Proposed Ruleset for Smash 4 Tournaments

[BaPr]

That's true. If Brawl was perfectly balanced, people would just choose their fav characters instead of the top tiers (not everybody does that though). This is assuming everyone has their own moves and aren't all the exact same.

 

[salaboB]

I think you guys missed the point he was trying to make. You DO NOT want a stage that makes all matchups 50/50 no matter what. You'd play an even matchup for all eternity, dittos are always even MUs by default. So it'd kinda be like playing dittos forever. This is what I believe he was saying. (Not trying to put words in his mouth though.)

But 50/50 isn't boring, because to get a good 50/50 you have to know both your own character and your opponent's character's capabilities very well.

I might (Probably would, I value stage variety) get tired of playing that one stage and whatever gimmicks it must have in order to bring the entire cast to 50/50 (There's gonna be some really weird places that certain characters have to abuse in certain MUs to do that), but I see nothing wrong with being able to pick any character in the game and knowing I'll be able to go against my opponent skill versus skill with them.

 

[Overswarm]

You realize that all 35 characters have different playstyles and abilities right?
It would make character choice be based on preference, thats all.

If the matchup is 50/50, that means its a ditto. There's no "even" matchup otherwise by default. We can call a matchup "50/50" when referring to the use of those two characters in today's metagame, but if you switched to a single stage it'd stop being 50/50 except for dittos.

 

[T0MMY]

And a bunch of stages banned because "MK2GUD" become legal too.

Yeah, that argument was AZ's, and not taken as seriously after MLG showed data which was contrary to his conclusion.
This is why time and time again the argument of character matchups pertaining to stage selection in a competitive standard is a losing argument - for either side.

But no, the game still has balance issues with flat-plats only in Brawl. It's a side effect of a conservative system that can't be gotten around.

The game will have balance issues with any combination of stages allowed/disallowed. Go through every single possible combination and you will find this to be so - there is no "perfect" stage list when arguing with a matchup hypothesis because it becomes entirely subjective. Opinion goes nowhere.
Yet having a competitive standard fully realizes a competitive stagelist, and a system that allows negotiation between competitors while maintaining a core competitive stagelisted will be a comfortable negotiation for those who want Neutrals Only and those who want Extended Stages.

I think you guys missed the point he was trying to make. You DO NOT want a stage that makes all matchups 50/50 no matter what.

Yeah, they probably did.

T0MMY, you do have a nasty habit of question dodging at times, I'll at least say that about how you debate. It's a serious problem when trying to discuss things with you.

It's all perspective. I do not see it as a "nasty habit", that is simply a narrow opinion that you possess and I completely disagree with.
A habit is done more on a subconscious level. I have to very much force myself NOT to answer irrational questions, false dichotomies, etc.
For instance: "When did you stop beating your wife?"
These kind of irrational questions are mostly just use to create a trap to make one feel superior to the other, it embarrasses the conversation and simply walking away from it and saying "that kind of question will just have to dirty your own hands" is the only rewarding answer I have found.
As much as I'd love to say something mean back, it's what that kind of personality wants, so I give their ego no gratification. Of course anger always ensues after expectations like those are foiled, so accusations directed my way will clearly evidence how this works.
The best I can do is just pity people who implicitly try to demean myself or others and leave them to figure things out themselves.

When Overswarm says people in a tournament will be playing to win, it's without basis. When T0MMY says competitive players don't care about having more stages and that they just want competition, it's suddenly an axiom. This is not how a discussion happens. This is not even the proper way to defend your own points.

LOL, you missed the point of my post entirely - I was NOT saying it was logical to assume what Overswarm said was true. I said it was logical to assume.
Let me repeat that:
Logical to assume.

So to say "it's logical to assume..." as an equivalent to saying "I am right because I have tricked you into thinking this is already a verified supposition" is NOT logical progression, it is simply an empty assertion with nothing backing it up.

This has everything to do with logic and nothing to do with Smash.

If you are trying to argue that a fat cat is not fat then have fun with that.
Until then, I stand by that competitive players are competitive.

 

[LiteralGrill]

A habit is done more on a subconscious level. I have to very much force myself NOT to answer irrational questions, false dichotomies, etc.

Actually, it's a problem. For someone so interested in proper discourse and logic constantly using a fallacy wont get anyone to listen to you. Check out the full definition of what question dodging entails and you'll see you do so much too often to have a rational conversation.

But 50/50 isn't boring, because to get a good 50/50 you have to know both your own character and your opponent's character's capabilities very well.

I might (Probably would, I value stage variety) get tired of playing that one stage and whatever gimmicks it must have in order to bring the entire cast to 50/50 (There's gonna be some really weird places that certain characters have to abuse in certain MUs to do that), but I see nothing wrong with being able to pick any character in the game and knowing I'll be able to go against my opponent skill versus skill with them.

