cop out instead of actually addresses horrible match ups.

And it's not just the 1% that decides this stuff. At any noteworthy and almost all small time tournaments, items and certain stages will be banned. Or else it'll just be a joke of a tournament decided by random factors and not skill.

 

[MopedOfJustice]

HOLY ****

I just explained to you that that is the opposite of what I said.

I did not say "it is a choice to be a christian, but not to follow the 10 commandments if you are a Christian". I literally said the exact opposite. As in every way shape and form. Do you think Swift was proposing we eat babies too?

What in the world do you think you're reading? If you have trouble parsing something just ask.

The quote I was referencing was:
Do you go to church and say "Well, this is all preference, isn't it? What we say the 10 commandments are is just a choice!" because attending church was a choice made by preference. An existing concept is not defined by the methods of approaching that concept, nor can you redefine that concept by the factors existing within it.
I understand, looking at it again, what you meant in the 10Cs part. Technically, what I interpreted it as was more "unrelated" than "the exact opposite" of what you meant.
I took "attending church was a choice made by preference" as being synonymous with "being Christian was a choice made by preference."
I apologize for offending your delicate sensibilities, "this Moped guy" was rather tired due to the lateness of the hour (or, more accurately, the earliness of the hour, given that it was AM, not PM). Still, that is no excuse for misunderstanding someone and then writing an argumentative comment based upon that misunderstanding, so I hope that you can start on the road to recovery once your fit of self-righteous indignation stops.
If you want to be even more offended though, it appears you may have missed the second edit to my comment, this time on you Anime Convention Kid fixation. Given that it was written even later than the previous disgrace, I wouldn't be surprised if it was, in fact, someone else who has said fixation, in which case you can ignore it. EDIT: It's in a different comment.
I hope I have reformed my offensive and unrelenting ignorance of the true meaning behind your analogies to the point that your next helpful word of advice to the new guy won't start with "HOLY****."

 

[Ulevo]

Because logic doesn't work.

You want concise?

The largest pool of players are those that play with default settings, but this has trouble creating a competitive environment due to a combination of overcentralization and random results on with various items and stages and techniques. Since our goal is to have large tournaments and a healthy community everywhere, not just one big tournament every year or so, we should do what we can to entice as many players as possible while simultaneously having a skill-based environment.

To do this, we simply leave everything legal until it shows it needs to be banned, then ban it. We can ban anything on the merits of overcentralization or if they produce random results, but other than that they are competitively viable. We have already seen that there are leagues of players out there who love smash and would love to play in tournaments but abhor the "No Items, Fox Only, Final Destination" mentality and voluntarily remove themselves from the community within a few months of play


Sounds logical to me, and I could go into detail on every point. Problem is, some people say "Well I don't want certain things and we should have only what I and people like me want" and seriously believe they aren't being illogical.

You want a 10 word response to a complicated question? You can have it, but you can't ask questions because then it isn't a 10 word response.

"Only banning things with evidence makes for a healthier community"

Complicated questions require complicated answers. When the guy with the mewtwo avatar says "But WHO is to say what is best?" and doesn't realize that there IS an obvious best, you have to explain it slowly and carefully. Lots of people aren't bright enough to understand the underlying features, many don't even stop to think about it. Hell, even after explaining it I doubt many of the people in this thread could explain the difference between choosing Time and Stocks.

Sometimes those take walls, so you can explain details. Analogies are meant to explain fundamental concepts in a different light so that you can say "ohhhhhhhh, okay" when you aren't looking at it through a biased lens. If a vegetarian wanted me to see the eating meat was cruel, simply saying "eating meat is cruel" wouldn't do it, but describing a situation where humans were being cultivated for their meat would be something that would make me look at it in a different view. Na mean?

If logic isn't working, it does not invalidate the process of using logic. Your thoughts, when conveyed to others, need a connect-the-dots A-B-C-D approach so people can understand the sequence of your ideas and feelings. That's the only way people can sympathize with you unless whats being discussed is so simple that its implied.

