Proposed Ruleset for Smash 4 Tournaments

[salaboB]

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

I don't think people even realize when they're doing it. Or when they move the goalposts, strawman, reduce to the absurd incorrectly, trying to win rather than trying to discuss, etc. Not that I'm not guilty of some myself, either -- but I try to be aware of myself when it happens (I've deleted a number of posts completely after writing them entirely out rather than degenerate into pointless bickering, I'm sure it unfortunately feels like I'm ignoring a good point -- but when I can't find something constructive to reply with I'd prefer to just let that thread of conversation die)

I guess the point I'm making is that people feel they're making solid points (So get understandably upset when the person replying to them ignores what they think is their point) but when reviewed carefully they're actually ignoring the point being made in favor of making their own. And it's endemic here.

Note that this is not a new thing, this has existed since back during the huge ban-or-not-ban MK discussions, with an almost entirely different set of people involved.

 

[LiteralGrill]

I don't think people even realize when they're doing it. Or when they move the goalposts, strawman, reduce to the absurd incorrectly, trying to win rather than trying to discuss, etc. Not that I'm not guilty of some myself, either -- but I try to be aware of myself when it happens (I've deleted a number of posts completely after writing them entirely out rather than degenerate into pointless bickering, I'm sure it unfortunately feels like I'm ignoring a good point -- but when I can't find something constructive to reply with I'd prefer to just let that thread of conversation die)

I guess the point I'm making is that people feel they're making solid points (So get understandably upset when the person replying to them ignores what they think is their point) but when reviewed carefully they're actually ignoring the point being made in favor of making their own. And it's endemic here.

Note that this is not a new thing, this has existed since back during the huge ban-or-not-ban MK discussions, with an almost entirely different set of people involved.

Yes, that would probably be what is happening.

 

[BSP]

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.

IMO, I don't see why testing to prove the randomness skews results is even necessary. It's obvious that unpredictable randomness can give unfair advantages to one player in a match, and that's why I don't think it belongs in a competitive environment.

 

[LiteralGrill]

IMO, I don't see why testing to prove the randomness skews results is even necessary. It's obvious that unpredictable randomness can give unfair advantages to one player in a match, and that's why I don't think it belongs in a competitive environment.

So, ANY and ALL randomness should be removed? Just to be sure this is your position before I respond.

 

[[Corn]]

Who the hell cares about reputations in a competitive video game? If they lost it, it was probably cause of something they did or said regardless.

 

[nat pagle]

IMO, I don't see why testing to prove the randomness skews results is even necessary. It's obvious that unpredictable randomness can give unfair advantages to one player in a match, and that's why I don't think it belongs in a competitive environment.

You simply cannot test it because it's already banned. And trying to "test" random stages to see if they skew results will be inconclusive, why? Because there's no threshold to warrant a ban based on quantitative data.

The reason the stages are banned is NOT because there is non-existent "hard data" that somehow proves them to be bannable stages, it's because in the opinion of the community, the variables are liable to benefit or hurt someone randomly. If at any point in time a player can potentially lose or become disadvantaged solely because of the stage, that's warrant enough for a ban.

Items are banned solely because they are randomly placed and can benefit or hurt a player based on luck. It's better to not have to deal with any luck based or randomly advantaged situation than to have the occasional one and just shrug when someone loses because of it.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Who the hell cares about reputations in a competitive video game? If they lost it, it was probably cause of something they did or said regardless.

If it was just hosting a tournament with more stages, or for advocating more stages legal, and people go around saying they are stupid so people stop listening to them or coming to their events, it's a problem.

If I said "I'm hosting a tournament bigger then Apex." how would you react to that?

Reputation means a LOT in this community. Never being listened to ever again for doing what people told me to, host events with more stages and see how it turns out, is dumb.

 

[salaboB]

IMO, I don't see why testing to prove the randomness skews results is even necessary. It's obvious that unpredictable randomness can give unfair advantages to one player in a match, and that's why I don't think it belongs in a competitive environment.

Things that seem like they're going to skew results don't always, and sometimes things that seem like they can't possibly be problems (Such as Final Destination -- people figured out that having a completely flat stage with no platforms was not perfectly neutral. That being said, I've still seen people argue that FD is the most neutral stage. Interesting, isn't it?)

There's a big issue here where the belief that something happening outside the players' causing it is fully random. Some of the things are -- sweeping stage transformations that you can't react to ahead of time, such as Warioware. Those are problems. But some are things players can either see coming (The claw) or know when the next event is likely to occur, and have a general idea where (Item spawning). These are things that your skill will determine if you're in the area at the time. Note: It is still important that the possible items be balanced so that none are overwhelming advantages to gain.

