Proposed Ruleset for Smash 4 Tournaments

[nat pagle]

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.

That will not happen until items are both A. Not randomly spawned in location and time and B. Not detrimental to recoveries. And I'd like to see what kind of benefits items would add to the system that outweighs random number god.

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.

It doesn't matter whether it skews results from "evidence" via tournament play. The bans are placed in order to nullify the possibility of random factors deciding outcomes in all cases. And as far as I'm concerned, there is no possible way to have accurately placed who would have won in each case due to the fact the randomness of the stage affects the outcome and we don't know who would've won w/o the randomness.

What exactly is your method to get "proof" that the stages would skew results? What, tournament play? Are you telling me stages will be legal by default no matter what? You have no way of determining what results are conclusive or not. Correlation is not the same as causation.

All in all, these rules are intended to prevent luck based results in a match by match case. Even if the "luck" factor rarely influenced the results by item spawning or stage selection, the ban would have prevented ALL of such occurrences. Just like how you can't bring a video camera to a theater, it prevents as many instances of filming in theater as possible.

 

[Ulevo]

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.

Early in this thread, there was a big debate over whether Brawl had a hard-coded list of spawn points for items on each stage, or if the game randomly/procedurally determined where an item will spawn. I'm happy to report that the answer is...

...BOTH!

See, in each stage PAC file, there is a section called ModelData[100], and nested deep within this file is a list of bones for each stage, some of which are assigned to item spawns. Using the positions of these bones (stored in (X, Y, Z) format under "Translation"), we can create boxes of areas where the game will allow items to spawn, at which point the game will randomly select a point inside this valid area to spawn items.

This is VERY important. This means that, with hacking, we can find the most balanced and fair areas to spawn items on each stage and restrict item spawns to only those areas!

I don't know about you, but I'm going back to ignoring salaboB and this entire argument. When someone who advocates items in competitive play presents a good, tangible argument, I'll be back.

 

[salaboB]

Let's say I'm playing on Smashville. I make a risky approach against my enemy from the left while the platform happens to be out over the left edge. He clears me off the stage, but I use the platform and make it safely back.

A little while later, he makes a risky approach against me from the left, but he's not paying any attention to the platform position either. The platform is on the right. He does not get its assistance on his recovery, and loses a stock.

This is the same kind of "random" that the edge guard beam sword example is using. Players need to pay attention to the situation, not just to their opponent, and examples using players who aren't paying attention don't reflect real scenarios (Or are just examples of bad play).

 

[Jack Kieser]

I don't know about you, but I'm going back to ignoring salaboB and this entire argument. When someone who advocates items in competitive play presents a good, tangible argument, I'll be back.

Um, excuse me, but don't selectively ignore parts of MY thread, quote MY words disingenuously, then act smug about it.

Items don't spawn on a discreet timer, but they do have variable timings to them; on low, an item is guaranteed to spawn after about 30-45 seconds past the start of the match / after the last spawn, even if we don't know exactly what second the item will spawn on. In addition, no one EVER claimed that we knew spawn locations, and even in my thread, I explicitly state that we can know the valid area of spawns, which in many cases is good enough.

All of this only applies to Brawl, as we have no earthly idea how item spawn mechanics will be in SSB4 yet. So, don't act like you're so brilliant, because you're not saying or doing anything special, aside from quoting me selectively in reaction to an unrelated argument and then claiming that you're a smart guy by ignoring other posters.

 

[DMG]

What is there to pay attention to? The random spawn times? The random spawn locations? I'm sorry, I thought we were trying to play Smash, not spin the Roulette Wheel and there may be an item here or there so WATCH OUT THE ENTIRE TIME.

 

[Mr.Showtime]

Let's say I'm playing on Smashville. I make a risky approach against my enemy from the left while the platform happens to be out over the left edge. He clears me off the stage, but I use the platform and make it safely back.

A little while later, he makes a risky approach against me from the left, but he's not paying any attention to the platform position either. The platform is on the right. He does not get its assistance on his recovery, and loses a stock.

This is the same kind of "random" that the edge guard beam sword example is using. Players need to pay attention to the situation, not just to their opponent, and examples using players who aren't paying attention don't reflect real scenarios (Or are just examples of bad play).

What!? There is a specific time where that platform goes back and forth. There is 0 random with the platform. I've also mentioned before that to even survive by that platform someone needs to be hit in the top-left or top-right corner, (which rarely ever happens) and the people that can survive would have survived anyway due to their awesome recovery. Aka ROB, Meta Knight, D3, Pit, etc. If you are say, C.Falcon and hit in the top left corner, it'll still not be a great decision to get on platform because its too high up. I've never seen people clutch a life due to a platform being there whereas they could have survived anyway. I'm not saying it never happened, but it would certainly be rare and not a common scenario.

