Proposed Ruleset for Smash 4 Tournaments

[LiteralGrill]

It's sad that the way people feel about others from past experience is influencing this thread so much.

I only hope my being a bit new doesn't somehow ruin my reputation for life for looking at one end.

I say again, we have TWO smash games to play here too, a lot of competitive types will be dead focused on the Wii U. Why not let the 3DS scene maybe try a more liberal approach and see what happens? Dunno how many people are planning on hosting things for the 3DS (I am) but if there are as few as I've seen thus far, it wouldn't hurt to give it a shot.

 

[salaboB]

Then you are pretty much saying let's allow items. Your counter-argument is atrocious. At least some up with relevant arguments like Overswarm.

So they can be selectively quoted while ignoring what's actually being said like his get? Or strawmanned like you just did to me in this very quote?

I pointed out the problem with even trying to discuss things -- it's a basic mindset issue, not a proof issue -- and that's plenty for me. Until people are willing to accept the basic concept that not all random breaks skill, there's nothing to talk about.

 

[trash?]

I'm cool with you, if that helps? you seem alright, idk

I am absolutely down for crazy 3DS stuff. obviously, under AZ's original idea where now we can get away with swiss tourneys, and the fact that, no way around it, there's going to be differences between the two (minor gameplay changes, character changes, even stuff like 3DS-specific stages being viable) means that there's going to be two metagames at once, which at the very least sounds interesting

 

[Thirdkoopa]

Why do you agree with it? Something that limits potential diversity and viability. Of course stages with random hazards that instant kill would be banned, but we've made it to the point where pretty much any stage that isn't flat with a couple platforms will never be played on. In my opinion, I liked the diversity of stages and I think it's pretty sad that we want to cut so much already from a game we haven't even touched.

Well, yeah, but I'm saying I agree that it's fine to create a list of bull**** that should be cut and a criteria or make it better and expand on it. I know we haven't played it and most games have their list mostly decided if not fully, but I think it's totally legitimate to talk about the future in that respect even if we have to throw like 50% of it out the window.

Unfortunately most original stages are not meant for competitive Smash.

 

[kackamee]

It's sad that the way people feel about others from past experience is influencing this thread so much.

I only hope my being a bit new doesn't somehow ruin my reputation for life for looking at one end.

I say again, we have TWO smash games to play here too, a lot of competitive types will be dead focused on the Wii U. Why not let the 3DS scene maybe try a more liberal approach and see what happens? Dunno how many people are planning on hosting things for the 3DS (I am) but if there are as few as I've seen thus far, it wouldn't hurt to give it a shot.

The people you're probably worried about thinking lowly of you for you opinion are the people you shouldn't really concern yourself with (:
I definitely plan on playing the 3DS version as well and I think it'd be a pretty cool idea to see how the differences reflect gameplay.

 

[nat pagle]

Why do you agree with it? Something that limits potential diversity and viability. Of course stages with random hazards that instant kill would be banned, but we've made it to the point where pretty much any stage that isn't flat with a couple platforms will never be played on. In my opinion, I liked the diversity of stages and I think it's pretty sad that we want to cut so much already from a game we haven't even touched.

What do you mean not flat and with a couple of platforms?

There can be diversity of stages, but not at the cost of severely gimping characters or impeding heavily upon gameplay. Kongo Jungle for instance is banned pretty much because of the rock on the far side due to it's camping properties.

 

[salaboB]

There can be diversity of stages, but not at the cost of severely gimping characters or impeding heavily upon gameplay. Kongo Jungle for instance is banned pretty much because of the rock on the far side due to it's camping properties.

Okay, this is about to veer a little off topic, but: Items really make that rock less pleasing to camp on, since you're ceding full stage control while you're over there. If you limit the items to non-breaking ones (Hello, item standard play) then you're good to go.

(Note: This is not me saying I think items need to be on in order to have less stages banned, it's a specific example for the specific stage given. Please don't talk to me about rainbow cruise and items as a response to this.)

 

[kackamee]

What do you mean not flat and with a couple of platforms?

There can be diversity of stages, but not at the cost of severely gimping characters or impeding heavily upon gameplay. Kongo Jungle for instance is banned pretty much because of the rock on the far side due to it's camping properties.

