Proposed Ruleset for Smash 4 Tournaments

[BSP]

It isn't, but it should be. Longterm growth depends on it.

Let's take Wobbling as an example in Melee. It didn't exist as a known tactic, then it did. People said "this is so stupid, it's too easy to do and takes no skill". That had no bearing on anything, but it's what people thought.

"If a group prefer fighting with zero wobbling, I don't see why they shouldn't play that way" fits the same line of thinking, but doesn't make any sense.

Wobbling hasn't been overcentralizing or created random placements. The only guy who has ever done anything notable with it at all has the technique named after him, so I think it's pretty important to note that people were blowing smoke when they said the world was going to end.

But to this day you will find people that want to ban wobbling because "it's dumb".

There's no room for that in a competitive community. The game lacks depth when you don't have a rigid framework that allows for expression of the players. Would Melee be fun if it literally WAS Fox only, Final Destination? Yeah, it'd be fun. But it wouldn't be nearly as big because the depth would be siphoned out. Banning tactics like Wobbling or stages that people just "don't like" removes entire sections of the game that could grow and enhance the metagame, and that's important.

I think you're right, but it won't happen.

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

It's going to need a major revamp.

 

[metalmonstar]

Lol, This topic (and similar topics) will likely continue all the way up until Smash Wii U and Smash 3DS are released. There isn't a way around it and I don't think it is worth really fretting about it unless it gets out of hand.

Glad it seems agreed that for the most part we will try to keep an open mind about Smash4 until it comes out. Just different approaches with likely similar end results. I don't mean to insinuate that we don't ignore data just that we could do a better job of collecting it. Though I do remember like is 2008 or 2009 where Cactuar want Japes banned because he got shield pushed into a clap trap. That really stuck in my mind. There was a good debate but it seemed a bit slanted. I feel there were similar issues in brawl such as Pictochat. In the situations I saw, the evidence was anecdotal but seemed to carry more weight that it should.

Not going to get into whether we should cater to new players or veterans, that is really an entirely different topic. I just think a more open ruleset would be less confusing and more open to them. Lol, I ran events where the players didn't know any better and played on a banned stage. I told them about it and they asked if they should restart. I said, "No you agreed to this stage you will have to play it out."

 

[MopedOfJustice]

Lol, This topic (and similar topics) will likely continue all the way up until Smash Wii U and Smash 3DS are released. There isn't a way around it and I don't think it is worth really fretting about it unless it gets out of hand.

Glad it seems agreed that for the most part we will try to keep an open mind about Smash4 until it comes out. Just different approaches with likely similar end results. I don't mean to insinuate that we don't ignore data just that we could do a better job of collecting it. Though I do remember like is 2008 or 2009 where Cactuar want Japes banned because he got shield pushed into a clap trap. That really stuck in my mind. There was a good debate but it seemed a bit slanted. I feel there were similar issues in brawl such as Pictochat. In the situations I saw, the evidence was anecdotal but seemed to carry more weight that it should.

Not going to get into whether we should cater to new players or veterans, that is really an entirely different topic. I just think a more open ruleset would be less confusing and more open to them. Lol, I ran events where the players didn't know any better and played on a banned stage. I told them about it and they asked if they should restart. I said, "No you agreed to this stage you will have to play it out."

It will get out of hand if we (meaning they, I'm a noob) do nothing about it, and once it gets ou of hand, there will be no way of reversing the momentum.

 

[ぱみゅ]

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.

Waitwaitwaitwait, wait, wait, wait. Wait... Wait....
The game isn't even available yet AND THERE'S ALREADY PEOPLE FROWNING UPON THE OTHER GAME?
Is that Smash as competition is destined to doom because the people that play it always act like idiots?
/rant

 

[LiteralGrill]

Waitwaitwaitwait, wait, wait, wait. Wait... Wait....
The game isn't even available yet AND THERE'S ALREADY PEOPLE FROWNING UPON THE OTHER GAME?
Is that Smash as competition is destined to doom because the people that play it always act like idiots?
/rant

Yeah, now you may understand my semi frantic feelings towards trying to avoid stupid mistakes of the past all over again. ESPECIALLY in having a backroom planned for both. If you have to, just take volunteers for the 3DS room and let them run it themselves, it HAS to have one. Take a look at the 3DS boards and even in various threads around here about some stigmas 3DS Smash already has. It's heartbreaking, as I plan on pouring every ounce of my love for smash into the 3DS version and already see 3DS vs Wii U happening... Sometimes people never learn.