 

[nat pagle]

Let's say I'm playing on Smashville. I make a risky approach against my enemy from the left while the platform happens to be out over the left edge. He clears me off the stage, but I use the platform and make it safely back.

A little while later, he makes a risky approach against me from the left, but he's not paying any attention to the platform position either. The platform is on the right. He does not get its assistance on his recovery, and loses a stock.

This is the same kind of "random" that the edge guard beam sword example is using. Players need to pay attention to the situation, not just to their opponent, and examples using players who aren't paying attention don't reflect real scenarios (Or are just examples of bad play).

1. Is the Smashville platform's movement even random?

2. Smashville platform is always visible and doesn't spawn at random times and locations.

3. It doesn't reflect the beam sword situation because the beam sword situation assumes the sword spawns while the opponent is off stage. In the Smashville scenario, the platform is always visible and predictable. Not to mention a beam sword gives you a guaranteed edge guard at random.

 

[Jack Kieser]

What is there to pay attention to? The random spawn times? The random spawn locations? I'm sorry, I thought we were trying to play Smash, not spin the Roulette Wheel and there may be an item here or there so WATCH OUT THE ENTIRE TIME.

You say it as though item spawns are something we inject into the game. You do realize that "Smash", as a concept, includes items natively, right? -_-; When I "play Smash", I sometimes use items. When we "play Smash" during an ISP event, items spawn. You don't get to say "play Smash" as though it's some trump card that forces someone to say, "OH, YOU'RE RIGHT. I forgot what game I was playing, how silly of me". Again, cut the smug. If you want to argue that they shouldn't be in Smash, that's one thing, but don't think you're being smart by saying that they aren't a part of the game you're choosing to play, because they are, even if you turn them off.

 

[DMG]

"Items don't spawn on a discreet timer, but they do have variable timings to them; on low, an item is guaranteed to spawn after about 30-45 seconds past the start of the match / after the last spawn, even if we don't know exactly what second the item will spawn on. In addition, no one EVER claimed that we knew spawn locations, and even in my thread, I explicitly state that we can know the valid area of spawns, which in many cases is good enough."

30 seconds to 45 seconds is a 15 second window gap. With the spawn area/s also up for grabs. What's the argument? "For those 15 seconds, better play as if an item may spawn at any time at roughly any place"? That's not convincing as a testament to skill if I knock my opponent away during those 15 seconds and happened to get an item, or a good argument for the competitiveness of items since you are asking them to drastically alter their mindset for a random event, repeatedly over the course of a match, that may range from time wasting to changing who wins the match.

As for Smash, I'm only talking about competitively, where the majority of people are not looking forward to the inherent randomness of Items.

 

[Ulevo]

Um, excuse me, but don't selectively ignore parts of MY thread, quote MY words disingenuously, then act smug about it.

Items don't spawn on a discreet timer, but they do have variable timings to them; on low, an item is guaranteed to spawn after about 30-45 seconds past the start of the match / after the last spawn, even if we don't know exactly what second the item will spawn on. In addition, no one EVER claimed that we knew spawn locations, and even in my thread, I explicitly state that we can know the valid area of spawns, which in many cases is good enough.

All of this only applies to Brawl, as we have no earthly idea how item spawn mechanics will be in SSB4 yet. So, don't act like you're so brilliant, because you're not saying or doing anything special, aside from quoting me selectively in reaction to an unrelated argument and then claiming that you're a smart guy by ignoring other posters.

Ignoring other posters? I feel a sense of irony coming on.

You were never part of this transaction. I simply used your thread that was provided as a reference to the discussion going on in thread pertaining to item spawn locations and timers. It just so happens that the information your thread provides only further proves many of the points anti-item posters here have been trying to emphasize. I don't see how that is a smug misuse of your words.

Also, the burden of proof for item testing comes from those who want to see items in standard play, not the other way around. There is no harm in talking hypothetical theory about why items are not fit for competitive play based on either a lack of information or a confirmation of innate unpredictability regarding their spawn locations and timers because the likelyhood is that they're going to act the exact same way in SWU/3DS. Even if they're not, that point of contention can't be argued until we know more.

As much as I'm touched that you've chosen to attack my ego, you're wasting your time.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Yes, for those fifteen seconds, play as though an item might spawn. What's so strange about that? If you're playing a rushdown character, that's a great time to rush the opponent, because you'll lock him down long enough to wait for the spawn and react from an advantageous position. If you're Toon Link, it's a great time to use your projectiles to cover as much stage as you can, control as much space as possible. If you're really good at air-grabbing on reaction, just camp, wait for the spawn, then bait it out. It's not like the game completely devolves into chaos just because of items.