Starter stages: Yoshi’s Story, Fountain of Dreams, Final Destination, Battlefield, Dream Land.
Counter-pick Stages: Pokémon Stadium.

These were the stages allowed at Evo. They're flat with a couple platforms and all of them except for Pokemon Stadium aren't dynamic. It's pretty boring to me. I think diversity is good for the most part.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Enough people like both ways and both can provide competitive play, why not Zoidberg have both?

That kinda solves all the problems as long as both sides treat each other decently.

 

[nat pagle]

Starter stages: Yoshi’s Story, Fountain of Dreams, Final Destination, Battlefield, Dream Land.
Counter-pick Stages: Pokémon Stadium.

These were the stages allowed at Evo. They're flat with a couple platforms and all of them except for Pokemon Stadium aren't dynamic. It's pretty boring to me. I think diversity is good for the most part.

What stages exactly would you have wanted in EVO? Sure, they have diversity, but that diversity can severely gimp or impede on the gameplay. Onett has infinites and cars, Brinstar has no grab ledges, Mute City has cars and no grab ledges, etc.

Okay, this is about to veer a little off topic, but: Items really make that rock less pleasing to camp on, since you're ceding full stage control while you're over there. If you limit the items to non-breaking ones (Hello, item standard play) then you're good to go.

(Note: This is not me saying I think items need to be on in order to have less stages banned, it's a specific example for the specific stage given. Please don't talk to me about rainbow cruise and items as a response to this.)

How would regular items bar explosive capsules stop anyone from camping?

Enough people like both ways and both can provide competitive play, why not Zoidberg have both?

That kinda solves all the problems as long as both sides treat each other decently.

Either you have the banned stages banned or you don't. Otherwise, they'd have to be two separate tournaments. The problems still exist though, camping, walk off blast walls, hazards, etc.

 

[T0MMY]

When you play in as many tournaments as HugS you understand where he is coming from with his straightforward talk.

My straightforward talk is even more simple for competitive rulesets:

Competitive Events should adhere to a Competitive Standard.

When one walks a long journey it's best to make that first step the one that goes in the right direction.
I like simple like that.

 

[salaboB]

Competitive Events should adhere to a Competitive Standard.

Define competitive.

 

[Mr.Showtime]

So they can be selectively quoted while ignoring what's actually being said like his get? Or strawmanned like you just did to me in this very quote?

I pointed out the problem with even trying to discuss things -- it's a basic mindset issue, not a proof issue -- and that's plenty for me. Until people are willing to accept the basic concept that not all random breaks skill, there's nothing to talk about.

Please point out where in the discussion where I decided to ignore him. I've responded to everything he said since page three of this topic. Using a strawman excuse is a strawman to what I just said.

There was relevancy to what I said. You argued that random doesn't effect this game. How is presenting the idea of random a strawman? Stop using excuses to try to prevent from debating. You won't go anywhere in life if you can not deliberately say something useful when presented with a question. Good luck in your career paths.

Once again you said that random doesn't break skill and once again I will ask. What about items?

If you want to allow the use of stages, why can't we use items. Why should some random be allowed and others not be?

Incoming: Strawman Excuse

Starter stages: Yoshi’s Story, Fountain of Dreams, Final Destination, Battlefield, Dream Land.
Counter-pick Stages: Pokémon Stadium.

These were the stages allowed at Evo. They're flat with a couple platforms and all of them except for Pokemon Stadium aren't dynamic. It's pretty boring to me. I think diversity is good for the most part.

Opinion: It's pretty boring to me. I think diversity is good for the most part.

If you want to convince someone of something, never state something so opinionated.

 

[salaboB]

Please point out where in the discussion where I decided to ignore him. I've responded to everything he said since page three of this topic. Using a strawman excuse is a strawman to what I just said.

There was relevancy to what I said. You argued that random doesn't effect this game. How is presenting the idea of random a strawman? Stop using excuses to try to prevent from debating. You won't go anywhere in life if you can not deliberately say something useful when presented with a question. Good luck in your career paths.

Once again you said that random doesn't break skill and once again I will ask. What about items?

If you want to allow the use of stages, why can't we use items. Why should some random be allowed and others not be?