It's not a "good 50/50" if there was a stage magically making it so. In theory the idea of perfect balance seems ideal, but in practice it can get quite dull. Again, I like perfect imbalance, but it's a preference we can't really argue on.

 

[[Corn]]

If the matchup is 50/50, that means its a ditto. There's no "even" matchup otherwise by default. We can call a matchup "50/50" when referring to the use of those two characters in today's metagame, but if you switched to a single stage it'd stop being 50/50 except for dittos.

Im not refering at all to any of the current games, thats idiotic.
Im saying that "if" something comes up like Smash 4 having all characters being balanced to each other on FD, I would totally only play on that stage for balance. My point being is that I dont really care at all for variety if it would overshadow balance. Its why I like games like chess where the only way to get better at the game is to actually get better at the game and not handicap your opponent.

 

[Terrazi Terrajin]

Competitive ruleset: All players must remain on a twister mat at all times.

 

[Overswarm]

Im not refering at all to any of the current games, thats idiotic.
Im saying that "if" something comes up like Smash 4 having all characters being balanced to each other on FD, I would totally only play on that stage for balance. My point being is that I dont really care at all for variety if it would overshadow balance. Its why I like games like chess where the only way to get better at the game is to actually get better at the game and not handicap your opponent.

You do know that chess isn't 50/50, right? White starts off with a pre-defined advantage that's so pronounced that from the first move Black playing for a draw is considered a winning strategy.

 

[GTZ]

You do know that chess isn't 50/50, right? White starts off with a pre-defined advantage that's so pronounced that from the first move Black playing for a draw is considered a winning strategy.

Sounds like a race argument to me boys, not smash 4 talk

also

More new rules for smash 4 tourneys:

- mandated hygiene requirements, you stink like @ss you are DQ-ed
- mandated respect levels
- online streaming commentators that actually know what they are talking about and are entertaining
- stealing something will get you a punch in the face from everyone at the event plus a lifetime ban
- Johns are gone forever when you require proof, doctor's notes required for "thumb accidents"
- no more negative comments and harsh feedback on newer players
- women are to be treated with respect and not hit on 24/7, regardless if 90% of attendance are virgins
- immaturity is banned
- bad sportsmanship is banned [ex. throwing controllers *cough *cough*]

 

[Ghostbone]

I don't think comparing a turn based game to a fighting game is at all applicable.

You can compete in both, but really the similarities end there.

 

[T0MMY]

Actually, it's a problem. For someone so interested in proper discourse and logic constantly using a fallacy wont get anyone to listen to you. Check out the full definition of what question dodging entails and you'll see you do so much too often to have a rational conversation.

I don't have to look up anything since this is operating under the assumption that I am "question dodging" - once the assumption is valid then there's reason to do so, but just saying "it's a problem" has no swaying power; without entailing premises it just seems to be just euphemistically projecting and I won't embarrass the conversation degrading it to playground arguments (your mom, lol).

If you claim to have found a (constant) fallacy in my reasoning then support the case otherwise it is groundless (and thus ignored). Must be an easy task if it is a constant one.
It's no different than saying "You're wrong, I'm right" (playground arguments).

It's not a "good 50/50" if there was a stage magically making it so. In theory the idea of perfect balance seems ideal, but in practice it can get quite dull. Again, I like perfect imbalance, but it's a preference we can't really argue on.

If I may repeat my observation here that arguing stage selection based character matchup is always doomed to failure. Subjectivity about "dullness" of stages and just how "even" a matchup is on each individual stage is opinion and stays with oneself in a discourse of competitive play. Agree/disagree?

 

[GTZ]

The chess argument brings nothing constructive to this thread. If I wanted to play turn based strategy I wouldn't be playing Smash Bros.

Sounds more to me like people trying to show off using big words and fancy terms. Chess can be as simple or as complicated as you'd like. I guess that's about the only similarity it has to smash bros. Like I said though, I am sure there are plenty of forums on other web sites just waiting for this subject to be brought up.

Over-complicating arguments for the sake of sounding intelligent comes off as dumb.

-------------------

The balance issue will most likely be improved compared to Brawl, but not perfected, so don't put unrealistic expectations into Smash 4 before we even know that much about it.

 

[LiteralGrill]

So, it's been a DDOS ago, where is this discussion now?

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

So, it's been a DDOS ago, where is this discussion now?

I think T0MMY was just explaning how he could have go as far as even really ever been decided even to want to go do look more like if he really wanted to:

...once the assumption is valid then there's reason to do so, but just saying "it's a problem" has no swaying power; without entailing premises it just seems to be just euphemistically projecting and I won't embarrass the conversation degrading it to playground arguments (your mom, lol)

Anyway, yeah. It's time to move this discussion in a new direction.