And, no, DMG, before you start up, you don't have to worry about an item spawning in the middle of the rushdown and screwing it up, because ISP has all of those items that activate on spawn either turned off or added to the CP list, so either they don't affect the match, or the players choose to allow that possibility, so yes, it's entirely fair insofar as the players agree to it potentially happening.

EDIT:

@Ulevo: I became a part of it the second you decide to quote me. Not only did you quote a section of the thread about spawn locations in reaction to a statement about spawn times, something I had to correct you on, but you didn't do anything by posting it because the whole argument is that people who aren't militantly anti-item don't have a problem with some randomness in the spawns in the first place. You can't just point out some randomness and call it a day if those people think that the randomness is either a good thing or at least permissible from the get go.

And, no, the burden of proof for SSB4 is on the people who want to ban stuff because they're the ones changing the rules on day one. Day one, the game will come default with a set of rules, and all changes from that set should be argued, even the ones you personally think are obvious because there will be a GIANT influx of new players who won't know why something that's obvious to you is the case. In addition, the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the banner, not on the game. Ever heard of the null hypothesis? Do some reading.

 

[Thirdkoopa]

Here's a thought: Why not start with banning more stages and then allowing some as we go?

I remember the reverse being done with Brawl where like all stages but five were allowed.

 

[nat pagle]

Yes, for those fifteen seconds, play as though an item might spawn. What's so strange about that? If you're playing a rushdown character, that's a great time to rush the opponent, because you'll lock him down long enough to wait for the spawn and react from an advantageous position. If you're Toon Link, it's a great time to use your projectiles to cover as much stage as you can, control as much space as possible. If you're really good at air-grabbing on reaction, just camp, wait for the spawn, then bait it out. It's not like the game completely devolves into chaos just because of items.

So, you're basically encouraging camping for items and playing certain characters to further gain advantage? That's a good reason to add items. More camping.

 

[Jack Kieser]

If your character is good at camping, sure. If not, then don't. Same as anything else. You literally underlined a sentence that explicitly said not to camp in all circumstances, then acted like I said to camp all item spawns. You're... not a bright one, are you?

 

[BSP]

1. Is the Smashville platform's movement even random?

2. Smashville platform is always visible and doesn't spawn at random times and locations.

3. It doesn't reflect the beam sword situation because the beam sword situation assumes the sword spawns while the opponent is off stage. In the Smashville scenario, the platform is always visible and predictable. Not to mention a beam sword gives you a guaranteed edge guard at random.

The starting position of the platform is random.

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?)

As far as items and stages with...more intrusive randomness, for lack of a better term, I'm not really concerned whether they skew results or not. I'm worried about the unfair advantages gained or disadvantages caused due to luck.

I agree with you on FD, and I've thought it's CP material for a while now. It's going to be nearly impossible to chance now, plus, I don't think people really care enough to change it. Brawl's stagelist is/has dwindled anyway.

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.

You've been questioned on the bold part already, so I'm not going to say more than I disagree since items spawns are random.

Whether you can react to the claw is irrelevant to me: One player is getting an advantage/disadvantage for no reason other than random chance, and I don't see why that should be present in a tournament environment if we can turn it off.

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).

As long as item spawns are random, I see it as luck. Then, there's the problem of which item spawns as well. Those are dice rolls I'd rather not have present when money is on the line.

Hypothetical: Ganon dittos on FD. We have Ganon A and Ganon B.

A knocks B offstage, and during this time, a sandbag spawns.

40ish seconds later, Ganon B knocks A offstage, and during this time, a Beam Sword falls.

B now has a massive advantage because of when he knocked A off. The beam sword lets Ganon get some pretty crazy strings from his Flame Choke move.

Why did B get this advantage? Because of chance. How is that fair?

What did A do wrong in this scenario? How can A consistently avoid this? He can't because it's random chance.

The "right" and "wrong" times of engagement is fighting random chance.

 

[nat pagle]

If your character is good at camping, sure. If not, then don't. Same as anything else. You literally underlined a sentence that explicitly said not to camp in all circumstances, then acted like I said to camp all item spawns. You're... not a bright one, are you?

It clearly said camp for items. That's what I was talking about. And for the record, don't accuse me of not being bright when you can't even comprehend my sentence correctly. I said "more" camping and "encouraging" camping. You're... not a bright one, are you?

The starting position of the platform is random.

You can blatantly see it when the match starts though.