So PLEASE as a backroom member advocate for a room for each. It'd be GREATLY appreciated. At least give 3DS Smash a fighting chance.

 

[ぱみゅ]

It will take some experimentation before we can say the 3DS version deserves a division or not. I would personally love to play both versions.

 

[LiteralGrill]

It will take some experimentation before we can say the 3DS version deserves a division or not. I would personally love to play both versions.

It will need a separate division I promise

Even if it's only the fact that certain stages will only be on one or the other, or that the game will be done fundamentally different in how we plan to run events. Even the smaller screen making things harder to see somehow could effect the meta and rules, you never know. And separate data will probably be taken from separate games, you may even end up with a different meta. It'd be safe to at least set up a small group on that side to make sure the game isn't somehow bashed or sentenced to death from the start with the biases a bunch of top players already have.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

...I do remember... where Cactuar want Japes banned because he got shield pushed into a clap trap. There was a good debate but it seemed a bit slanted. I feel there were similar issues in brawl such as Pictochat. In the situations I saw, the evidence was anecdotal but seemed to carry more weight that it should.

This is useless commentary, unless you mean to say people are prone to confirmation bias.

It will get out of hand if we (meaning they, I'm a noob) do nothing about it, and once it gets ou of hand, there will be no way of reversing the momentum.

Do nothing about what, exactly? An explosion in these kinds of threads?

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...

It is more closer to the truth that the people who take the 3DS version seriously would join the 3DS room than the only way for it to be taken seriously is to have its own room. It is probable that it will go down the same route that SSF43DE went.

...you are going to need a ruleset for the game separate from the Wii U game as well.

So long as the character library and physics are identical, what ruleset differences will you need besides a starter and counterpick discussion? The only reason I see the 3DS scene needing its own backroom is if the future Sm4sh updates only apply to a specific version.

...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.

I'm not saying the backroom shouldn't change its inclusion criteria (it's invite only, Capps, to answer your earlier question) but why don't you actually try contributing something first? Getting people at Apex to adopt your data gathering project is a long shot, but good luck anyway. You're a lot of melodramatic talk at the moment and too much of what you have to say involves character judgement. You need to come back down to earth, stop thinking about the possible glory of your future backroom tenure, get sober and start burning the midnight oil. Also, it's no sin to want a more diverse game, Capps, but you're going to need accept that most people are more interested in aspects of the game that don't necessarily allow diversity, and they have their own reasons for it. You may call it conservative, but the word you should be using is refined.

The game isn't even available yet AND THERE'S ALREADY PEOPLE FROWNING UPON THE OTHER GAME?

It's usually not an outright dismissal of one version or the other, but how people perceive how available and easy group play and streaming are with each version. Don't over generalize (if you are doing so), there is sufficient discussion in the 3DS room to get a gist of why people are going or not going with the 3DS.

 

[LiteralGrill]

So long as the character library and physics are identical, what ruleset differences will you need besides a starter and counterpick discussion? The only reason I see the 3DS scene needing its own backroom is if the future Sm4sh updates only apply to a specific version.

I'd say the stage discussion itself may bear enough importance. We wont know 100% till we get there, but I'm placing bets now that the small screen and controls may significcantly change how avoidable reasonably or not certain things may be for example. Depending on how good or bad controls are, or if we are stuck having to use local wireless play, lag may even be a factor on 3DS only. Can't know till we get there, but I'd rather be prepared. If it isn't needed, get rid of it after you find that out.

I'm not saying the backroom shouldn't change its inclusion criteria (it's invite only, Capps, to answer your earlier question) but why don't you actually try contributing something first? Getting people at Apex to adopt your data gathering project is a long shot, but good luck anyway. You're a lot of melodramatic talk at the moment and too much of what you have to say involves character judgement. You need to come back down to earth, stop thinking about the possible glory of your future backroom tenure, get sober and start burning the midnight oil. Also, it's no sin to want a more diverse game, Capps, but you're going to need accept that most people are more interested in aspects of the game that don't necessarily allow diversity, and they have their own reasons for it. You may call it conservative, but the word you should be using is refined.