What do you guys think of Pyrosphere? I think it's one of the more interesting varied platform stages. It could give campers a ridiculous advantage. Even without a stage hazard, do you guys think that is enough to warrant banning the stage? In some cases, Brawl's Final Destination has been a counterpick or struck early. For example, what if the same stage appeared in the same size in other games? How polarizing might it be?

Do you guys think there are indicators that the overall speed and kill options might have increased enough to warrant increasing match stocks to 4? Will the improvements cause the game to awkwardly fall between the need for 3 stocks and the need for 4 stocks? Falling speed and landing speed at least appear generally faster, judging from the Sakurai match.

 

[nat pagle]

So, it's been a DDOS ago, where is this discussion now?

Further down the crapper.

 

[T0MMY]

I think T0MMY was just explaning how he could have go as far as even really ever been decided even to want to go do look more like if he really wanted to:

If you're trying to tell people what I said, please use he quote feature, as your post seems to be wanting coherence.
I'd still like an address to the fundamentals of competition, because the discussion won't get much further than cheerleading opinions without a good foundation of competition.

 

[Mr.Showtime]

If you're trying to tell people what I said, please use he quote feature, as your post seems to be wanting coherence.
I'd still like an address to the fundamentals of competition, because the discussion won't get much further than cheerleading opinions without a good foundation of competition.

To be honest....I think he did use the quote feature......Rofl....

Stop trying to start arguments...the boards are back now, its enough, really.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

To be honest....I think he did use the quote feature......Rofl....

Stop trying to start arguments...the boards are back now, its enough, really.

I don't get why T0MMY is trying to define competition, much less contrive a standard for one. It's already a well-defined and well-researched phenomenon that occurs at all levels of life. Trying to define it is beyond the scope of the discussion because what competition entails and means for us is different for everybody. It seems much like Overswarm, T0MMY genuinely believes we can throw axioms out the window. In the sane world, all truths are derived from what axioms we use in our system of logic. Euclid started constructing his view and proofs in geometry with defining the axioms we all know today such as points, lines, and planes. In discussing Smash Bros. competition and play, our preferences are the axioms and the onus is on us to show they are preferable when we make claims over how the game should or should not be played. Interestingly enough, most unresolved debates are the result of people having different axioms for their reasoning.

He apparently thinks because he read and refers to a popular treatise that he can substitute it for reasoning. Not interested. I'll continue to tell people what idea I think are good and what the reasons are that I use to support the idea.

 

[T0MMY]

I don't get why T0MMY is trying to define competition, much less contrive a standard for one. It's already a well-defined and well-researched phenomenon that occurs at all levels of life.

Please link the rest of us to this competitive standard, thx.

Trying to define it is beyond the scope of the discussion because what competition entails and means for us is different for everybody.

Good thing you didn't author any dictionaries.
Again, if it's already a done deal I'll just await for you to reveal your sources.

It seems much like Overswarm, T0MMY genuinely believes we can throw axioms out the window.

Valiant attempt trying to get others to believe what you say I do is what I actually do, but you fail to realize your lack of readers provide your ad hominem fallacy without audience.

In the sane world, all truths are derived from what axioms we use in our system of logic. Euclid started constructing his view and proofs in geometry with defining the axioms we all know today such as points, lines, and planes.

This is much in the line of how I'd like to start a discussion, but without the cut & paste slapdash.
Is your "sane" world the same world filled with ad hominem fallacies?

In discussing Smash Bros. competition and play, our preferences are the axioms and the onus is on us to show they are preferable when we make claims over how the game should or should not be played.

Why do you say our preferences are axioms? Should not preferences be derived from axioms?
It seems to me if we start with axioms and continue to a preference we have a strong model to structure our ruleset.

Interestingly enough, most unresolved debates are the result of people having different axioms for their reasoning.

Probably because "most people" follow the preference to axiom process.

He apparently thinks because he read and refers to a popular treatise that he can substitute it for reasoning.

Once again your attempt to undermine my reasoning with an ad hominem attack not only has no or little audience, but it also flounders by its own weight. Using fallacy as foundation is a precarious work: Just because you say/wish it is to be so does not make it apparent.
This only further hinders your argument.

I'll continue to tell people what idea I think are good and what the reasons are that I use to support the idea.

Enjoy the criticism.

To be honest....I think he did use the quote feature......Rofl....
Stop trying to start arguments...the boards are back now, its enough, really.

I would say that "properly" was an obvious suggestive, but seeing your post history I'm going to view this was just a meatriding post and disregard it.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

Seeing your post history I'm going to view this was just a meatriding post and disregard it.