This post of yours is reminiscent of a lot of Pokemon talk on Smogon. In Generation V, Smogon adopted a "innocent until proven guilty" approach with a lot of their Uber Pokemon. Not all of them, but some of them. The idea was to test them and see if they were fit to play in OU as dominant, but non-broken threats. They did this by releasing all the Pokemon they deemed as suspect in to the standard environment from the get-go. The result of this was that essentially it wasted a lot of time, and the Pokemon they let become OU eventually became banned, and wound up becoming the source of a lot of debate and arguing. It also made it difficult to discern what the meta was supposed to look like, and by extension, what new Pokemon should be suspect tested and voted as OU or Uber in the tier.

Your idea of allowing everything to be legalized follows the same train of thought, and it comes with the same problems and consequences. It sounds like a good idea on paper, but it isn't pragmatic. Much like our own community, Smogon and the Pokemon community ban aspects of the game based on two conditions; broken aspects of the game, and aspects that promote luck based elements, or conditions that deviate from competitive, fair play. Allowing things like items would be a waste of time because it would simply be eliminated later for the latter half. As for allowing all stages, we will wind up experiencing similar problems that Gen V OU did. There are stages that are blatantly uncompetitive, and do not need to be debated over. As such, to save time and unnecessary squabbling, they should be removed from the start.

The problem with your approach to this topic Overswarm is that you assume that the establishment currently in place disagrees with you because "thats not how they like it", and seek to discredit you based on that merit. In turn, that makes it equally easy for you to turn around and tell the establishment that they're wrong, illogical, and don't make sense. And you know what? There's a lot of players out there who are with the establishment, that represent its numbers, that can't argue worth their life. This however, unfortunately for you, does not mean there are not logical reasons for why the rulesets are processed the way they are, and why certain stages are legal versus the ones that are not.

I also disagree that complicated questions require complicated answers. Usually this is not the case. If you're having to complicate your explanation to try and explain it to people who can't understand you, then your argument is lost on them because they're either too blind or you've approached the topic incorrectly.

 

[Overswarm]

The problem with your approach to this topic Overswarm is that you assume that the establishment currently in place disagrees with you because "thats not how they like it", and seek to discredit you based on that merit. In turn, that makes it equally easy for you to turn around and tell the establishment that they're wrong, illogical, and don't make sense. And you know what? There's a lot of players out there who are with the establishment, that represent its numbers, that can't argue worth their life. This however, unfortunately for you, does not mean there are not logical reasons for why the rulesets are processed the way they are, and why certain stages are legal versus the ones that are not.

I was part of the group that created the Unity ruleset and wrote the language for many of the rules. I was one of the original proposers of the stage striking system (I think UTD Zac was the first? I don't remember). I was there at Brawl's release and for most of Melee's, and I saw firsthand why people voted the way they did. "I haven't played on the stage and I don't care to. We don't play on the stage so it should be banned, simple as that" isn't an exaggeration.

It literally is "that's not how they like it". That's not an opinion or a guess, they told me. The TOs and BBR members that voted for certain stages to be banned said verbatim that it wasn't important as to whether it was broken or not. Even when they tried, they'd say silly things like "You can just camp the walk-off edge of the slope on Distant Planet and get a ton of cheap kills", which to anyone who has played the stage knows that doesn't work.

 

[Ulevo]

I'm sorry you haven't had the chance to talk to people who make legitimate cases for their perspectives. This is me telling you they exists.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

I'm sorry you haven't had the chance to talk to people who make legitimate cases for their perspectives. This is me telling you they exists.

He has, he's just taking the "All X are bad" position.

 

[Chiroz]

"We should do what we can to entice as many players as possible while simultaneously having a skill-based environment." - Overswarm



Skill is a very vague term.

There is a vast amount of different skills, even some that have to do with random elements or unimportant characteristics.

One must clearly define which skills the environment will be based around in order to be able to gauge correctly said skills.

After this a ruleset is then created and molded with the goal of helping promote the use and importance of said defined skills.

This ruleset is then enforced to simplify the act of measuring just how adept a player is at these skills.




The act of defining which skills we will base our environment around is completely based on preference.

Am I doing this right Ulevo or is there something completely wrong or illogical with my argument?

 

[Mr.Showtime]

Actually I want to bring up a topic that Overswarm brought up, sorry ahead of time if I am going off topic. OS said that allowing more stages in the competitive scene will bring more people in. Honestly it might for the people who are casual-competitive. The thing is, we are going to lose way more than what we receive if that becomes the standerized rules.