A "glorious career" in the backroom? I don't really care if I made it either way, I'd like in don't get me wrong, but if I didn't get in I'd go and do everything else I plan on doing anyways. No offense to the BRooms of the past, but they aren't generally a very well looked at group to begin with. There's not that much "glory" for being involved, it's more work then anything, and possibly some general hate depending even. Not to mention, if another group did the same kind of job but better people will flock that way anyways, kind of how an economy works. Definitely some changes needed in the BRooms for the work to be in any way "glorious".

The system being at Apex is a go as long as I'm finished by Apex, SSWT is who I'm working with, and we've been approved as long as we can finish on time. And if my programmer is right, we'll be finished so far ahead of schedule we can do more then planned. So watch hopefully for that one.

As for other contributions, look in the future months for a massive post in Brawl competitive. It's going to be mind blowing I promise, quite a bit of free time "wasted" on this one.

For me though, I just want this time to be done right. Not even to have things turn out "my way", I've admitted various times that both sides make excellent points, and more then anything I'd prefer coexistence. But if I'm making character judgements based on how things got treated in the past, can you blame me? Read over all these past conversations and see if either side really was treated well, or even held a civil discussion. Those moments are rare, and the idea of even attempting compromise even rarer. Both sides could easily be happy, it's too bad that option is so rarely explored. Any decision made either way I want backed up by serious data, if the data says what I want is wrong I'll abide by it without question. I may not see a game with lots of variety, I can easily live with that, but hopefully I can see a game with a community that wont drive its fans out from BOTH sides of the argument. That alone is the real goal; I know what I personally want, but the community not having another miniature war within itself hurting everyone is even more important to me.

(P.S. A few times in the past, the BRoom accepted people after reviewing applications. It could be done again to make sure the next BRooms have actually active people, and make sure no Brawl bias creeps in too thoroughly.)

 

[BADGRAPHICS]

Also, it's no sin to want a more diverse game, Capps, but you're going to need accept that most people are more interested in aspects of the game that don't necessarily allow diversity, and they have their own reasons for it. You may call it conservative, but the word you should be using is refined.

"Refined" is right. There's absolutely nothing wrong with playing a stripped-down purist version of Smash; saying otherwise divides the community as much as those who say that all items should be turned off on day one. Those who want to play Smash (and I include myself in this) with a broad stage-selection and item use need to stop postulating (again, I should include myself in this) and get together with those who are interested.

The OP's stage selection criteria are actually quite sensible when you consider it as a guide for maintaining refinement rather than fairness.

 

[smashbrolink]

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.

In this case, that's the most likely way the tournament scene WILL develop, if left to the same small group of individuals.
It was the case for Melee, it was the case for Brawl, and there's nothing to indicate that Smash 4 would be any different.
Lots of flat stages with a platform here and there will most likely be the most-used stages at any serious tournament if mind-sets don't become more OPEN TO CHANGE.
That's a more-than-reasonable educated guess on the state of Smash 4 without mind-set changes by the community itself over what should or should not be banned.


Oh, and speaking of failed discussions?
Personal attacks involving downplaying one's position based upon a presumed level of skill, due to the person not having "credentials", is another sign of failed discussion.
You didn't even really TRY to discuss it with me; you hauled off and made a comment that sounded more like a veiled insult than anything approaching a level-headed attempt at communication.

If that's how you're going to address me going forward then just let me know now.

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.

Same goes for you, Quilt.
You put words in my mouth and tried speaking for me by not only assuming how I'd think about cetain sports, but also by stating that I'm "expecting or asking" the competitive community to change.
I said that nothing will change without changes in mind-set, not that I was EXPECTING any changes, let alone asking for any.
Not exactly a good way to start off a conversation, let alone continue one.