The only sycophant around here is you, T0MMY. Because you used the term "meat rider", I'm going to assume David Sirlin hasn't been throwing you enough scraps lately.

You dismiss everything else anyway. You categorize something almost always tangent that someone said under some little neatly packaged logical structure (in these cases, informal fallacies) and then immediately dismiss what they actually have to say. The worst offense is that you don't even name the informal fallacies correctly and most of the time perceive ones that aren't there. Seeing your post history here, most sane people should dismiss what you have to say, but unfortunately they continue to provide you a courtesy you don't provide them.

It is true that "ad homs", your most cited fallacy, do not engage anyone on an intellectual level. It doesn't make them interested in arriving at new conclusions and it doesn't substitute argument - but you need to realize that is exactly what you're doing here. You literally wrote a one sentence post calling someone a lackey.

I don't understand what you're trying to gain by all of this. I don't know why you said you were going to disregard his post when you clearly didn't. You haven't contributed anything to this discussion (or any others like it, as in Capps' threads) and you're probably not going to answer my or anyone else's posts with anything that has substance or original thinking. Get your act together.

 

[Mormon Mammoth]

Ok guys, let's get back to discussing the new smash bros 4 ruleset instead of arguing about arguing and various technicalities while insulting one another.
Please, I have been wanting this thread to be constructive for days and waiting for it to be.

 

[Shokio]

4 Lives
No Items
Final Destination
No Villager, because he can grab projectiles and store them for later.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Ok guys, let's get back to discussing the new smash bros 4 ruleset instead of arguing about arguing and various technicalities while insulting one another.
Please, I have been wanting this thread to be constructive for days and waiting for it to be.

Fine by me.

As you all know I'm structuring a database for smash with my group called:

Yes, we're really getting prepared here, logos and all

But back to serious matters, during the big DDOS we kept working hard on getting the system ready to run. We're actually prepared to collect data for all smash games past and future including Project M. Right now we're trying to finish work on the website itself to connect it to the database, then we'll be able to show data kinda similar to this:

Spoiler

*Note this picture is a mockup and does not represent the final product, it's just an example of what we're trying to do.

TOs would have their players fill out slips with information from their match and send them to DataKae! so we can get them into the system. (Somewhat similar to how MLG was done years ago with improvements.) Then we will provide a comprehensive search engine to help people mine for data by looking at slip results.

(This is just for the very initial build, with time and support we could actually show graphs automatically for some data you might want. A .pdf with the slips is attached to this post.)

We're also working on an app and some other awesome features that will be a huge boon to competitive smash.

For the older games this may not be as helpful now that they are out for so long, but for Smash 3DS and Smash Wii U this data could be used to help create the next ruleset. All we need is TO and player support to know more about the game then ever before. We'd love to get the system tested heavily before next smash, and we're currently working with Alex Strife to try and get these slips to Apex this year. (If you know Alex, make sure to tell him how you like the idea!)

I propose we get this support and try to use hard evidence to support ruleset development for future smash.​

This would make it impossible to say things like "this stage skews too many matchups" if it was false in this matter, and there are MANY more examples of things we can avoid by cutting down on misinformation and having solid facts.

Thoughts?

(P.S. If you are a TO reading this and would be willing to use some slips at a tournament of yours to give me a PM so we can hook you up with what you need. We'd love to have real data to work with for entering over made up stuff for testing.)

 

[T0MMY]

Fine by me.

As you all know I'm structuring a database for smash with my group called:

Yes, we're really getting prepared here, logos and all

Ooh, looks so professional.
Did it yourself? (like the Pachirisu)

TOs would have their players fill out slips with information from their match and send them to DataKae! so we can get them into the system.

One problem to this I foresee is the problem with lackidasical TO's/competitors.
I'm not sure what it's like where you are located, but the TO's in my area don't really want to do a lick of work... and then they disappear entirely. And players simply want everything given to them ready to go without any work on their part; come in, sit down, play friendlies, play in brackets, end. If this system is dependent on TO's/players' cooperation, then it could lead to not having enough participation.

Thoughts?

Would the information collected be an accurate representation to be used on a large scale? If it is being used for local events, it seems like it could work (given the competitors fill these things out properly and the TO does their job). On a national scale I don't see much benefit for this as it has too much potential for misinterpretation and misuse, it'd be kind be like a lot of really awesome work just to give more fuel to fundamental problems (like majority rule). Data is good, but interpretation of it is always suspect.

And I'd like to ask about the "time remaining" - as it doesn't seem to show the time started, it doesn't give an accurate account of the time played. For instance, a 99-min clock could have played through for 98 minutes thus showing Time Remaining: 1:00 minute; this could then be confused with an 8-min timer having played a 7 minute match.