Incoming: Strawman Excuse

About items: Following the same criteria per item as stages follow (That each item allowed doesn't skew results from the better player winning) I support allowing items because I believe they add more value to stage control and provide additional depth to the game. So just like some stages are banned, some items would be turned off.

Including an ad hominem about my career paths while telling me how I should be debating is pretty funny though.

 

[Mr.Showtime]

About items: Following the same criteria per item as stages follow (That each item allowed doesn't skew results from the better player winning) I support allowing items because I believe they add more value to stage control and provide additional depth to the game. So just like some stages are banned, some items would be turned off.

Including an ad hominem about my career paths while telling me how I should be debating is pretty funny though.

The biggest issue with items though is where the end up being dropped. This has been proven to skew results due to this. Why should Player 1 be rewarded for being in a certain spot in a stage at the right time?

This is the same thing with stages. That is why there is a relation between the two. Why should a player be rewarded due to their opponent being at the wrong place at the wrong time? This is why random is never included and the decision maker of competitive games. Random skews results due to the unpredictability of a match.

Items are hella fun to play with, but for competitive reasons it should not be allowed. This is why I stand a solid ground on stages that prevent such randomness. That's why "said" stages are counter-picks and not neutrals. I honestly can not think of a highly rated competitive game that has random chance. I need to either write a paper or study on "Random in Competitive Games".

Also, I apologize for the insult, but I knew that you would easily respond if insulted, as would anyone. =P

 

[T0MMY]

Define competitive.

Defined in the posts, blogs, and other articles I've written.
The definition is a good start, but the real challenge to TO's claiming to adhere to competitive rules is to actually adhere to the competitive standard, not defining a word easily found in any common dictionary.

 

[salaboB]

The biggest issue with items though is where the end up being dropped. This has been proven to skew results due to this. Why should Player 1 be rewarded for being in a certain spot in a stage at the right time?

This is the same thing with stages. That is why there is a relation between the two. Why should a player be rewarded due to their opponent being at the wrong place at the wrong time? This is why random is never included and the decision maker of competitive games. Random skews results due to the unpredictability of a match.

You have no proof of either of these claims, even though you say it's been proven. All you have is a great deal of proof that "safe" stages with no items has decent variety in winning characters -- all the recent tournament results show this, none of them show that more stages and/or items wouldn't add even more variety.

That's exactly what I said a couple quotes ago. Nobody's done enough testing on "random" (But not broken) stages or items to prove that they skew results, it's just a general assumption made without evidence backing it up. Then people list really terrible stages as proven examples (Like Warioware) as if that one is being pushed for -- I don't think anyone reasonably supports Warioware ever being legal.

Also, I apologize for the insult, but I knew that you would easily respond if insulted, as would anyone. =P

I almost ignored your entire post instead, actually.

 

[salaboB]

Defined in the posts, blogs, and other articles I've written.
The definition is a good start, but the real challenge to TO's claiming to adhere to competitive rules is to actually adhere to the competitive standard, not defining a word easily found in any common dictionary.

So you're saying your concise definition uses a very complicated word. That greatly weakens the definition.

 

[T0MMY]

So you're saying your concise definition uses a very complicated word. That greatly weakens the definition.

Not at all.

 

[[Corn]]

Variety shouldnt really be a priority in a competitve format if it detracts from other more important things.
You prioritize minimizing luck, keeping the skill ceiling high, and enforcing elements of play that will hopefully keep people playing.


Also on the "Items allow for more stage control..." Just because a coin toss is 50 50 doesnt mean that the odds arent random.

 

[Mr.Showtime]

You have no proof of either of these claims, even though you say it's been proven. All you have is a great deal of proof that "safe" stages with no items has decent variety in winning characters -- all the recent tournament results show this, none of them show that more stages and/or items wouldn't add even more variety.

That's exactly what I said a couple quotes ago. Nobody's done enough testing on "random" (But not broken) stages or items to prove that they skew results, it's just a general assumption made without evidence backing it up. Then people list really terrible stages as proven examples (Like Warioware) as if that one is being pushed for -- I don't think anyone reasonably supports Warioware ever being legal.


I almost ignored your entire post instead, actually.

Tripping. The primary suspect of random in Brawl. You're going to tell me you never seen a trip skew the results of a match?