Now, if either of you were actually offended by my original post, and my stated belief that the game won't change without some new blood having a bit of say, then I'm sorry I hurt your feelings enough to make you feel justified in responding how you both have.
But if that's how you're going to respond to me going forward, again, just let me know.
I've got no problem with either one of you blocking me or vice versa if that is what it takes to stop this from becoming bad blood due to clashing ideals.
I come to this board to voice my opinion and to listen a bit to counter-discussions. Not to allow myself to be attacked by everyone that thinks I've got no place speaking my mind due to my so-called standing amongst peers.

 

[Ulevo]

In this case, that's the most likely way the tournament scene WILL develop, if left to the same small group of individuals.
It was the case for Melee, it was the case for Brawl, and there's nothing to indicate that Smash 4 would be any different.
Lots of flat stages with a platform here and there will most likely be the most-used stages at any serious tournament if mind-sets don't become more OPEN TO CHANGE.
That's a more-than-reasonable educated guess on the state of Smash 4 without mind-set changes by the community itself over what should or should not be banned.


Oh, and speaking of failed discussions?
Personal attacks involving downplaying one's position based upon a presumed level of skill, due to the person not having "credentials", is another sign of failed discussion.
You didn't even really TRY to discuss it with me; you hauled off and made a comment that sounded more like a veiled insult than anything approaching a level-headed attempt at communication.

If that's how you're going to address me going forward then just let me know now.

I didn't insult you. I gave you a slice of reality in a generalized manner. People are more inclined to listen to those who are established tournament players with good results, or those who have hosted many successful tournaments, than those who haven't. If you chose to be insulted because you either fit in that demographic or you thought I was placing you in that group myself, that wasn't my posts purpose nor worth me discussing. You misread.

Being open to change is fine, provided the reason for change can be legitimized. It goes both ways though. You need to be open to the idea that perhaps there are reasons for the current established way of playing that you're simply not appreciating enough, or are not comprehending. That can be said and directed in either direction, so it ultimately comes down to who can rationalize there reasons more concretely and clearly. In this regard there needs to be some improvement.

 

[smashbrolink]

I didn't insult you. I gave you a slice of reality in a generalized manner. People are more inclined to listen to those who are established tournament players with good results, or those who have hosted many successful tournaments, than those who haven't. If you chose to be insulted because you either fit in that demographic or you thought I was placing you in that group myself, that wasn't my posts purpose nor worth me discussing. You misread.

Being open to change is fine, provided the reason for change can be legitimized. It goes both ways though. You need to be open to the idea that perhaps there are reasons for the current established way of playing that you're simply not appreciating enough, or are not comprehending. That can be said and directed in either direction, so it ultimately comes down to who can rationalize there reasons more concretely and clearly. In this regard there needs to be some improvement.

I'm more than aware that there are legitimate and good reasons for the stage picks being the way they are, but that doesn't make the selection any less small or the reasoning behind them any less narrow-minded in some cases.
I've seen and heard a lot of very good arguments behind why a lot of banned stages shouldn't even BE banned, but sadly a lot of them are being shot down because they don't fit in with the ideals of those that have made the already-established norm.
Hence why I said that I feel some new blood is needed when making such decisions.

 

[Mr.Showtime]

There was reasoning behind every stage ban. I don't see how this topic keeps being brought up. There was a reason for banned stages for Melee. There was a reason for banned stages for Brawl. It's like people are getting the notion that these stages were banned for the sake of people not liking them.

Where's the proof?

The proof that stages were banned with reason were already labeled clearly in this topic. Just because someone you have once spoken to or "heard" from said that the reason a stage was banned due to "yea I just don't like that stage", doesn't really classify as proof.

If I'm not mistaken. There was trial and error with 64, Melee, and Brawl. They allowed all stages. They looked at which were based on random. Decided they weren't fair and banned them. Was it within a day? A week? A year? Actually no...longer. There was a Brawl tournament at EVO for with ITEMS and (now) BANNED STAGES. I've never ever seen so-so stages banned Day 1. This assumption has to stop.

However, I think people are confused of the term Neutral.....neutral....neutral

*scratches head*

Neutral......hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

How about you wait and see before making any assumptions about what will happen in Smash 4?