And it's not "just luck" if you get cleared off the stage right before an item spawned, or right when the claw grabs you. It meant you either engaged when you shouldn't and lost that fight, or your opponent moved in and won at the right time. It was not luck -- though it can be random if nobody is bothering to pay attention (Which is a failure in skill, and goes back to my belief that having these uncontrolled elements raises skill cap, rather than lowering it).

Following this to its conclusion and answering a previous question: Tripping is bad because there's no planning for it to happen or reason to expect it to occur within a certain time window or location (Tripping on ice is slightly different than the random global trips). My view is consistent.

 

[DMG]

The claw argument maybe. The items argument hell no. If items spawn in random places, at random times, with random diversity (assuming you have more than 1 item turned on obv), how could it possibly be skill if my opponent knocks me away and just happens to get an item? It's not very healthy for players to either basically "wait around" for the item to show up, or play with warranted fear of a random event.

 

[nat pagle]

And it's not "just luck" if you get cleared off the stage right before an item spawned, or right when the claw grabs you. It meant you either engaged when you shouldn't and lost that fight, or your opponent moved in and won at the right time. It was not luck -- though it can be random if nobody is bothering to pay attention (Which is a failure in skill, and goes back to my belief that having these uncontrolled elements raises skill cap, rather than lowering it).

...You serious? It's not luck when an item spawns right when someone goes off stage? Your opponent moved in at the "right time" that nobody knows and won? May as well just camp until items spawn so you don't "lose because of skill".

And random item spawns are by definition random. No amount of skill gets you access to grab every single item unless you are sonic or are already winning greatly. And it doesn't add any skill to the game, just unnecessary random factors.

 

[salaboB]

Edit: Note that I'm not trying to say that improved skill ceiling or character diversity would happen for sure if more stages/items were allowed. I'm explaining why I feel it's worth testing, and not "obviously bad" to have.

...You serious? It's not luck when an item spawns right when someone goes off stage? Your opponent moved in at the "right time" that nobody knows and won? May as well just camp until items spawn so you don't "lose because of skill".

The items don't spawn at completely random intervals, so yes there is a skill to knowing when the next spawn is likely. I actually said this already, in the paragraph above the one you quoted.

And random item spawns are by definition random. No amount of skill gets you access to grab every single item unless you are sonic or are already winning greatly. And it doesn't add any skill to the game, just unnecessary random factors.

This is why it's important that no single item be an overwhelming advantage: So that the player who consistently grabs a majority of items by outplaying their opponent gains an advantage, and if they do miss one or two (From mis-timing or the item spawning slightly earlier/later than expected) it won't turn into a net disadvantage because it just happened to be the uber-powerful item.

 

[DMG]

"The items don't spawn at completely random intervals, so yes there is a skill to knowing when the next spawn is likely."

Are you sure about that? Please elaborate: if items are not random then what is the formula for their spawning? Does the game do a check every half second and roll the dice? Are items tied to specific second/milisecond values? From what I know, I've never seen a person on the entire forum break down how items spawn in Brawl.

 

[Ulevo]

salaboB, I would like for you to show hard data that proves that items do not spawn at random intervals, and give us some useful information that would allow us to predict the time and place for an item spawn.

 

[[Corn]]

If it was just hosting a tournament with more stages, or for advocating more stages legal, and people go around saying they are stupid so people stop listening to them or coming to their events, it's a problem.

If I said "I'm hosting a tournament bigger then Apex." how would you react to that?

Reputation means a LOT in this community. Never being listened to ever again for doing what people told me to, host events with more stages and see how it turns out, is dumb.

Well if you dont explain why or how it would benefit the community it does sound far fetche and people would probably would make fun of it.

Reputation means nothing normally, its level of play that means the most to many. I dont think ive seen players who continuously place high in most tournies consider such things or support them.

 

[StriCNYN3]

The items don't spawn at completely random intervals, so yes there is a skill to knowing when the next spawn is likely. I actually said this already, in the paragraph above the one you quoted.

I just want to point out, how is the item spawns not random when you just used the words "...next spawn is likely." yourself? Likely =/= consistency, which is what tourney goers want. Those words just imply you're just admitting that items are random without you actually using the word "random".

And putting the items on a slower rate doesn't change the random factor behind it. It will always boil down to "Who just so happened to be at the right place at the right time" You have to consider the fact item spawning can interrupt combos and cost a stock as well, such as this example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EFx0-Zkn54

Also, what I'd like to know is what items are you arguing to appear in competitive Smash, anyway? Like, what items from Melee and Brawl would you like to see in Smash 4 so I can get an idea?