 

[salaboB]

Tripping. The primary suspect of random in Brawl. You're going to tell me you never seen a trip skew the results of a match?

You said you weren't going to strawman me.

 

[salaboB]

Variety shouldnt really be a priority in a competitve format if it detracts from other more important things.
You prioritize minimizing luck, keeping the skill ceiling high, and enforcing elements of play that will hopefully keep people playing.

Number of attendees is not a valueless metric. Neither is increasing the skill ceiling, which I believe is also a result of including carefully selected (As has been discussed) random elements.

Also on the "Items allow for more stage control..." Just because a coin toss is 50 50 doesnt mean that the odds arent random.

I specifically said that they "add more value" to stage control, not that they allow for more. You have the same amount of stage control possible in the game either way, but with items it matters more.

Their spawn time is not a coin flip, and the player at the edge of the stage can choose when to begin a push into the middle based on the expected next spawn. This is a skill, your refusal to recognize it as such notwithstanding.

 

[Mr.Showtime]

If you want to ignore that and result to strawman again as a safeguard:

This tournament. Evo2008. I was here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlU6hcmeXYQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFcnnPtUhGw

Wiki of both players:
http://super-smash-bros.wikia.com/wiki/Ken_Hoang
http://super-smash-bros.wikia.com/wiki/Smasher:CPU

There is no skill in grabbing an item that just so happened to land next to you. On top of that the balancing behind smash balls is atrocious.

Your turn to present proof.

 

[Ghostbone]

Starter stages: Yoshi’s Story, Fountain of Dreams, Final Destination, Battlefield, Dream Land.
Counter-pick Stages: Pokémon Stadium.

These were the stages allowed at Evo. They're flat with a couple platforms and all of them except for Pokemon Stadium aren't dynamic. It's pretty boring to me. I think diversity is good for the most part.

Evo had the most entrants for a smash tournament ever, had amazing hype gameplay instead of the degenerate gameplay on other stages (I remember a tournament with finals M2K vs Kirbykaze, and the counter-picks just ruined the hype of the set because of how boring/simple the gameplay is there), and had amazing character diversity in the top 8 since Fox/Peach didn't get their broken counter-picks.

And you're saying you don't like that.
smh

Edit: It was M2K vs PP, same difference.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

I almost ignored your entire post instead, actually.

You ignore everything anyway. I can't think of anything listed in the DSM IV that describes a condition where someone involuntarily ignores just portions of something written or spoken. Replying to a post you didn't completely read is a shot in the dark for contributing anything meaningful. Could it be that you don't belong this discussion?

My straightforward talk is even more simple for competitive rulesets:

Competitive Events should adhere to a Competitive Standard.

Ah, t0mmy, I was wondering when you would bring your broken-record sycophant self to this thread.

[Competitive is] Defined in the posts, blogs, and other articles I've written. The definition is a good start...

It seems you're doing better this time: You aren't actually claiming the "Competitive Philosophy" as your own. Or are you? You can keep on copying and pasting your interpretation of David Sirlin's book, but note there's an overwhelming majority against you rigidly defining what competition means to the Smash community, mostly because it's creeping into the opinion/preference territory, among many other things. You have been unable to substantiate anything you say, like how you popularized the term "competitive philosophy".

...the real challenge to TO's claiming to adhere to competitive rules is to actually adhere to the competitive standard, not defining a word easily found in any common dictionary.

This is what you are saying, highlighting the key points: The real challenge to TOs "claiming to adhere to competitive rules" is to [adhere to the competitive standard (that I, t0mmy, wrote)] and not [to define competition.]

You may as well be asking people to roll over, t0mmy. So far all you're showing is that you're essentially incapable of saying anything other than "follow the rules I wrote" or "David Sirlin is the backbone of the Smash competitive scene."

P.S. This thread makes me sad

 

[Mr.Showtime]

Evo had the most entrants for a smash tournament ever, had amazing hype gameplay instead of the degenerate gameplay on other stages (I remember a tournament with finals M2K vs Kirbykaze, and the counter-picks just ruined the hype of the set because of how boring/simple the gameplay is there), and had amazing character diversity in the top 8 since Fox/Peach didn't get their broken counter-picks.