I mean if you want to, I can play you in Brawl tomorrow. I'll let you pick the stage, and I'll pick a character specifically for beating you in that "said fair" stage. Want to throw items on? Be my guest. I'll show you why they were banned. No this is not a threat, but rather an experiment. If you take it as a threat after I clearly stated it isn't one then I have lost all hope of humanity..

 

[Ulevo]

Or maybe those ideals that you say don't fit with yours are well argued, legitimate reasons that you refuse to accept?

This is the problem that I see with you, and those like you, who feel there is something wrong with the way the series is currently played, or how the ruleset is currently structured. You claim there needs to be change, and accuse no one of accepting your perspective. Yet every time the established perspective is mentioned, its to comment on how it is narrow minded, inconsiderate, and without proper logical justification.

It's ironic because you seek to be seen as credible, both in the arguments you propose and the goal you pursue with those arguments. Yet you can't even give the benefit of the doubt and assume that a game that has had a competitive following for over a decade with an established ruleset has actual reasons for why things are the way they are.

To be forward, you sound incredibly ignorant when you talk. You will continue to sound that way until you stop mentioning how apparently blind everyone is who doesn't coincide with your perception is, and start making propositions, theories, and discussions that we can all relate to and see as both logical and reasonable.

 

[LiteralGrill]

There was reasoning behind every stage ban. I don't see how this topic keeps being brought up. There was a reason for banned stages for Melee. There was a reason for banned stages for Brawl. It's like people are getting the notion that these stages were banned for the sake of people not liking them.

Where's the proof?

The proof that stages were banned with reason were already labeled clearly in this topic. Just because someone you have once spoken to or "heard" from said that the reason a stage was banned due to "yea I just don't like that stage", doesn't really classify as proof.

If I'm not mistaken. There was trial and error with 64, Melee, and Brawl. They allowed all stages. They looked at which were based on random. Decided they weren't fair and banned them. Was it within a day? A week? A year? Actually no...longer. There was a Brawl tournament at EVO for with ITEMS and (now) BANNED STAGES. I've never ever seen so-so stages banned Day 1. This assumption has to stop.

However, I think people are confused of the term Neutral.....neutral....neutral

*scratches head*

Neutral......hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

How about you wait and see before making any assumptions about what will happen in Smash 4?

I mean if you want to, I can play you in Brawl tomorrow. I'll let you pick the stage, and I'll pick a character specifically for beating you in that "said fair" stage. Want to throw items on? Be my guest. I'll show you why they were banned. No this is not a threat, but rather an experiment. If you take it as a threat after I clearly stated it isn't one then I have lost all hope of humanity..

I'm guessing the reasons stages that "shouldn't be banned" that "are banned" in this case come under different philosophies, let's say a PS2. Depending on philosophy when making rulesets, that stage could be anything from a starter to a cp to banned. It just depends on the goals in the end I guess, as bad as that has to be.

 

[Overswarm]

I didn't insult you. I gave you a slice of reality in a generalized manner. People are more inclined to listen to those who are established tournament players with good results, or those who have hosted many successful tournaments, than those who haven't. If you chose to be insulted because you either fit in that demographic or you thought I was placing you in that group myself, that wasn't my posts purpose nor worth me discussing. You misread.

Being open to change is fine, provided the reason for change can be legitimized. It goes both ways though. You need to be open to the idea that perhaps there are reasons for the current established way of playing that you're simply not appreciating enough, or are not comprehending. That can be said and directed in either direction, so it ultimately comes down to who can rationalize there reasons more concretely and clearly. In this regard there needs to be some improvement.

Except that's still bull****, as I'm in the top % of tournament success AND tournament hosting in this thread. No one cares unless it's something they want to hear, THEN they'll use your skill as evidence of proof.

If you happen to be good and want something they don't? They say "Eh, whatever".

 

[MopedOfJustice]

There was reasoning behind every stage ban. I don't see how this topic keeps being brought up. There was a reason for banned stages for Melee. There was a reason for banned stages for Brawl. It's like people are getting the notion that these stages were banned for the sake of people not liking them.

Where's the proof?