 

[BSP]

I can't do my thoughts justice on a phone, but to me, it doesn't matter if a player is given a large advantage or small one. It's the fact the player got an advantage from events beyond both players' control.

 

[Mr.Showtime]

salaboB, I would like for you to show hard data that proves that items do not spawn at random intervals, and give us some useful information that would allow us to predict the time and place for an item spawn.

Salob has been ignoring proof and data for a long time. Anything that he can't find an explanation for, he uses strawman as an excuse (see previous page even though he is wrong to call a strawman because there is relevance to the subject), then when presented with proof he ignores it altogether. He's been doing this since the beginning of the thread, it's quite obnoxious.

 

[salaboB]

Salob has been ignoring proof and data for a long time. Anything that he can't find an explanation for, he uses strawman as an excuse (see previous page even though he is wrong to call a strawman because there is relevance to the subject), then when presented with proof he ignores it altogether. He's been doing this since the beginning of the thread, it's quite obnoxious.

A strawman is not when something is not relevant to the subject. It's when you set up an example of your own that the other person hadn't been using, then disprove your own example. ie, you set up the strawman so you could knock it down. That's where the term comes from.

When I said "I support some random stages and items" and you say "What about tripping? That's random and proven bad" you were strawmanning me because you were setting up your own example in order to defeat it, while ignoring my point.

I am not the one ignoring points here. Also, if you read the last couple posts I made, I even address tripping for you.

 

[salaboB]

I just want to point out, how is the item spawns not random when you just used the words "...next spawn is likely." yourself? Likely =/= consistency, which is what tourney goers want. Those words just imply you're just admitting that items are random without you actually using the word "random".

And putting the items on a slower rate doesn't change the random factor behind it. It will always boil down to "Who just so happened to be at the right place at the right time" You have to consider the fact item spawning can interrupt combos and cost a stock as well, such as this example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EFx0-Zkn54

Also, what I'd like to know is what items are you arguing to appear in competitive Smash, anyway? Like, what items from Melee and Brawl would you like to see in Smash 4 so I can get an idea?

Since I have not personally invested time in testing items for viability, I will go with the criteria outlined by those who have: http://smashboards.com/threads/offi...d-for-a-side-project-huh-p-poll-in-op.164675/

 

[Mr.Showtime]

A strawman is not when something is not relevant to the subject. It's when you set up an example of your own that the other person hadn't been using, then disprove your own example. ie, you set up the strawman so you could knock it down. That's where the term comes from.

When I said "I support some random stages and items" and you say "What about tripping? That's random and proven bad" you were strawmanning me because you were setting up your own example in order to defeat it, while ignoring my point.

I am not the one ignoring points here. Also, if you read the last couple posts I made, I even address tripping for you.

Correct, and I continued giving you proof in the post after. The grand final set for Brawl at Evo.

 

[[Corn]]

Since I have not personally invested time in testing items for viability, I will go with the criteria outlined by those who have: http://smashboards.com/threads/offi...d-for-a-side-project-huh-p-poll-in-op.164675/

Dat 54 votes and the game being hacked. Threads old.

 

[BSP]

So, ANY and ALL randomness should be removed? Just to be sure this is your position before I respond.

All, no. Some cases, yes. It would take me a while to think of some criteria that accepts randomness I deem acceptable (PKMN stadium transformation order and Smashville's platform's starting location for example), but rejects others (items, pictochat, halberd's attacks, others) without having a double standard somewhere.

 

[Ulevo]

Since I have not personally invested time in testing items for viability, I will go with the criteria outlined by those who have: http://smashboards.com/threads/offi...d-for-a-side-project-huh-p-poll-in-op.164675/

And how is that information supposed to support your argument? If anything its reassured those of us that items in fact are not accountable, and the only way to make them semi-accountable (still not good enough) is to hack them. I hope that you're not running with that idea, because if SWU/3DS requires hacking of any kind in order to be a reasonably good game, people are going to leave the Smash scene---and this is with items, no less.

 

[salaboB]

This is another example of someone trying to win the argument and not discussing. Look at how off topic this quote is to what I was linking to the thread for:

Dat 54 votes and the game being hacked. Threads old.

It has nothing to do with the voting or hacking. Read through the body of the post for the neutral/counterpick/banned items, since I was asked what type of items I would support having enabled.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

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 *******s 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.