 

[DMG]

Not chaos, but you alter the way people play significantly over something that is random. That COULD be a thing that deepens the game if it was consistent.

If items spawned on a consistent basis, in a consistent area, you could see meaningful strategies based on this. Like you said, put pressure on the opponent or projectiles to control the spawning point. But when you're potentially taking the entire stage as an area for items to spawn, and only god knows when exactly the items will spawn, you are putting an incosistent spin on something that could have been adding depth. The skill that normally would go into controlling the item spawn space or putting pressure on the opponent is now put up to chance. That's not what competitive players want, and unless there's solid proof that say first spawn items only go on right/left side of the stage, always on 33 seconds, etc stuff in that realm, you're never going to have a solid enough argument that items add meaningful and not up to chance depth to the game.

Players want consistent skills to test right? Items inherently are not consistent in how they spawn, what will spawn (obviously only the items you turn on would spawn, but having more than 1 item on you have no guarantee on what will show up), or where they will spawn. Because of that, why test players on their ability to "play different" every chunk of a minute or so, across very large areas, to fight over randomized items in the first place? You may find items that are completely competitive and fair to use. But the way they are introduced into gameplay is in a ****ty way.

 

[Ulevo]

@Ulevo: I became a part of it the second you decide to quote me. Not only did you quote a section of the thread about spawn locations in reaction to a statement about spawn times, something I had to correct you on, but you didn't do anything by posting it because the whole argument is that people who aren't militantly anti-item don't have a problem with some randomness in the spawns in the first place. You can't just point out some randomness and call it a day if those people think that the randomness is either a good thing or at least permissible from the get go.

You may feel that that is the argument that is the undertone of this discussion, but it was not the pertinent one I used your thread for. And yes, I can do that, because it is still the responsibility of your position to prove why some randomness is 'a good thing or at least permissable', particularly when the majority disagrees with you.

And, no, the burden of proof for SSB4 is on the people who want to ban stuff because they're the ones changing the rules on day one. Day one, the game will come default with a set of rules, and all changes from that set should be argued, even the ones you personally think are obvious because there will be a GIANT influx of new players who won't know why something that's obvious to you is the case. In addition, the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the banner, not on the game. Ever heard of the null hypothesis? Do some reading.

This depends on your perception of what the relevant rules are. Who exactly is changing the rules? Considering this is a competitive forum discussing the relevancy of competitive Smash, I would say the relevant rules are the ones we have set a precedent for, and not the rules the game designers have left in as default settings. Implying we need to use burden of proof based on the initial rule list, a list that was never designed around competitive Smash in the first place, is implying we need to consider designer intent when making our decisions as a community. That is pure nonsense.

The burden of proof is not always on the banner; thats an oversimplification. The burden of proof is always on those who are seeking to invoke change. You don't see it that way because you're oblivious to the proper context we're working with.

On a more pertinent note, here's some of my thoughts on why this whole consistency thing in regards to random item timer and spawn points doesn't work, pertaining to how a player is supposed to play according to these conditions in a game with items on. It also happens to be a quote of mine when I argued with salaboB about this a while ago.

I'll use Smogon and their laddering system as a comparative example because it fits the situation you're describing.

The way competitive Pokemon works outside of tournament matches is through a laddering system. In order to be successful in competitive Pokemon based on how well you do against your peers, you need to ensure that you win consistently more than you lose, and there is a lot more emphasis on that then how much one individual match matters. This is in fact why its based on a ladder system. Even though luck is an intrinsic factor in Pokemon, and you can lose a match you should have definitely won because you lost from a critical hit, it does not matter in the long term because you will still climb the ladder if you perform better than your peers. However, it is absolutely true that each and every given match is ultimately out of your control, because even the best player can and will lose to the worst player if the RNG screws you hard enough.

This is unacceptable in a tournament setting that fighting games use because it is all based on single elimination, two of three, or three of five rounds. Every single stock, and every single round matter. The idea that 'luck is okay because your opponent will be as lucky as you in the long run' doesn't cut it here when matches are so tight and a single variable not in control of either player can turn a win from a loss or vice versa.

The other part of this is that it doesn't matter how well you zone your opponent or keep them off the stage, you still don't control when the items do and do not spawn, and you can't reasonably be expected as a player to play immaculately to a point where the influence of items could never negatively impact you. If you play the match well enough to keep up, but each item spawn you were capable of grabbing doesn't help your odds, and suddenly your opponent happens to have a crucial item he needs spawn near him to clutch out a game (like an item to make you waste your double jump while being thrown off stage), that isnt' a sign of fair play. That's a sign of the RNG favouring one circumstance over another.