The proof that stages were banned with reason were already labeled clearly in this topic. Just because someone you have once spoken to or "heard" from said that the reason a stage was banned due to "yea I just don't like that stage", doesn't really classify as proof.

If I'm not mistaken. There was trial and error with 64, Melee, and Brawl. They allowed all stages. They looked at which were based on random. Decided they weren't fair and banned them. Was it within a day? A week? A year? Actually no...longer. There was a Brawl tournament at EVO for with ITEMS and (now) BANNED STAGES. I've never ever seen so-so stages banned Day 1. This assumption has to stop.

However, I think people are confused of the term Neutral.....neutral....neutral

*scratches head*

Neutral......hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

How about you wait and see before making any assumptions about what will happen in Smash 4?

I mean if you want to, I can play you in Brawl tomorrow. I'll let you pick the stage, and I'll pick a character specifically for beating you in that "said fair" stage. Want to throw items on? Be my guest. I'll show you why they were banned. No this is not a threat, but rather an experiment. If you take it as a threat after I clearly stated it isn't one then I have lost all hope of humanity..

Can I take that offer?

 

[Ulevo]

Except that's still bull****, as I'm in the top % of tournament success AND tournament hosting in this thread. No one cares unless it's something they want to hear, THEN they'll use your skill as evidence of proof.

If you happen to be good and want something they don't? They say "Eh, whatever".

Your skill is not evidence of proof. All I am outlining is that if you have credentials, people are more inclined to humor you and be patient with your explanations. It never hurts. They're also more likely to trust your opinion if they are otherwise indecisive.

However, no amount of credentials can substitute for reason.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Your skill is not evidence of proof. All I am outlining is that if you have credentials, people are more inclined to humor you and be patient with your explanations. It never hurts. They're also more likely to trust your opinion if they are otherwise indecisive.

However, no amount of credentials can substitute for reason.

That's still a form of fallacious thinking, but if reason is really the answer, the people who responded with things like "you are stupid" wouldn't have "won" the argument on stages.

 

[Ulevo]

That's still a form of fallacious thinking, but if reason is really the answer, the people who responded with things like "you are stupid" wouldn't have "won" the argument on stages.

You're presuming that the people responding with things like "you are stupid" are the only representation of the other side of the argument, and that's the problem here.

 

[LiteralGrill]

You're presuming that the people responding with things like "you are stupid" are the only representation of the other side of the argument, and that's the problem here.

They were not, however sadly MANY people even who COULD argue intelligently did so with these kinds of arguments, and seeing as how we can't even look into the BRooms to see how things were discussed there, I can only go on what I saw publicly, which often enough was someone going to threads purposefully to troll or in no way presenting an argument. Any backroom member or top player who can show it wasn't the case in other places please do so as I bet it'd honestly be a refreshing read after all the other crud I've seen.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

The OP's stage selection criteria are actually quite sensible when you consider it as a guide for maintaining refinement rather than fairness.

I can never tell when you're being sarcastic. Instead of bothering to go any further, let's have an outing in the meadows and feed each other crumpets.

Personal attacks involving downplaying one's position based upon a presumed level of skill, due to the person not having "credentials", is another sign of failed discussion. You didn't even really TRY to discuss it with me; you hauled off and made a comment that sounded more like a veiled insult than anything approaching a level-headed attempt at communication.

Suggesting that you take some initiative and become good and familiar with a game and its competitive community so that you have some legitimate input into the meta isn't an insult. Since you happen to see insults that aren't there, you need to stop over factoring your ego into how you interpret what people say.

There is little reason someone who isn't familiar or involved should have a say in what goes on in any competitive scene. I think most people on Smashboards are being relatively very polite about it; If someone went to any other competitive community like soccer or bodybuilding and they kept pressing to change something about the way they do things to meet their tastes they would lose respect and wear their stay out quickly.

Lots of flat stages with a platform here and there will most likely be the most-used stages at any serious tournament if mind-sets don't become more OPEN TO CHANGE.

To paraphrase, "If the way we think about the role of stages doesn't change then the stage list will probably not change," is an obvious assertion.

You put words in my mouth and tried speaking for me by not only assuming how I'd think about cetain sports, but also by stating that I'm "expecting or asking" the competitive community to change.