And you're saying you don't like that.
smh

He'd rather see this:

Start at 6:40, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26l_8-6rA14

 

[nat pagle]

He'd rather see this:

Start at 6:40, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26l_8-6rA14

So hype?

Gotta love that incentive to camp it out.

 

[T0MMY]

Ah, t0mmy, I was wondering when you would bring your broken-record sycophant self to this thread.

I know I'm doing things right when I've got haters who can only bring hate to a table of reason.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Sigh...

People treating each other poorly instead of actually discussing again...

Guys, the problem almost isn't the stages and rules anymore, it's that no one can converse about the problem without being assholes to each other on each side.

I vote anyone who insults anyone or is rude should be banned from rule discussion, maybe something could actually happen then. Maybe then people wouldn't be so angry on both sides.

Look at all that mentioning on how poorly people treat each other I've mentioned too many times now in this thread. We're going to kill Sm4sh before it even comes out at this rate. Attitudes need to change or we'll just end up with years and years of bickering where we all look stupid, lose respect of the FGC, and end up with nothing solved. Stop it. Be amicable, kiss and make up, whatever you need to do just STOP.

 

[nat pagle]

Look at all that mentioning on how poorly people treat each other I've mentioned too many times now in this thread. We're going to kill Sm4sh before it even comes out at this rate. Attitudes need to change or we'll just end up with years and years of bickering where we all look stupid, lose respect of the FGC, and end up with nothing solved. Stop it. Be amicable, kiss and make up, whatever you need to do just STOP.

This is probably one of the tamer forums I've seen. But that's beside the point I guess.

And we aren't going to "kill" Smash 4 before it comes out. We're trying to debate the best path for the competitive scene, completely separate than the casual aspect of the game. We have a largely developed competitive Smash scene after 14 years of Smash. And the only way for the arguing to stop, is if one side gives up. Because you can't have much of a compromise when it comes to liberal stage lists vs. restrictive in tournaments.

Some people want more stages to be included, and some don't. There's no reason to drop all arguments and get nowhere. We've had the entirety of Melee and Brawl to go over the results of tournaments and how they went about.

 

[LiteralGrill]

This is probably one of the tamer forums I've seen. But that's beside the point I guess.

And we aren't going to "kill" Smash 4 before it comes out. We're trying to debate the best path for the competitive scene, completely separate than the casual aspect of the game. We have a largely developed competitive Smash scene after 14 years of Smash. And the only way for the arguing to stop, is if one side gives up. Because you can't have much of a compromise when it comes to liberal stage lists vs. restrictive in tournaments.

Some people want more stages to be included, and some don't. There's no reason to drop all arguments and get nowhere. We've had the entirety of Melee and Brawl to go over the results of tournaments and how they went about.

I don't mind arguments, I've been debating here too, but look at where the arguments are coming from. The amount of ad hominem in this thread is astronomical. People just insulting each other as arguing points instead of arguing THE points gets you nowhere, and this thread and previous ones talking about the same issues in the past did the SAME thing.

If everyone hates each other and can't even have a civil conversation before the serious discussion for the game begins when it comes out, how the hell will it happen then? If in the end, we get a small stagelist and that's what people decide that's fine, but the way you get to the results would be a lot better if BOTH (BIG emphasis, more stages people are doing it too) BOTH sides stopped just throwing insults at each other. More then half of the thread in each post is insulting one person or another now.

THAT will kill the game, not entirely but will knock off a ton of steam we can have going forward. Melee vs Brawl was bad enough, if we have people playing the same game trying to do so together unable to even talk about the game in any way civil, we wont get anywhere on either end.

 

[nat pagle]

I don't mind arguments, I've been debating here too, but look at where the arguments are coming from. The amount of ad hominem in this thread is astronomical. People just insulting each other as arguing points instead of arguing THE points gets you nowhere, and this thread and previous ones talking about the same issues in the past did the SAME thing.

If everyone hates each other and can't even have a civil conversation before the serious discussion for the game begins when it comes out, how the hell will it happen then? If in the end, we get a small stagelist and that's what people decide that's fine, but the way you get to the results would be a lot better if BOTH (BIG emphasis, more stages people are doing it too) BOTH sides stopped just throwing insults at each other. More then half of the thread in each post is insulting one person or another now.