To add on to that, how do we get more people? The answer is simple. Advertise. Inform people of smashboards.com. How do we did we so that? The answer to that is right on the front page...streaming. That will get us more people in the scene than any other approach. To back up my claim there has been melee and brawl streams that now hold a viewer count up to 500+. This number was lower than 100 pre-Evo2013.

 

[Ulevo]

OS said that allowing more stages in the competitive scene will bring more people in. Honestly it might for the people who are casual-competitive. The thing is, we are going to lose way more than what we receive if that becomes the standerized rules.

 

[metalmonstar]

If logic isn't working, it does not invalidate the process of using logic. Your thoughts, when conveyed to others, need a connect-the-dots A-B-C-D approach so people can understand the sequence of your ideas and feelings. That's the only way people can sympathize with you unless whats being discussed is so simple that its implied.

This post of yours is reminiscent of a lot of Pokemon talk on Smogon. In Generation V, Smogon adopted a "innocent until proven guilty" approach with a lot of their Uber Pokemon. Not all of them, but some of them. The idea was to test them and see if they were fit to play in OU as dominant, but non-broken threats. They did this by releasing all the Pokemon they deemed as suspect in to the standard environment from the get-go. The result of this was that essentially it wasted a lot of time, and the Pokemon they let become OU eventually became banned, and wound up becoming the source of a lot of debate and arguing. It also made it difficult to discern what the meta was supposed to look like, and by extension, what new Pokemon should be suspect tested and voted as OU or Uber in the tier.

Your idea of allowing everything to be legalized follows the same train of thought, and it comes with the same problems and consequences. It sounds like a good idea on paper, but it isn't pragmatic. Much like our own community, Smogon and the Pokemon community ban aspects of the game based on two conditions; broken aspects of the game, and aspects that promote luck based elements, or conditions that deviate from competitive, fair play. Allowing things like items would be a waste of time because it would simply be eliminated later for the latter half. As for allowing all stages, we will wind up experiencing similar problems that Gen V OU did. There are stages that are blatantly uncompetitive, and do not need to be debated over. As such, to save time and unnecessary squabbling, they should be removed from the start.

The problem with your approach to this topic Overswarm is that you assume that the establishment currently in place disagrees with you because "thats not how they like it", and seek to discredit you based on that merit. In turn, that makes it equally easy for you to turn around and tell the establishment that they're wrong, illogical, and don't make sense. And you know what? There's a lot of players out there who are with the establishment, that represent its numbers, that can't argue worth their life. This however, unfortunately for you, does not mean there are not logical reasons for why the rulesets are processed the way they are, and why certain stages are legal versus the ones that are not.

I also disagree that complicated questions require complicated answers. Usually this is not the case. If you're having to complicate your explanation to try and explain it to people who can't understand you, then your argument is lost on them because they're either too blind or you've approached the topic incorrectly.

I have always found the suspect testing pretty time consuming and only to have the same suspects appear again in a later testing.There were still a lot of debates, theory crafting, and upset players at the end of it.

My opinion though that it would be better to test things than to just ban things. This way we do what has some data and meaning behind it. It is become a problem that a lot of the decisions we make are based on the wrong reasons such as opinion and preference. We did have a standardized item play. Also I believe Keits tried an All Brawl format where everything was legal. One who just need to up the stocks and rounds in order to ensure that tournaments still show who the best player is. I think taking this approach will help new players get into the scene. They will be able to see the metagame and ruleset change as they happen rather than looking on the outside and disagreeing with what we do and how we do it.

 

[[Corn]]

I have always found the suspect testing pretty time consuming and only to have the same suspects appear again in a later testing.There were still a lot of debates, theory crafting, and upset players at the end of it.

My opinion though that it would be better to test things than to just ban things. This way we do what has some data and meaning behind it. It is become a problem that a lot of the decisions we make are based on the wrong reasons such as opinion and preference. We did have a standardized item play. Also I believe Keits tried an All Brawl format where everything was legal. One who just need to up the stocks and rounds in order to ensure that tournaments still show who the best player is. I think taking this approach will help new players get into the scene. They will be able to see the metagame and ruleset change as they happen rather than looking on the outside and disagreeing with what we do and how we do it.