I didn't assume how you would think about certain sports: I said suppose you did. Imagine. Hypothetically speaking. Etc. You even highlighted the word "suppose". I also note that I didn't explicitly say that you had expectations for the community to meet or that you even asked for them; I was speaking in a conversational mode, where "you" could mean anyone. Getting back on topic, despite your disclaimer for the odds of it happening, you seem to keep suggesting that people who have no investment in the game should have a voice in what the ruleset should look like. Every time you mention the top players and contributors having a lot of control over the format you say it like it is a bad thing. My response was directed more towards the crowd you seem to want see represented, and a good many would have exactly that sense of entitlement.

It's ironic because you seek to be seen as credible, both in the arguments you propose and the goal you pursue with those arguments. Yet you can't even give the benefit of the doubt and assume that a game that has had a competitive following for over a decade with an established ruleset has actual reasons for why things are the way they are.

And you know what the frustrating thing is? Essentially zero alternative tournament supporters are taking any initiative to run those kinds of tournaments. They aren't taking their drive for these kinds of things where it needs to be. Their threads on here are more like a social event where people go to agree with each other and they produce essentially zero results. I bet even if you got them to admit they aren't trying to change the traditional format, many of them will still blame it for holding their preferences back.

I'm guessing the reasons stages that "shouldn't be banned" that "are banned" in this case come under different philosophies, let's say a PS2. Depending on philosophy when making rulesets, that stage could be anything from a starter to a cp to banned. It just depends on the goals in the end I guess, as bad as that has to be.

I wouldn't say it's bad but it would definitely be a lot easier if we could completely objectively demonstrate playing one way is better than the other. Also, you'd be hard pressed to find anywhere that I've been colorful, or abrasive, or reciprocating as argument for a position, much less the basis for one.

P.S. This thread makes me sad

 

[BADGRAPHICS]

I can never tell when you're being sarcastic. Instead of bothering to go any further, let's have an outing in the meadows and feed each other crumpets.

It's a date.

Their threads on here are more like a social event where people go to agree with each other and they produce essentially zero results.

I agree. Somebody should do something about those guys...

 

[Overswarm]

You're presuming that the people responding with things like "you are stupid" are the only representation of the other side of the argument, and that's the problem here.

...that is the only representation that ever came about. People would make claims that seemed like evidence, like "MK does too good on Norfair or Brinstar", but then I'd show data showing that MK did better on stages they were fine with as starters. They didn't care because it didn't fit into their narrative. I know you think there's some driving, reasoning force behind smash rules but honestly the stage list is the result of one random person having something bad happen to them on a stage or being CPed there often and saying "that's stupid". That's all it has ever been.

 

[Mr.Showtime]

...that is the only representation that ever came about. People would make claims that seemed like evidence, like "MK does too good on Norfair or Brinstar", but then I'd show data showing that MK did better on stages they were fine with as starters. They didn't care because it didn't fit into their narrative. I know you think there's some driving, reasoning force behind smash rules but honestly the stage list is the result of one random person having something bad happen to them on a stage or being CPed there often and saying "that's stupid". That's all it has ever been.

You remind me of a merry-go-round playing that same repetitive song. Round and round we go!

 

[LiteralGrill]

...that is the only representation that ever came about. People would make claims that seemed like evidence, like "MK does too good on Norfair or Brinstar", but then I'd show data showing that MK did better on stages they were fine with as starters. They didn't care because it didn't fit into their narrative. I know you think there's some driving, reasoning force behind smash rules but honestly the stage list is the result of one random person having something bad happen to them on a stage or being CPed there often and saying "that's stupid". That's all it has ever been.

Remember the JIGGLYPUFF match that got Norfair tons more looks, but no one ever had footage of? A match that apparently was the definition of why the stage was broken I remember seeing tons of arguments over it, yet to this day it was never proven to exist....

 

[Ulevo]

...that is the only representation that ever came about. People would make claims that seemed like evidence, like "MK does too good on Norfair or Brinstar", but then I'd show data showing that MK did better on stages they were fine with as starters. They didn't care because it didn't fit into their narrative. I know you think there's some driving, reasoning force behind smash rules but honestly the stage list is the result of one random person having something bad happen to them on a stage or being CPed there often and saying "that's stupid". That's all it has ever been.