What makes all of this worse is that if you get lucked out of a win in a single round, but can still win the next two, it's harder to come back in Smash because of counterpicks.

 

[BSP]

30 seconds to 45 seconds is a 15 second window gap. With the spawn area/s also up for grabs. What's the argument? "For those 15 seconds, better play as if an item may spawn at any time at roughly any place"? That's not convincing as a testament to skill if I knock my opponent away during those 15 seconds and happened to get an item, or a good argument for the competitiveness of items since you are asking them to drastically alter their mindset for a random event, repeatedly over the course of a match, that may range from time wasting to changing who wins the match.

If anyone thinks Pictochat is fine as a competitive stage, I'd like to see your thoughts on this. I see the two (random item spawns and which pictochat drawing is coming next) similarly, and this line of thought is why I don't think Pictochat is good for competition. Of course, the numbers are different, but the general idea is the same.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

I see the two (random item spawns and which pictochat drawing is coming next) similarly, and this line of thought is why I don't think Pictochat is good for competition. Of course, the numbers are different, but the general idea is the same.

How is the general idea the same?! One of them randomly gives a player an advantage they didn't earn, and the other randomly gives a player an advantage they didn't earn!

Cheezus Chrust, you people.

 

[nat pagle]

How is the general idea the same?! One of them randomly gives a player an advantage they didn't earn, and the other randomly gives a player an advantage they didn't earn!

Cheezus Chrust, you people.

A lot of people don't understand that random items and occurrences =/= skill based all the time.

 

[salaboB]

A lot of people don't understand that random items and occurrences =/= skill based all the time.

A lot of people don't understand that random events =/= not a skill based outcome.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

I hypothesize that at least a few of these people are wanting to add to the skill ceiling to satisfy their egos. They seem to think the skill ceiling needs to be raised, when in reality only a few people can play close to perfectly, or at least with few flaws, on very rare occasions. In their own minds, they might already be playing at a high level when in reality they are likely just decent in a vacuum. So what's next? Artificially add elments that don't involve the player. Maybe the people in question actually did score a win thanks to taking advantage of a situation the opponent found themselves in because of the stage/item, and in their minds that is a victory they worked for but it's really confirmation bias.

 

[XavierSylfaen]

ITT: 20 pages of ****ing massive text walls debating something that doesn't have a right answer

Some people prefer to play smash without outside interference at all so that there is no luck influencing the game and it is just one person versus another.

Some people prefer to play with lots of outside interference and instead base a lot of the game on reacting to that interference in a way that puts you in a better position than your opponent.

No matter which side you're on, accept that the other side exists and is not by any means "objectively" wrong, it's just a different way of looking at it.

 

[nat pagle]

ITT: 20 pages of ****ing massive text walls debating something that doesn't have a right answer

Some people prefer to play smash without outside interference at all so that there is no luck influencing the game and it is just one person versus another.

Some people prefer to play with lots of outside interference and instead base a lot of the game on reacting to that interference in a way that puts you in a better position than your opponent.

No matter which side you're on, accept that the other side exists and is not by any means "objectively" wrong, it's just a different way of looking at it.

We understand this, but this is a debate for tournaments, not casual play. You can do whatever you want with your friends. But tournaments are a different ballpark. And the best option for tournaments is to subjectively keep the game as skill based as possible, removing random factors from play. So everyone knows full well what they're up against.

 

[trash?]

not entirely true, I'd argue that randomness should be allowed in cases where the pros heavily outweight the cons-- or more simply, if there's still enjoyability in it, regardless of predictability. randall exists in melee YS, but we don't care because his advantage is tiny at best and the stage itself is still a really good stage.

there's also ways randomness can work in a skill-setting; assume, for a moment, that GnW's judgement instead gave 9 different effects that, while completely different, are all the exact same level in quality, and are all very good tools that you just need to use differently. this means that, in order for someone to use judgement effectively, they have to work with whatever judgement gives them, meaning adaptability as a skill becomes important. (this theoretical example would probably work better if you also were able to tell which number is coming out next after you side-b, but you get the idea)

knowing that: in my opinion, items aren't fun, mute city isn't fun, and norfair is considered "fun" in the same way death is considered "a nice thing to deal with"

 

[StriCNYN3]

^ Actually, Randall isn't random. As soon as you start YS, he always comes out on the right side every 7th second. He also always stays out for 5 seconds for each side and takes 5 seconds to reach the other side of the level. People just don't care about the timing though because it's just insignificant info compared to something like the low ceiling YS has.