New players will get frusterated because generally all players who play comp gravitate towards winning or tactics that help them win through all means, especially during the initial phases. Its by far more frustrating to have a huge beneficial option taken away from you after long use then have one added in later due to testing or leniency.


If you dont believe this, you should ask any Brawl player why MK isnt Banned yet he is still considered the face of imbalance in Brawl.

 

[Ulevo]

I have always found the suspect testing pretty time consuming and only to have the same suspects appear again in a later testing.There were still a lot of debates, theory crafting, and upset players at the end of it.

My opinion though that it would be better to test things than to just ban things. This way we do what has some data and meaning behind it. It is become a problem that a lot of the decisions we make are based on the wrong reasons such as opinion and preference. We did have a standardized item play. Also I believe Keits tried an All Brawl format where everything was legal. One who just need to up the stocks and rounds in order to ensure that tournaments still show who the best player is. I think taking this approach will help new players get into the scene. They will be able to see the metagame and ruleset change as they happen rather than looking on the outside and disagreeing with what we do and how we do it.

The majority of players who disagree with what 'we' do do so on a casual consensus, simply because they don't understand.

I remember the first time I had an experience with a casual player as a tournament player myself. My girlfriend at the time was living is res, and the dorm keeper played Brawl. He heard about me from my girlfriend, and began to boast about how he was the best of his friends, and he could beat me. I decided to investigate because even if he was just being cocky for no real reason he may have been a good player. This to my disappointment wasn't the case. He chose Ike, and we played without a time limit, with all items on. I trounced him pretty badly. First with low tiers, then with my mains. After it was over, I explained I went to tournaments for Smash and that it was a good hobby of mine. He became a lot more humble, and asked me a few things. I explained tiers to him, and how Ike isn't the easiest to use against players who are good. I explained why items are not used, even though I decided to use them initially with him, and why certain stages were banned.

To my delight, he took it all quite well. He had quite a few questions to ask, and he said he would check all of this out. He didn't reject what I said to him on face value, and that's probably because it was handled well and explained to him. Not all experiences between veteran or experienced players and newcomers will be this way, and sometimes it will create a stigma. Ultimately it comes down to the maturity between the two players; the experienced players ability to be patient and offer and teach at the right pace, and the newcomers ability to be open minded and enthusiastic about what they're learning.

This is not the responsibility of the ruleset, this is the responsibility of the players. The ruleset has its own obligations, and thats to conform to the ideals of what makes a balanced, fair experience that promotes competition. Everything else is secondary.

 

[LiteralGrill]

It'd be nice when decisions were being made to have a bit more transparency as well, and a ton more activity. The last BBR stage votes had only 20 something of the 50 members even vote. On top of this, I'd like to see something like the Supreme Court does, let's have each member who votes write out why they personally voted for their decision, and go Australia where if you don't vote you get "fined" (kicked out in our case).

People may be more likely to listen then.

 

[Mr.Showtime]

I have always found the suspect testing pretty time consuming and only to have the same suspects appear again in a later testing.There were still a lot of debates, theory crafting, and upset players at the end of it.

My opinion though that it would be better to test things than to just ban things. This way we do what has some data and meaning behind it. It is become a problem that a lot of the decisions we make are based on the wrong reasons such as opinion and preference. We did have a standardized item play. Also I believe Keits tried an All Brawl format where everything was legal. One who just need to up the stocks and rounds in order to ensure that tournaments still show who the best player is. I think taking this approach will help new players get into the scene. They will be able to see the metagame and ruleset change as they happen rather than looking on the outside and disagreeing with what we do and how we do it.

Here's the deal. No one is stopping anyone from playing the game they want to play it. If you are a tournament director, by all means create the tournament the way you want it to be. No one is stopping you from doing that.

Here's the downside to this, depending on the rule-set, not many people might come. If you're trying to gather in a new crowd, you might have luck, but as for veterans it won't be the case.

No one is arguing the legitimacy of Smash4 stages anymore. We don't know the current stages of the next smash. We don't know how the stages will interact with players. Its too early to say things. Will infinite chain-grabs still be in that require 0 to no skill? If so then walk-offs are going to be banned. This is just theory crafting.