Speaking from personal experience, I know this to be false.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Speaking from personal experience, I know this to be false.

What is your personal experience may I ask?

 

[[Corn]]

...that is the only representation that ever came about. People would make claims that seemed like evidence, like "MK does too good on Norfair or Brinstar", but then I'd show data showing that MK did better on stages they were fine with as starters. They didn't care because it didn't fit into their narrative. I know you think there's some driving, reasoning force behind smash rules but honestly the stage list is the result of one random person having something bad happen to them on a stage or being CPed there often and saying "that's stupid". That's all it has ever been.

I dont know who said that, We discussed that the stages dont hinder him as much as people though. The really specific MK stage we discussed was RC.

 

[LiteralGrill]

I dont know who said that, We discussed that the stages dont hinder him as much as people though. The really specific MK stage we discussed was RC.

I don't think he meant just in here, OS has been debating stages in Brawl since the game was released, and if you go through some "historic" stage discussion threads, you'll see this happening.

 

[Overswarm]

I dont know who said that, We discussed that the stages dont hinder him as much as people though. The really specific MK stage we discussed was RC.

Were you even back there during the MLG era? That's when we made a big deal about recording the data to get real results, got the results, surprise OS was right, no change because it wasn't the results they wanted to hear.

Really, ask yourself this:

If I showed you data showing that FD was more overcentralizing than RC, would it change your mind?

 

[Overswarm]

I dont know who said that, We discussed that the stages dont hinder him as much as people though. The really specific MK stage we discussed was RC.

Were you even back there during the MLG era? That's when we made a big deal about recording the data to get real results, got the results, surprise OS was right, no change because it wasn't the results they wanted to hear.

Really, ask yourself this:

If I showed you data showing that FD was more overcentralizing than RC, would it change your mind?

Because it doesn't change anyone else's.

 

[[Corn]]

Were you even back there during the MLG era? That's when we made a big deal about recording the data to get real results, got the results, surprise OS was right, no change because it wasn't the results they wanted to hear.

Really, ask yourself this:

If I showed you data showing that FD was more overcentralizing than RC, would it change your mind?

Because it doesn't change anyone else's.

Capps noted that I was specifically talking about this thread.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Capps noted that I was specifically talking about this thread.

I'd still like to see an answer to that question:

Really, ask yourself this:

If I showed you data showing that FD was more overcentralizing than RC, would it change your mind?

Because it doesn't change anyone else's.

Do you have that data? I'd LOVE to see it if you do.

 

[[Corn]]

I'd still like to see an answer to that question:

Do you have that data? I'd LOVE to see it if you do.

If to was I around back then, then yes.

I would love to see the data/arguements compiled again as well.

 

[LiteralGrill]

If to was I around back then, then yes.

I would love to see the data/arguements compiled again as well.

They will be in sm4sh. Hopefully if something like that shows up, people will listen.

 

[Alzi]

Rule #1: No Items

Rule #2: No dumb*** stages.

Done.

I just skipped 1 year of bull**** upon Smash 4's release, and saved everyone the trouble of hosting stupid *** tournaments with ridiculous rules only to end up at the point we know we're all going to end up at.

For one, a bunch of people think we need to test out stages before we write them off. I have a better system. Here's a quick guide on how to identify a bad stage right off the bat:
1. Is there **** that could kill you without directly coming from your opponent's body? Banned.
2. Can you walk off? Are you serious? Banned
3. Camera can kill you?? **** you, you're ruining tournaments. Banned.
1 year of your life back.

On behave of everybody at Smashboards we would like to thank you greatly.

 

[LiteralGrill]

On behave of everybody at Smashboards we would like to thank you greatly.

Oh look, a post with no evidence to substantiate its claim...

Ya know, the kind of post previously lambasted and proven to be in no way a worthwhile post or argument earlier in the thread.

Back up this assertion with EVIDENCE. Go for it.

 

[Mr.Showtime]

And the merry go round keeps on spinning! I call the unicorn. Capps can be on a horse. Who wants the carriage!?