The only sycophant around here is you, T0MMY.
Because you used the term "meat rider", I'm going to assume David Sirlin hasn't been throwing you enough scraps lately.

Could it be that someone is just jelly?

Spoiler

For the sake of the poor people who like to read my posts, I decided to hide the rest of your posts, fallacies and all:

You dismiss everything else anyway. You categorize something almost always tangent that someone said under some little neatly packaged logical structure (in these cases, informal fallacies) and then immediately dismiss what they actually have to say.

Keep trying to tell me who I am, because all your readers know you are an expert on me.

The worst offense is that you don't even name the informal fallacies correctly and most of the time perceive ones that aren't there.

A fallacy by any other name would smell so fallacious
Your post does Shakespeare proud.

Well, now that you've made the claim, it is up to take up burden of proof.
Of course this is a catch-22 you've made for yourself. Either your accusations are correct and only prove that a cleaner has missed a mote of dust, or they are wrong and show this to be a Red Herring.
Either way, by addressing "you" this still falls under an ad hominem. Tsk.

At least cleaners get paid for their work, here I am doing this for free.
Let me know what you find.

It is true that "ad homs", your most cited fallacy, do not engage anyone on an intellectual level. It doesn't make them interested in arriving at new conclusions and it doesn't substitute argument - but you need to realize that is exactly what you're doing here. You literally wrote a one sentence post calling someone a lackey.

Sorry, I ain't buying it, calling someone out for being a lackey and using that as a substitute for an argument are two different things. I have opinions like anyone else - if I think the Gameboy Advance is the best handheld console is an opinion, but if I said The Eiffel Tower is in Belgium and the GBA is the best handheld, therefore chickens are birds this would be an unsound argument.

What this ultimately comes down to is "projecting" - simply trying to project inward feelings of self onto others.
Whereas if we assume your statement is true then it is the kettle calling the pot black, and if it is wrong then it is simply another ad hominem motivated by projection (it's what people logically trapped do).

I don't understand what you're trying to gain by all of this. I don't know why you said you were going to disregard his post when you clearly didn't.

Actually, I did.
To disregard is to leave it out of consideration. It's not being considered in the argument of rulesets - this is what happens to opinion.
Happy to have cleared that up for you.

You haven't contributed anything to this discussion (or any others like it, as in Capps' threads) and you're probably not going to answer my or anyone else's posts with anything that has substance or original thinking. Get your act together.

I'm sorry you seem to not be addressing me anymore, I'll leave you to talk to yourself here.

 

[T0MMY]

SWF, so kind with this second post here.

 

[LiteralGrill]

.

.

Spoiler

Spoiler

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_dodging

The way this is going this conversation wont get far.

Hows about at least looking at:

I propose we get this support and try to use hard evidence to support ruleset development for future smash.

This would make it impossible to say things like "this stage skews too many matchups" if it was false in this matter, and there are MANY more examples of things we can avoid by cutting down on misinformation and having solid facts.

Thoughts?

Or getting this conversation places other then pointing out every fallacy each person is using. Or ya know, committing the fallacy fallacy.

 

[T0MMY]

Hows about at least looking at:

I propose we get this support and try to use hard evidence to support ruleset development for future smash.
This would make it impossible to say things like "this stage skews too many matchups" if it was false in this matter, and there are MANY more examples of things we can avoid by cutting down on misinformation and having solid facts.

This would be good, however who among us is both motivated enough and wise enough to provide hard evidence for a ruleset?
And finally, as I said in my previous post, when the evidence is there, how will it be utilized? The favoritism towards majority rules is something that needs to be addressed first and foremost before hard evidence is brought in, otherwise a majority of fools would absolutely love such tools handed over to them.
Also, don't presume anything that could be said as impossible when it comes to people.

Or getting this conversation places other then pointing out every fallacy each person is using. Or ya know, committing the fallacy fallacy.

Did you find this fallacy posted in this thread?

 

[LiteralGrill]

This would be good, however who among us is both motivated enough and wise enough to provide hard evidence for a ruleset?
And finally, as I said in my previous post, when the evidence is there, how will it be utilized? The favoritism towards majority rules is something that needs to be addressed first and foremost before hard evidence is brought in, otherwise a majority of fools would absolutely love such tools handed over to them.
Also, don't presume anything that could be said as impossible when it comes to people.

I didn't just volunteer an entire service that is being built right now to the project of collecting and keeping data or anything.

TOs have to use that data to come to their own answers. You will never have a 100% correct "this is how we should play" ruleset for a highly customizable game where a huge point is to "play how you want". But you can allow TOs the ability to have information to make a decision to run their ruleset how they see fit.