 

[[Corn]]

not entirely true, I'd argue that randomness should be allowed in cases where the pros heavily outweight the cons-- or more simply, if there's still enjoyability in it, regardless of predictability. randall exists in melee YS, but we don't care because his advantage is tiny at best and the stage itself is still a really good stage.

there's also ways randomness can work in a skill-setting; assume, for a moment, that GnW's judgement instead gave 9 different effects that, while completely different, are all the exact same level in quality, and are all very good tools that you just need to use differently. this means that, in order for someone to use judgement effectively, they have to work with whatever judgement gives them, meaning adaptability as a skill becomes important. (this theoretical example would probably work better if you also were able to tell which number is coming out next after you side-b, but you get the idea)

knowing that: in my opinion, items aren't fun, mute city isn't fun, and norfair is considered "fun" in the same way death is considered "a nice thing to deal with"

We cant remove judgement, as no option exists to remove it besides removing the character. The number is also extremely hard to land and most of the reults arent very impacting. If we had an option to select which numbers popped up Im certina we would use it.

Randall isnt random at all.

 

[LiteralGrill]

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.

I'll agree to this, and may randomly quote this from time to time. This is much better then what I said. Gotta let ideas evolve when possible. Good post Ulevo.

What!? There is a specific time where that platform goes back and forth. There is 0 random with the platform.

If I remember correctly, the platform can start in different places at random at the beginning of the match. Not a huge deal, but still worth noting. Better to note with Smashville would be the balloons. The have 3 strict patterns they float at, but I don't think they are on any kind of timer and are done 100% random unless I am remembering wrong.

Here's a thought: Why not start with banning more stages and then allowing some as we go?

I remember the reverse being done with Brawl where like all stages but five were allowed.

Mostly because they wont ever be unbanned. People will be so used to the five, they wont want to learn more stages, and I promise bunches of reasons will be made not to.

On the topic of Randomness, some highly competitive games do have randomness involved in their discrete win state, Settlers of Catan in a fantastic example. Random isn't actually always a bad thing, if the randomness can be reasonably adapted to, it can create even better competition. Settlers of Catan does this PERFECTLY. Sure, I could see someone saying Picto Chat is too much, but Norfair gives you fair warnings on timers when hazards will show up, it's easy to adapt to.

That's the tough part, what if by removing all the interactive stages you actually are changing the discrete win state of the game? If this is true, you are actually in theory "not playing Smash" anymore (again, not saying this literally so don't go insane on this post).

BOTH ways foster competition. We've gone over this, and it seems both sides offer something competitive with good reasoning behind it, both sides just want their competition to be different. Coexist, let people host events, and let both sides be open minded when looking at things and be sure to explain them very well when you do. Make sure we know how every stage works WEEKS into smash, not months and even years for some stages so both sides can make decent decisions. (I'm planning on having a full in depth mechanics guide to every single 3DS stage within the first week, even the "obvious bans" so we can do that for the game.)

 

[Thirdkoopa]

Mostly because they wont ever be unbanned. People will be so used to the five, they wont want to learn more stages, and I promise bunches of reasons will be made not to.

...And?

If they won't ever get unbanned, maybe it's a good thing overall. 10-12 stages overall on each version ISN'T that bad. There's a reason you don't see people wavedashing on Pokefloats in this stuff.

 

[LiteralGrill]

...And?

If they won't ever get unbanned, maybe it's a good thing overall. 10-12 stages overall on each version ISN'T that bad. There's a reason you don't see people wavedashing on Pokefloats in this stuff.

Look at the stagelist most commonly ran now. In reality, it's 5 stages for Brawl. Now, I could accept less stages, but to me the 5 chosen are terribly biased to top tier characters (hence why they are even higher on the tier list now and some others dropped drastically that could adapt to more stages). THAT isn't good.

AA's idea of having groupinga where we PROMISE to have group 1 and 2 at least legal FOREVER is a great idea, then let group three try to work its way into 2, or if a 2 stage does turn out to have a huge problem, find the best 3 to replace it with. THAT I could accept if we had to go the route of banning a bunch to unban some later.

 

[[Corn]]

On the topic of Randomness, some highly competitive games do have randomness involved in their discrete win state, Settlers of Catan in a fantastic example. Random isn't actually always a bad thing, if the randomness can be reasonably adapted to, it can create even better competition. Settlers of Catan does this PERFECTLY. Sure, I could see someone saying Picto Chat is too much, but Norfair gives you fair warnings on timers when hazards will show up, it's easy to adapt to.

If you can remove randomness from a boardgame using dice be my guest.

The beauty of video games is that everything is static, universal rules are able to be set and inforced within the system. When something as standard as a dice is in use of course you have to adapt to the randomness as you cant remove it without breaking every aspect of the game. You cannot say that randomness can be adapted to if no option to remove such randomness exists in the first place.