I disagree.
This kind of attitude is the reason insufferable people like t0mmy can go on spewing nonsense and being all-around irritating and still feel like they are in the right. People don't get insulted for no reason - it's an indication that you're doing something that someone else dislikes. Whether you should care enough about that to change your tune is obviously specific to the situation at hand, but the way society is saying "Everyone has to be nice to each other" instead of "Everyone should stop being precious and learn how to handle dissention" really grinds my gears.

Items are legit, from a certain point of view. They can make the game a lot more fun, but there is no denying that they make the game less competitive through their randomness.
You CAN learn to play around them to some degree, but even small advantages can make a big difference... and in an environment where only very tame items are legal, the frequency is set to low, and everyone's playstyles have adapted to the item-metagame those small random advantages STILL add up REALLY quickly.

There are lots of reasons not to have items legal, I really dislike this idea that we need to try and conserve as much of the game as possible because of some intrinsic worth in the notion of "only removing game elements that are broken". As I've explained numerous times, we already altered the game based on preference as soon as we banned Temple - call it a slippery slope but everything is fair game after that, really.

 

[Ulevo]

This is another example of someone trying to win the argument and not discussing. Look at how off topic this quote is to what I was linking to the thread for:

It has nothing to do with the voting or hacking. Read through the body of the post for the neutral/counterpick/banned items, since I was asked what type of items I would support having enabled.

Where were you asked that? And are you going to address anything else in this thread?

 

[Ulevo]

I disagree.
This kind of attitude is the reason insufferable people like t0mmy can go on spewing nonsense and being all-around irritating and still feel like they are in the right. People don't get insulted for no reason - it's an indication that you're doing something that someone else dislikes. Whether you should care enough about that to change your tune is obviously specific to the situation at hand, but the way society is saying "Everyone has to be nice to each other" instead of "Everyone should stop being precious and learn how to handle dissention" really grinds my gears.

That is where moderation is necessary. Outside of the morale implications of mud slinging, it doesn't contribute any substance to a discussion. It's essentially a waste of time. In that sense, I think its more important to respect the conversation than to respect the person you happen to dislike.

 

[salaboB]

They can make the game a lot more fun, but there is no denying that they make the game less competitive through their randomness.

Yes, there is. Go research "Item Standard Play" and you'll find actual results backing up said denial as well.

I'd get into it here but we've already seen that people would prefer to change the topic rather than discuss why legal items may not be less competitive.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I've been following that thread since it started, its very few, mid-level (at best) results don't hold a candle to the years of item play data we have from melee, and a basic understanding of how Brawl works.

 

[salaboB]

I've been following that thread since it started, its very few, mid-level (at best) results don't hold a candle to the years of item play data we have from melee, and a basic understanding of how Brawl works.

That's interesting of you to say, how many large item restricted (Carefully selected items, not all of them enabled) tournaments were there in Melee? Because I don't recall ever hearing about this data.

Also: You can't compare directly between Melee and Brawl because in Brawl you can turn off capsules and crates -- in Melee you couldn't. And those certainly did skew results, (Which is why they're items that should be turned off). This means that there couldn't be a single Melee item tournament without at least those broken items present.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I have absolutely no idea.

I can recall many instances of non-explosive items influencing the results. The typical example was someone getting knocked off-stage, and then an item spawns for the person on-stage (such as a beam sword) which then guarantees their edge-guard.

You could say they earnt that advantage by gaining stage control, but that'd be ignoring the fact that your opponent would then get you in the exact same position and not be rewarded for his efforts with an item spawn.

 

[salaboB]

I have absolutely no idea.

But you just said there was lots of data from Melee. Please don't claim evidence when you don't have any.

 

[DMG]

Where's the god damn formula/answer for when items spawn? I like colorful Overswarm style graphs, filled with big text that questions your manhood and intelligence, in such a bold manner that you couldn't possibly mentally shirk from having read his blasting conclusions.

MLG HAPPENED AND THIS IS WHY YOUR JOHNSON IS SCARED AT NIGHT! ~OS

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Please don't play with semantics.
Saying that I don't know the answer to this question:

how many large item restricted (Carefully selected items, not all of them enabled) tournaments were there in Melee?