What I'm learning from this thread truly is there is no one 100% correct answer because of the nature of the game I just mentioned. All of us sitting here trying to convince one another is a pointless exercise, instead why not let the game come out, have some facts to look at, THEN decide what is right? There are too many factors to choose from, you CANNOT nail down a definition of competition when everyone can think it is a different thing. So go host events how you want, I host them how I want, and both sides just be nice to each other about it.

(Though knowing the smash community with some of the silly things we fight over I doubt it will happen without MUCH effort.)

There's the answer.

Did you find this fallacy posted in this thread?

Why else would I have mentioned it otherwise?

 

[Overswarm]

Don't talk to t0mmy.

 

[T0MMY]

I didn't just volunteer an entire service that is being built right now to the project of collecting and keeping data or anything.

I guess the tone of my question didn't hit hard enough, I wasn't really asking, more being coy about it, Haha.

TOs have to use that data to come to their own answers. You will never have a 100% correct "this is how we should play" ruleset for a highly customizable game where a huge point is to "play how you want".

It may seem like I'm taking baby steps with this, but now we get to the point where I ask what happens when it becomes the tools for those who become dictators and say "THIS is how you have to play... based on the interpretation of this data" (i.e. a "backroom" type of group).

Why else would I have mentioned it otherwise?

Point it out, please, so it can be corrected.

Don't talk to t0mmy.

Still holding a grudge after I put the nails to your last post? Oh well, time heals all wounds; wish ya the best with that.
Capps has a very level head, so I doubt he's going to be offended when I put some criticism down on his posts. Can't forge iron without fire.

 

[LiteralGrill]

It may seem like I'm taking baby steps with this, but now we get to the point where I ask what happens when it becomes the tools for those who become dictators and say "THIS is how you have to play... based on the interpretation of this data" (i.e. a "backroom" type of group).

I don't remember the last time people agreed and actually followed what the backroom said 100%, as their rulesets are SUGGESTIONS though it's alright.

The only time this could be that big of a problem would be if someone tried to resurrect the Unity Ruleset Committee so loads of people would be "forced" to use those rules. Though things like that already happen with nationals, generally people will follow whatever rules nationals hold so they are ready for them.

As I was told want more stages and such, I guess the answer is "deal with it" unfortunately. Hopefully I can host events on the 3DS with more stages and people will like them and others wont say everything I do is stupid or say that by doing so my opinions aren't valid.

 

[Mormon Mammoth]

It may seem like I'm taking baby steps with this, but now we get to the point where I ask what happens when it becomes the tools for those who become dictators and say "THIS is how you have to play... based on the interpretation of this data" (i.e. a "backroom" type of group).

Ok, T0MMY, you have made a statement that this will be used by those who become dictators as tools. Please tell me how you know this will happen.

As for the time remaining, this does need to be addressed for different timed matches. I'm assuming that the ruleset the tournament sends in will include the match timer, correct?

As for counter-acting the majority rule of the stupid, players that are smart are usually good. Players respect good players and often listen to their advice and counsel if not always following it. This helps counter the majority of stupidity that may occur when defining a ruleset.

 

[Overswarm]

Seriously, just don't respond to him. Some people can be irritating because they have different beliefs, or they type too much or too little, or can't articulate things properly. t0mmy is none of those things.

 

[LiteralGrill]

As for counter-acting the majority rule of the stupid, players that are smart are usually good. Players respect good players and often listen to their advice and counsel if not always following it. This helps counter the majority of stupidity that may occur when defining a ruleset.

One must be careful blindly trusting top players, or else Diddy would have a positive matchup to MK... *M2K COUGH*

Though I have also seen things like this happen countless other times with top players being misinformed or in no way informed at all. I think I mentioned previously in this thread of how one vote for stages by the BBR tons of people said they never played on a stage so just voted no without even testing...

So we gotta watch our "authority figures" too if we can, which I think the data would help with. If a player says "Yoshi auto wins on this stage, it needs to be banned" and data shows him losing most matches on it, we can say he's obviously wrong. Without it, it's harder to track down matches to look at.

 

[T0MMY]

I don't remember the last time people agreed and actually followed what the backroom said 100%, as their rulesets are SUGGESTIONS though it's alright.

If it hasn't happened to you it still may have happened to someone else.
As personal testament I've been to too many tournaments that used really bad rules just because the backroom had it listed. Of course the rules were later considered bad and dropped, but I think we all want to avoid these issues.

The only time this could be that big of a problem would be if someone tried to resurrect the Unity Ruleset Committee

Yeah, another situation I was touching upon.
So, it's not like any of this is inherently bad, in fact it should be inherently good, but people are inherently dumb and make good things dumb just to get their rules used on a national scale like it's their duty to force on people. The politics of providing a standard may actually be more important than the rules themselves.