I dont know if you have every played TF2, but there is Random Crits and random damage in the casual game. At a competitive level, these options were so hated because they increased the randomness that the developers added options to just remove them. In fact, many players turn them off during normal play because it increases the skill level and allows for a heightened sense of control.
Guess what? No one wants them put back in. The added luck mechanics were stated to specifically help lesser players not be dominated by the better ones, so its obvious that they should be removed at a competitve level.

 

[Thirdkoopa]

Look at the stagelist most commonly ran now. In reality, it's 5 stages for Brawl. Now, I could accept less stages, but to me the 5 chosen are terribly biased to top tier characters (hence why they are even higher on the tier list now and some others dropped drastically that could adapt to more stages). THAT isn't good.

AA's idea of having groupinga where we PROMISE to have group 1 and 2 at least legal FOREVER is a great idea, then let group three try to work its way into 2, or if a 2 stage does turn out to have a huge problem, find the best 3 to replace it with. THAT I could accept if we had to go the route of banning a bunch to unban some later.

i don't even get what you're trying to say and i read this several times

 

[LiteralGrill]

If you can remove randomness from a boardgame using dice be my guest.

The beauty of video games is that everything is static, universal rules are able to be set and inforce within the system. When something as standard as a dice is in use of course you have to adapt to the randomness as you cant remove it without breaking every aspect of the game. You cannot say that randomness can be adapted to if no option to remove such randomness exists in the first place.

I dont know if you have every played TF2, but there is Random Crits and random damage in the casual game. At a competitive level, these options were so hated because they increased the randomness that the developers added options to just remove them. In fact, many players turn them off during normal play because it increases the skill level and allows for a heightened sense of control.
Guess what? No one wants them put back in. The added luck mechanics were stated to specifically help lesser players not be dominated by the better ones, so its obvious that they should be removed at a competitve level.

Alright! We have something here. So, Random Crits increased randomness in results, so they found a way to remove them.

NOW we have randomness, but if it DOESN'T make the results random, should we eliminate it?

Catan actually does have non luck based ways to play if you want to that remove dice from the equation, DON'T play it that way. It removes SO much depth and fun from the game it turns it into something honestly terrible. (I find even the version where you use cards instead of dice, and ignore the effects the cards have to be very terrible too, as it has exact ratios so you know how much of what number will be drawn a game and it destroys the game, but go try that one maybe yourself.)

We also eliminate NON random things as well in stages, best not to forget them. It's brought up many times in the thread that people draw the line at how much "random" is okay, but should we have such double standards? It's tough. If this convo is about what should be the standard we set in smash for the largest tournaments we run, we really need to look at this and realiuze the implications of every decision we make.

i don't even get what you're trying to say and i read this several times

Let me try again then, sometimes my dyslexia makes sentences look good to me but not to others.

I'm hoping it's not the first paragraph that was the problem, as the 5 stages and arbitrary buffing nerfing it causes has been already explained in this thread if I remember correctly. So I'll focus on the second paragraph.

Ever seen this thread? Take this idea and group stages with our initial testing and knowledge to what looks to be competitive. Then, both sides promise to keep whichever stages are in groups 1 and 2 legal FOREVER. This is a compromise for liberal stage list players, at least guarantee we wont only be playing on 3-5 stages by the time the game is out for several years. Then, have a Group 3. This group would be stages we just couldn't be sure on and need thorough testing. You could hold Group 3 events to test them out if you wanted to. If it turns out one of these stages is a great stage and we just had a bad initial judgement, we put it into group 2 with a 2/3 majority vote or something similar. If we find out a stage in Group 2 was a seriously bad choice, we could take the best stage available in Group 3 and let them switch places with another vote.

Groups 4, 5, 6, or however far we really need to go would be considered banned FOREVER, with the possibility of a Group 4 moving to group 3 with a similar method as a 3 to 2 above via votes. Best to cover the possibility that we make mistakes. This makes it so that people who prefer conservative lists never have to play on Rumble Falls, Mushroom Kingdom, and stages that are nasty EVER. A compromise for the liberal side that might want to make people play on anything from the beginning. 4-6 group tournaments could be held for testing for people who really wanted to then, and maybe they could advocate for Group 3 status. This makes the process steady and calculated, but not impossible to get "banned" stages legal.

Did that make more sense?

 

[Mr.Showtime]

If I remember correctly, the platform can start in different places at random at the beginning of the match. Not a huge deal, but still worth noting. Better to note with Smashville would be the balloons. The have 3 strict patterns they float at, but I don't think they are on any kind of timer and are done 100% random unless I am remembering wrong.