Doesn't take away the validity of this claim

[we have] years of item play data from melee

 

[salaboB]

Please don't play with semantics.
Saying that I don't know the answer to this question:

Doesn't take away the validity of this claim

It means that you not only can't present how much data we have from melee (Which is understandable, old data may be gone) but you don't even know how much there was to explain your belief that it existed. Also, whether said item testing was even done with attempts to limit the worst items, or just all items on (Which I know some tournies did)

And it still doesn't address the difference in being able to not turn off all broken items (Capsules and crates) in Melee, while being able to in Brawl. That difference alone means Brawl needed its own testing -- not to mention the item spawn system could be different, item power levels are different, items may be more/less important (Probably more) with the changes to character floatiness/combo-ability, etc.

Basically, there's not been any major testing for Brawl. Do I think there should be? No, not for Brawl, not at this point. But should it be looked at with an open mind for Smash 4? Yes, it should be tested early for Smash 4 before a blanket ban is imposed. Why? Because there's many possible benefits to the system if it doesn't skew results away from the best player winning.

And specifically related to the stage selection criteria that started this thread, I think that same concept should be applied there -- randomness in stages should not automatically ban the stage from competitive play without proof that it skews the results from who should be winning.

 

[Mr.Showtime]

Please don't play with semantics.
Saying that I don't know the answer to this question:

Doesn't take away the validity of this claim

The data is out there somewhere. I'm sure everything was valid when the Smash scene started to get competitive. How many years of information and how many times we tried with each game from the series? Always ended up with the same result! Always. Items weren't always banned. They were allowed before. They were taken into consideration many times. Arguments like this happened for every game in the series, and always ended up with the same conclusion.

 

[Ulevo]

Basically, there's not been any testing for Brawl. Do I think there should be? No, not for Brawl, not at this point. But should it be looked at with an open mind for Smash 4? Yes, it should be tested early for Smash 4 before a blanket ban is imposed. Why? Because there's many possible benefits to the system if it doesn't skew results away from the best player winning.

Except it does. All items do to some degree. Your point to prove otherwise based on whether items spawn in predictable locations and timed intervals was contradicted by the very link you posted yourself.

 

[[Corn]]

This is another example of someone trying to win the argument and not discussing. Look at how off topic this quote is to what I was linking to the thread for:

It has nothing to do with the voting or hacking. Read through the body of the post for the neutral/counterpick/banned items, since I was asked what type of items I would support having enabled.

Its stated in the OP that the game does have roughly multiple spots for items, but the game cannot be hacked further into making them predictable.

Ive already had a discussion with people who use such things as evidence. We arent looking for the items if they add an element of luck, and it specifically states that not even with current level of hacking we cannot force items to spawn at predictable intervals at a set location(Thats what I meant abouts hacks). None of this is addresses in any of the arguments against pro items things. You should probably adress it yourself then.


Its not hard to understand

 

[Grim Tuesday]

There are lots of reasons not to have items legal, I really dislike this idea that we need to try and conserve as much of the game as possible because of some intrinsic worth in the notion of "only removing game elements that are broken". As I've explained numerous times, we already altered the game based on preference as soon as we banned Temple - call it a slippery slope but everything is fair game after that, really.

Take this into account, salaboB. We have no obligation to test items for Smash 4, if that's what you're implying. You'll have to convince players that we should want to play with items, not just that we can play without them.

I can't give you any data from melee in the form that you want (maybe I could if I looked for it, but I don't care enough), but data is a very general term. I was merely referring to the observations made by anyone who was around during that period on how much items influenced results.

I actually did address the fact that you can turn off explosives.

I can recall many instances of non-explosive items influencing the results. The typical example was someone getting knocked off-stage, and then an item spawns for the person on-stage (such as a beam sword) which then guarantees their edge-guard.

You could say they earnt that advantage by gaining stage control, but that'd be ignoring the fact that your opponent would then get you in the exact same position and not be rewarded for his efforts with an item spawn.

 

[salaboB]

Take this into account, salaboB. We have no obligation to test items for Smash 4, if that's what you're implying. You'll have to convince players that we should want to play with items, not just that we can play without them.

I can't give you any data from melee in the form that you want (maybe I could if I looked for it, but I don't care enough), but data is a very general term. I was merely referring to the observations made by anyone who was around during that period on how much items influenced results.

I actually did address the fact that you can turn off explosives.

You edited your post after I responded to it, which is why I missed that added information.

That being said: Yes, the person who engaged and successfully knocked the opponent off then claimed a beam sword did in fact do something better than their opponent who then knocked them off and didn't. The game would not be played just "I go in and attack anytime I want" if items were on, you'd have to actually pay attention to when the next item spawn was likely to be and not blow a position advantage at a bad time.

You seem to be saying "If items were on people couldn't just play as if they weren't on without getting random results." My answer to that is "that's correct, they should play differently because the game will be deeper."