As I was told want more stages and such, I guess the answer is "deal with it" unfortunately.

If your attendees want "more" stages it would be beneficial to know which stages are wanted. Like, what if "more" meant stages like New Pork City, 75M, and Summit (all an example of particular competitive disassociation).

Hopefully I can host events on the 3DS with more stages and people will like them and others wont say everything I do is stupid or say that by doing so my opinions aren't valid.

Just tell them that opinions can't be valid; arguments are valid (when a conclusion logically follows its premises). This will also get them to understand that saying everything you do is "stupid" has no merit.
Works for me.

Ok, T0MMY, you have made a statement that this will be used by those who become dictators as tools. Please tell me how you know this will happen.

Re-read the quote of mine you posted and see your initial assumption is wrong.
I did not say it will be used, I proposed the situation where it could happen and asked how to address the issue.

As for counter-acting the majority rule of the stupid, players that are smart are usually good.

Another problem with the initial assumption.
Before we can proceed we would have to ask first how would we know this conditional (smart is to good) to be true?

Even without going so far as to prove that they are smart, it is still a conditional that smart players are "usually" good. Even if we were to assume this statement to be true how would be we be able to differentiate the smart from the not smart?

However, even if the initial assumption is true AND we have some kind of way to test the good players to make sure they are "smart" this still does not address the issue of a MAJORITY.
Are not the majority of players not smart and not good but just "average"? If a majority follows a bell-curve and the minority of good players are smart at one end and the minority of bad players are not smart at the other then the majority still are not good nor smart and the problem of a dominating majority-rule is still a wrench in a system using majority-rule. Do all mediocre/bad players listen to the assumed good/smart players and say exactly what they say? I do not believe this is not reflecting the current scene nor does it ever the past community; there is no reason to assume it will happen in the future either.

Players respect good players and often listen to their advice and counsel if not always following it. This helps counter the majority of stupidity that may occur when defining a ruleset.

Yeah, this is more of a problem than not.
Point in case AZ is a good player and gave us the Unity Ruleset.

Spoiler

Seriously, just don't respond to him. Some people can be irritating because they have different beliefs, or they type too much or too little, or can't articulate things properly. t0mmy is none of those things.

Thanks :^)

 

[LiteralGrill]

Just tell them that opinions can't be valid; arguments are valid (when a conclusion logically follows its premises). This will also get them to understand that saying everything you do is "stupid" has no merit.

Works for me.

You must not work in the real world.

All joking aside, ever read through the old stagelist discussion on the competitive Brawl forums? If you have a lot of time, read the WHOLE thing (yep, I sat down and did it). You'll see what the "real world" acts like.

If it hasn't happened to you it still may have happened to someone else.
As personal testament I've been to too many tournaments that used really bad rules just because the backroom had it listed. Of course the rules were later considered bad and dropped, but I think we all want to avoid these issues.

I betcha I've been to a lot of tournaments that had bad rules too, but if people show up to them they will run those rules. And I bet we'd disagree on what is good or not too.

At least the Backroom does give people information to help them decide how they want to run a tournament, that is worth applauding.

At this time I don't think something like Unity could EVER work. People will play this game how they want, no one will change that.

 

[BADGRAPHICS]

Seriously, just don't respond to him. Some people can be irritating because they have different beliefs, or they type too much or too little, or can't articulate things properly. t0mmy is none of those things.

How about you? Why are you irritating?

 

[Mormon Mammoth]

Re-read the quote of mine you posted and see your initial assumption is wrong.
I did not say it will be used, I proposed the situation where it could happen and asked how to address the issue.

The keyword you used was the word when. This signifies that you believe that this is going to happen. It is now up to you to provide a burden of proof (as you have stated earlier in this thread) that this will happen.

Another problem with the initial assumption.
Before we can proceed we would have to ask first how would we know this conditional (smart is to good) to be true?

The majority of people who are good at a game have a reason to be good. With games as strategic as Smash Bros is at a higher level, this reason is that they know the game well and are smart enough to know how to use that knowledge.

Even without going so far as to prove that they are smart, it is still a conditional that smart players are "usually" good. Even if we were to assume this statement to be true how would be we be able to differentiate the smart from the not smart?

We wouldn't be able to based solely off of whether they are good or not. Fortunately, most players that are good are also smart about Smash Bros.