It still doesn't skew results because of the rare chance that someone gets hit in a particular area of the map to use that as a survival tool. As I also stated, people who would have survived anyway can use the platform as an additional way to come back. A better example would have been Yoshi's Island in Melee where the Shy Guys. This map sometimes screws people over due to the lag a person has when it hits the shy guy, leaving openings for the offensive player. However, this proves that random things do skew results and anything more random than this would probably be a horrible idea to allow in a competitive match, especially since hazards and items can give you a free kill, whereas the shy guys give you a free hit.

 

[LiteralGrill]

It still doesn't skew results because of the rare chance that someone gets hit in a particular area of the map to use that as a survival tool. As I also stated, people who would have survived anyway can use the platform as an additional way to come back. A better example would have been Yoshi's Island in Melee where the Shy Guys. This map sometimes screws people over due to the lag a person has when it hits the shy guy, leaving openings for the offensive player. However, this proves that random things do skew results and anything more random than this would probably be a horrible idea to allow in a competitive match, especially since hazards and items can give you a free kill, whereas the shy guys give you a free hit.

That would have been better, I'm not saying we shouldn't play on Smashville, but wanted to make sure it was known everything isn't 0% random, that's all.

 

[nat pagle]

Look at the stagelist most commonly ran now. In reality, it's 5 stages for Brawl. Now, I could accept less stages, but to me the 5 chosen are terribly biased to top tier characters (hence why they are even higher on the tier list now and some others dropped drastically that could adapt to more stages). THAT isn't good.

AA's idea of having groupinga where we PROMISE to have group 1 and 2 at least legal FOREVER is a great idea, then let group three try to work its way into 2, or if a 2 stage does turn out to have a huge problem, find the best 3 to replace it with. THAT I could accept if we had to go the route of banning a bunch to unban some later.

Well, most of the banned stages don't cater to anyone and just hurt the gameplay.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Well, most of the banned stages don't cater to anyone and just hurt the gameplay.

I explained this much more so in depth, we'd have groups for those too, 4, 5, 6 etc.

 

[[Corn]]

Alright! We have something here. So, Random Crits increased randomness in results, so they found a way to remove them.

NOW we have randomness, but if it DOESN'T make the results random, should we eliminate it?

Catan actually does have non luck based ways to play if you want to that remove dice from the equation, DON'T play it that way. It removes SO much depth and fun from the game it turns it into something honestly terrible. (I find even the version where you use cards instead of dice, and ignore the effects the cards have to be very terrible too, as it has exact ratios so you know how much of what number will be drawn a game and it destroys the game, but go try that one maybe yourself.)

Could you explain how the ways to remove the dice is different from regular play? From my experiences the game is only played with elements of luck through cardsdraws/dicerolls.
Fun is subjective, individuals like myself hate stuff like that. Ratios are luck based, just knowing them does not decrease the amount involved.

We also eliminate NON random things as well in stages, best not to forget them. It's brought up many times in the thread that people draw the line at how much "random" is okay, but should we have such double standards? It's tough. If this convo is about what should be the standard we set in smash for the largest tournaments we run, we really need to look at this and realiuze the implications of every decision we make.

Things that detract from competitive play don't have to be random, but all random things in nature do detract from competitiveness in nature. I have no idea what you are going for here as it sounds entirely subjective again.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Could you explain how the ways to remove the dice is different from regular play? From my experiences the game is only played with elements of luck through cardsdraws/dicerolls.
Fun is subjective, individuals like myself hate stuff like that. Ratios are luck based, just knowing them does not decrease the amount involved.

What is competitive is subjective, or this conversation wouldn't be happening. A math major sat down to make Catan have no luck involved at all, I don't know if the project is still online as google isn't turning it up for me. However, I can definitely say it is an entirely different game than regular Catan because all of the random that was important in design its original discrete win state was gone.

Things that detract from competitive play don't have to be random, but all random things in nature do detract from competitiveness in nature. I have no idea what you are going for here as it sounds entirely subjective again.

What is competitive is subjective, or this conversation wouldn't be happening. (Again.) Whatever the subjective criteria you use to make your ruleset you must realize the implications of choosing that criteria. I said people should argue based on the pros and cons of each system earlier here if I remember right, as in the end that may get you somewhere. The one example I raised was smaller stagelists lower the skill ceiling. HOWEVER it allows us to reach higher levels of play faster. BUT by sacrificing the skill ceiling, we lower depth and longevity in certain ways. And... And... And... it goes on a while, but when you look at the pros and cons and decide what we want from there, you will have a better time discussing rulesets.