THAT will kill the game, not entirely but will knock off a ton of steam we can have going forward. Melee vs Brawl was bad enough, if we have people playing the same game trying to do so together unable to even talk about the game in any way civil, we wont get anywhere on either end.

At this point we're just debating outlooks on the definition of "competitive" and how it relates to stages. People are getting fed up because people are asking for conclusive results and data, but it's just not that easy to get and separate the qualitative from quantitative data when it comes to Smash. People are arguing whether or not incentive to camp, gimps via stage structure, etc. are grounds for bans. But in the end, it mostly is coming down to personal opinion that just will not budge.

And when those personal opinions start pushing out each other for tournament rules, that's where the ad hominems come in. You can't prove each other wrong, so what is there to do?

My opinion>your opinion is what it comes down to most of the time.

 

[LiteralGrill]

I get that, it just SHOULDN'T be insults upon insults, it wont actually get anything done.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

Guys, the problem almost isn't the stages and rules anymore, it's that no one can converse about the problem without being *******s to each other on each side.

I don't understand where you're coming from, Capps. This isn't a thread for being nice to each other. This is a thread discussing a proposed ruleset, more or less, and we've been doing exactly that, to varying degrees of success.

t0mmy has virtually zero supporters for the entire month+ he's been telling people to blindly give up what they prefer and just follow his interpretation of David Sirlin's treatise applied to Smash; He espouses the same thing, everywhere, relentlessly. I don't see how mindless parroting contributes anything to this discussion. Why isn't that bothering you more than the rude people? It should be. It's just spam. At least Overswarm makes attempts to rationalize his viewpoint. Kicking people that you perceive as rude (and Smashbrolink and t0mmy have left me with doubts about the ability for people to recognize rudeness in general) comes at a risk of severing talent and intelligence from the discussion. You will find it is only Overswarm and I "being rude" when in reality just playing each other's game. Why not just kick the mindless posters, who don't contribute anything at all?

You only seem to cry wolf about how rude people are until they start returning strong language against Overswarm. Could it be that you're a sycophant just like t0mmy? Could it be that you're partial towards Overswarm because he happens to share your point of view? Could it also be that you're a hypocrite?

Alright... I see you using ad hominem which allows me the right to do the same...

...this thread and previous ones talking about the same issues in the past did the SAME thing.

No argument here.

...you are a bad person and should feel bad.

 

[nat pagle]

I get that, it just SHOULDN'T be insults upon insults, it wont actually get anything done.

Of course it shouldn't, but it'll just boil down to that when we have an unsolvable argument.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

Of course it shouldn't, but it'll just boil down to that when we have an unsolvable argument.

Actually, at the end of the day it's going to boil down to preference. People are going to play the game the way they want to, emphasizing the kind of skills they want (or don't want) to see in the game. Making a game like Smash Bros. a game between just the players has an element an element of game design to it, and it's not an exact science. There's no way to objectively demonstrate one way of play is better than the other, we can only decide what we like to see in the game, whether it be only the players' contributions or the additional contributions of other things like stages.

EDIT: The former, like HugS said, is the inevitable destination of competitive Smash. It's happened over three games, it'll happen again, probably much more quickly this time. [I guess you could say 'my opinion > yours' is preference...]

 

[LiteralGrill]

I don't understand where you're coming from, Capps. This isn't a thread for being nice to each other. This is a thread discussing a proposed ruleset, more or less, and we've been doing exactly that, to varying degrees of success.

t0mmy has virtually zero supporters for the entire month+ he's been telling people to blindly give up what they prefer and just follow his interpretation of David Sirlin's treatise applied to Smash; he espouses the same thing, everywhere, relentlessly. I don't see how mindless parroting contributes anything to this discussion. Why isn't that bothering you more than the rude people? It should be. It's just spam. At least Overswarm makes attempts to rationalize his viewpoint. Kicking people that you perceive as rude (and Smashbrolink and t0mmy have left me with doubts about the ability for people to recognize rudeness in general) comes at a risk of severing talent and intelligence from the discussion. You will find it is only Overswarm and I "being rude" when in reality just playing each other's game. Why not just kick the mindless posters, who don't contribute anything at all?