However, even if the initial assumption is true AND we have some kind of way to test the good players to make sure they are "smart" this still does not address the issue of a MAJORITY.
Are not the majority of players not smart and not good but just "average"? If a majority follows a bell-curve and the minority of good players are smart at one end and the minority of bad players are not smart at the other then the majority still are not good nor smart and the problem of a dominating majority-rule is still a wrench in a system using majority-rule. Do all mediocre/bad players listen to the assumed good/smart players and say exactly what they say? I do not believe this is not reflecting the current scene nor does it ever the past community; there is no reason to assume it will happen in the future either.

A system that uses solely majority rule would have this problem. As far as I know, and I do not know all that much about this, the back room isn't made up of everyone and they provide guidelines for a ruleset. This does not sound like a majority system to me.

A better system than the majority system in use would be one that was set up for the American government by the founding fathers, or something similar. Thus the masses would be able to influence the ruleset, while not destroying it.

Yeah, this is more of a problem than not.
Point in case AZ is a good player and gave us the Unity Ruleset.

This is the reason for this project.

 

[T0MMY]

You must not work in the real world.
All joking aside, ever read through the old stagelist discussion on the competitive Brawl forums? If you have a lot of time, read the WHOLE thing (yep, I sat down and did it). You'll see what the "real world" acts like.

No, I don't work in the real world :^(
(Alas, as far as I know no human does, as concepts are a functional experience of the perception of reality)
Before this can get into some kind of philosophy of reality, I'll quickly state I put my work into reading discussions on stagelist for Brawl. I would hesitate to call the vocal majority collective there the "real world" as that would seem to me to be a misnomer, they are not the world nor are their thoughts anymore real than that of anyone else.

I betcha I've been to a lot of tournaments that had bad rules too, but if people show up to them they will run those rules. And I bet we'd disagree on what is good or not too.

Not if the people who attend tell them to change the rules ;^)

At least the Backroom does give people information to help them decide how they want to run a tournament, that is worth applauding.

(shrug) I wouldn't applaud it unless they came to conclusions that were based on competitively aligned reasoning. For instance, what was their reasoning for a ban on Meta Knight?

At this time I don't think something like Unity could EVER work. People will play this game how they want, no one will change that.

Agreed, something like Unity should never work because it relies on force rather than reason.
I jumped into their discussion and said that they had to provide a ruleset that was so appealing people would use it born of their own will.

The keyword you used was the word when. This signifies that you believe that this is going to happen. It is now up to you to provide a burden of proof (as you have stated earlier in this thread) that this will happen.

Burden of proof isn't required for what-if scenarios, as "when" was not used to make a claim it was within a conditional statement.

Spoiler

Need examples?

Example
If gasoline is flammable then it will catch fire. What happens "when" I hold a lit match to this puddle of gasoline?
^ This is the same kind of what-if scenario I was using, it makes no claim the gasoline lights on fire, simply asks what one thinks will happen.

We get to the point where I ask what happens when this information become tools of a dictator.
Where the information gathered is potential energy and a dictator (or quasi-dictatorship, majority rule mob, etc.) would be the lit match.

Burden of proof would be: Gasoline is flammable. When I hold a lit match to a puddle of gasoline it will catch fire.

Or: This information will be abused. When you have the information it will be misinterpreted and used to back up a bad ruleset.

The silly thing is even if I made this claim, Smash history is full of examples that would back up the claim. Again, the most go-to example is the Unity Ruleset and the Meta Knight ban movement as well as this very thread where people argue for removing Final Destination due to "data" about "uneven matchups".

Data is fine, but my forewarning is about the interpretation of data.

The majority of people who are good at a game have a reason to be good. With games as strategic as Smash Bros is at a higher level, this reason is that they know the game well and are smart enough to know how to use that knowledge.

This is purely conjecture; you are welcome to opinion, but in a reasonable discussion it doesn't go anywhere.

We wouldn't be able to based solely off of whether they are good or not. Fortunately, most players that are good are also smart about Smash Bros.

I would disagree.
Playing and rule design are completely different fields.
It may be true that some players are both good at playing and designing rules, but one does not necessitate the other.
I would only go so far as to say that both would be preferred, but a good player does NOT a tournament rules designer create.

A system that uses solely majority rule would have this problem. As far as I know, and I do not know all that much about this, the back room isn't made up of everyone and they provide guidelines for a ruleset. This does not sound like a majority system to me.

I'm not sure how they currently function, but I believe they were using polls to make their decisions (Meta Knight ban). I am not opposed to a backroom, but I think there needs to be checks and balances and representatives for all regions.

A better system than the majority system in use would be one that was set up for the American government by the founding fathers, or something similar. Thus the masses would be able to influence the ruleset, while not destroying it.

I actually would agree with this.
I like how you mentioned the government that was set up originally rather than appealing to the current mess X^D

This is the reason for this project.

Cool. Let it take it's course from history.

 

[PAPCGyE]

So, big stages are stupid stages or not?