What is being discussed is the specific stage bans that are in the current Smash games. Which there has been tests, there has been disagreements, there has been agreements, and the standardized rule set came to what it is now in both Melee and Brawl. These are old games, really old. People know by now what sways away from competitive skill from the stages in these two games. What I don't understand is why people are trying to change the rules that by "majority" of the competitive scene agree with. With REASONS, by the way. The same reasons that we've mentioned a bunch in this very topic. I have never seen anyone use "yea I don't like that stage so it should be banned" besides OS himself (unless a troll sneaked in a post that I missed).

 

[LiteralGrill]

It could be because those conclusion were reached without reason, ignoring data, and changing the discrete win state of the game in a way.

If people now use reason great, but people want to avoid the lack of reason used in the past for sure this time, and not have data ignored.

 

[Mr.Showtime]

It could be because those conclusion were reached without reason, ignoring data, and changing the discrete win state of the game in a way.

If people now use reason great, but people want to avoid the lack of reason used in the past for sure this time, and not have data ignored.

Who is ignoring data? I see this point being brought up a bunch. For every time a stage was mentioned that is currently banned, we gave reasons. Not all the stages named are banned though and are common counter-picks.

Distant Planet = A Counter
Norfair = A Counter
Pokemon Stadium 2 = A Counter

The thing is, some tournament directors decide whether or not to include these in their tournaments. The standardized rules has no control over that. I have no control over that. No one besides the person who is hosting it and decided those rules. Although I disagree with Norfair being a counter due to random elements and stalling by planking. I'd get over it. If someone decides to pick Norfair, I can easily show them how to play on that stage and counter them right back if someone is playing that way to win. If you want to stoop low to those degrees,I will do the same. That is just MY style of playing.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Who is ignoring data? I see this point being brought up a bunch. For every time a stage was mentioned that is currently banned, we gave reasons. Not all the stages named are banned though and are common counter-picks.

Distant Planet = A Counter
Norfair = A Counter
Pokemon Stadium 2 = A Counter

The thing is, some tournament directors decide whether or not to include these in their tournaments. The standardized rules has no control over that. I have no control over that. No one besides the person who is hosting it and decided those rules. Although I disagree with Norfair being a counter due to random elements and stalling by planking. I'd get over it. If someone decides to pick Norfair, I can easily show them how to play on that stage and counter them right back if someone is playing that way to win. If you want to stoop low to those degrees,I will do the same. That is just MY style of playing.

You play somewhere were Distant Planet, Norfair, and PS2 is still legal? Wow, seriously tell me where you're at, I'd consider traveling to play there.

I think people here should get that preference is used at times when we make rules now. It's probably not "right", but we do. But it is annoying to have seen people in the past say "it's stupid" and that be an acceptable answer, and even if that's not how it is now if it's not avoided it will be the future. It is true at one point the majority was for more stages, and they were turned away forever because of how poorly people treated them, and how horrifying people acted in "debates". Not even the largest lovers of smash dedicated to the core want to deal with some of that stuff forever. Brawl's scene might not be as stagnant and dieing had we done things properly, making similar mistakes in Sm4sh games would be terrible.

 

[Mr.Showtime]

I don't think the smash scene for Brawl is dying due to ruleset.

I don't want to start that discussion again in here though. I won't say anymore. Please don't continue that >.<

 

[LiteralGrill]

I don't think the smash scene for Brawl is dying due to ruleset.

I don't want to start that discussion again in here though. I won't say anymore. Please don't continue that >.<

XD Oh I know there are other reasons too, I'd just say those could have been counteracted better with better rules

 

[Eternal Yoshi]

I haven't been able to perfectly organize my thought, but I feel this must be said.

http://smashboards.com/threads/can-we-talk-before-we-try-to-make-a-ruleset-for-this-game.339936/

 

[Eternal Yoshi]

double post.-_-

 

[Mr.Showtime]

I haven't been able to perfectly organize my thought, but I feel this must be said.

http://smashboards.com/threads/can-we-talk-before-we-try-to-make-a-ruleset-for-this-game.339936/

I don't know why you made another post that's basically on topic with this one...its kind of silly. That being said, you should have probably read this whole topic. Everything you asked in there was answered and debated upon in here.

 

[LiteralGrill]

I don't know why you made another post that's basically on topic with this one...its kind of silly. That being said, you should have probably read this whole topic. Everything you asked in there was answered and debated upon in here.

Yeah, this is a good point here.