You only seem to cry wolf about how rude people are until they start returning strong language against Overswarm. Could it be that you're a sycophant just like t0mmy? Could it be that you're partial towards Overswarm because he happens to share your point of view? Could it also be that you're a hypocrite?

How much more of this are you seeing from me now?

And I believe during many points here, I've mentioned both sides have had issues, not just because one person started posting. Sure, I may agree with some of what OS is saying and backed him up. He has that status in his community, was I lying?

In one post I saw you both flinging insults at each other and point it out because you WERE. WHY does that HAVE to be done? Huge emphasis, because I see no reason. It seems people who attempt to back up their points on BOTH sides (making sure everyone notices this) BOTH BOTH BOTH BOTH BOTH sides, each person just throws out insults. People thinking a certain way discredits them for life. Look into the past of stage discussion, many names could come into this conversation and just be thrown out of anyone listening just because they supported certain things, even if they changed their minds on the subject. Hosting liberal stagelist tournaments for some ruins your credibility forever, the same for conservative lists in the eyes of others.

Actually, at the end of the day it's going to boil down to preference. People are going to play the game the way they want to, emphasizing the kind of skills they want (or don't want) to see in the game. Making a game like Smash Bros. a game between just the players has an element an element of game design to it, and it's not an exact science. There's no way to objectively demonstrate one way of play is better than the other, we can only decide what we like to see in the game, whether it be only the players' contributions or the additional contributions of other things like stages.

So, if it comes down to preference, why does having one make you "stupid for life" to the side who doesn't share it? Haven't I been saying coexistence or an attempt at compromise is a great option in this thread? It can't happen with the kinds of attitudes in this discussion. If both sides could just stop, and let each run whatever it is they want to run without all the drama and venomous language, we could all have our preferences and the problem be fixed. Too bad one side will go out of their way to try and hurt the events of the other for no reason just like they used to. :/

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

In one post I saw you both flinging insults at each other and point it out because you WERE. WHY does that HAVE to be done?

It's fun to reciprocate. Does there have to be a necessity for me to reciprocate? I can't speak for Overswarm, as he's usually on the shipping end. I have a feeling that if Overswarm were the only person in the thread being abrasive, you'd be silent on the issue.

So, if it comes down to preference, why does having one make you "stupid for life" to the side who doesn't share it? Haven't I been saying coexistence or an attempt at compromise is a great option in this thread? It can't happen with the kinds of attitudes in this discussion. If both sides could just stop, and let each run whatever it is they want to run without all the drama and venomous language, we could all have our preferences and the problem be fixed. Too bad one side will go out of their way to try and hurt the events of the other for no reason just like they used to. :/

Are you implying I said having a preference makes you stupid for life?

And where can you justify compromise? Compromise isn't going to satisfy either party; this is an either/or discussion because 80% of this thread has been discussing whether stages actually raise the player's skill ceiling in meaningful areas or are just another random influence. There's no middle ground there. Also, quit trying to change a format you're not even apart of.

One side will go out of their way to hurt the events of the other? What? When did that happen? Did some event get hit by a rival flash mob or something?

 

[LiteralGrill]

Does something have to be a necessity for us to do it? It's fun to reciprocate. I can't speak for Overswarm, as he's usually on the shipping end.

It doesn't but why mud sling, it doesn't make you look good even if it is fun.

Are you implying I said having a preference makes you stupid for life?

Not you ssaying it no, but do some "historical reading" and it has happened often.

And where can you justify compromise? Compromise isn't going to satisfy either party; this is an either/or discussion because 80% of this thread has been discussing whether stages actually raise the player's skill ceiling or are just another random influence. There's no middle ground there. Also, quit trying to change a format you're not even apart of.

One side will go out of their way to hurt the events of the other? What? When did that happen? Did some event get hit by a rival flash mob or something?

Not a flash mob, (that would have been cool in a weird way lol) but see that problem of the past where people were considered "dumb for life"? A lot of people had reputations ruined by people slandering them wherever they could, it's why some people around here have certain reputations that can never go away, or when I bring up people at times I get horrible responses only about the person being stupid or not worth listening too and many times not knowing why. And they don't listen to them and ignore what they say.

(This thread has some of this too.)