R.I.P. Kjell Anders "Nappy" Peterson.

[etecoon]

if you've seen the video you'd know how not good enough it is <__<

 

[RATED]

send me the video. nao or I will search it now.

edit: I searched videos and I found one that Fatal's Snake with a Hulk Hogan texture LOL how epic, my internet is sucking so I may have to wait

first Match vs Mk( I hope you fixed those though since the match is from september) : You land too much with MK's Dair, he Ftilted you almost everytime because of it, also you were autopiloting with nado.

marth one: you had a good start, even though you failed to capitalized some mistakes and used a bit too much Fsmash when you could just Forward B to send him out of stage, also you jumped in the Uptilt in teh first stock, then you got frustrated cuz of the SD. Also there were some moments where you could punish with Up B.

this is the video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoqL_xBvgAE

 

[napZzz]

**** all yall *****s I'm the best snake on the market right now

 

[SuSa]

So at the start of this thread, I stated Snake would be the best character in 1.1. I was yelled and flamed and told to stop theorycrafting, although the theory behind it is stupidly simple.

So I laughed and continued to argue.

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=288406

Then one person feels off his tests that Snake will indeed, be the best character in 1.1

I will now sit here and LOL

 

[Infern Angelis]

I just noticed my pic on the OP is gone :'(

 

[ErikG]

I am dropping Snake for ROB as far as singles are concerned. I will still use Snake in doubles.

 

[SuSa]

I think I just pissed my pants from laughter.

Good luck with that, and I hope MK doesn't make you want to /wrist

 

[etecoon]

me and hink are the only dedicated MK mains in new england, you usually only encounter decent MK's if you beat a good player and they decide their "main" isn't good enough

also interestingly enough I'm putting MK in my pocket and going to use more snake again!

 

[Tech-Nelium the Shark]

I am dropping Snake for ROB as far as singles are concerned. I will still use Snake in doubles.

 

[SuSa]

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=288641

Opinions?

 

[etecoon]

I'm posting this again

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0jwkcbnsO8

losing to MK over and over again and no one else builds character SuSa!

 

[SuSa]

I'm apparently the biggest douche ever for using my PM logs without someones permission for a thread, in which they said they "Don't REALLY care".

GF peoples reading comprehension?

EDIT2:

Outside of research done for the SL, I will not be posting any further information on any character. I will be making no attempt to publicize metagame findings, and I will release no further information.

Why?

Because I'm a douche now.

/end edit 2

EDIT:

I'm probably the officially #1 hated person on SWF right now.
The Counterpick System is NOT essential.

Spoiler

Everything you will need to be informed about this debate will be posted momentarily.


Updated, easier to read, double-checking order of replies.

Referenced thread about neutrals/stage selection this is "BPC's thread"

Pierce's first reply to this thread (Reply #4)

Spoiler

I want a second opinion on whether I'd be entirely justified on locking and deleting a thread that quotes me several times in private message without my knowledge or consent that the message was going to be used publicly. This is typically considered extremely rude. In this particular instance, I don't REALLY care all that much. I merely encourage everyone to take everything I say with a tad bit grain of salt, simply because thing things I say past midnight in PM doesn't imply that I put as much thought into a well thought out address to the public.

For instance, if I had written this in a post, I would've used the phrase "Starter" instead of "Neutral" because that is the official terminology of the BBR.

Also, keep in mind that everything said in this thread is in no way representative of the BBR. It is merely my own opinion and speculation.

Joking title is so not going to fit the length of this post. I figured I'd try to get a laugh out of you before continuing. Expect a lengthy read, but I'll try to keep it as short and to-the-point as possible.

1) Heard Marc you're trying to speak to the BBR and get things worked about accepting people whom are voted in by the community. Kudos, if that can happen my CH idea can be thrown down the drain (for the most part) seeing as the next-best-thing happened. However, I'd like to know the factors in which they are trying to consider for this. (To remove the possibility of bribes for votes, as an example)


2) As far as the MK Ban discussion goes, Anti-Ban needs to come up with data they want to see to have Pro-Ban be able to find, organize, and display such data to them. I posted this in the thread in the SS in a response to Marc so if you want further details read there please. The TL;DR however is that Pro-Ban has to randomly find and present information, and Anti-Ban just says "well we're not looking for that" but doesn't tell Pro-Ban what they ARE looking for. If they can give us criteria that must be met, or data that must be shown - then we can finally make progress on this issue.

3) I honestly didn't know you had this job. Otherwise I would have gone through you. I usually avoid admins (JV) because it can take weeks/months to get an answer on the simplist and shortest of questions due to how busy/non-existant they really are.

4) Stage Discussion needs to be considered. BudgetPlayerCadet (or something like that) posted a WONERFUL stage analysis of how much a double-standard our stage list currenty is. It creates character bias and can't be seen as "fair" even with "neutral" stages. I believe the BBR should at least discuss this amongst themselves, or provide some input into this matter. I think the thread is called "OH NO IT MOVES" or something like that... It's made by BPC and is front page, not hard to find.

I'll leave my 5th point to be explained at a later date, depending on how #1 ends up. because until that happens, it's rather moot.

1) I can't tell you too much, because that goes against the privacy of the BBR. You obviously already know that I did bring it up.

2) I don't have much interest in discussing the MK ban, because I honestly couldn't care either way atm. I have too much bias at this point. However, I think it's important to allow people to talk about it, and I'll see about getting that allowed again.

3) I'll refrain from replying to this.

4) Stage discussion in the BBR typically occurs each time we go into updating the ruleset. Also, I read every post in Tactical, and I read BPC's thread already, even though I opted not to post this time.

Understood.

My stance on it is very confusing. It doesn't really effect me either way - but I do care about which direction it goes...I don't see the community dwindling because he's NOT around.... =\

3) It didn't even need to be answered, I was just stating the fact. =P

4) Okay.

5th Point, now that I have some answers:

How important/essential is the counterpick system? First - stage wise; Second - character wise.

SSB is one of the few (only one I know about personally actually..) games that allow a counterpick between rounds. This has become an established standard. If you lose, you may counterpick. The fact it has become standard deems it of some importance, however how essential is it? Not factoring in MK (yet) whom ruins the entire system (arguably... with no bad matchups or stages); how essential is it, if essential at all?

Why is it in place? Would it hurt to remove the system? The system itself actually seems uncompetitive. It allows you to try and place yourself at a huge advantage over your opponent by hard countering them and picking their characters worse stage. How is that competitive? In fact, that's detrimental to competitiveness, but we have it around anyways. Why? It's obviously "more fair" but is that a good enough reason?

So for what reason is this system around?

Now if we add the MK factor, it would have us lead that counterpicking is not essential to Brawl and should therefore... be removed. If it's not essential, why keep it around? If it has been proven essential - this is where the MK discussion occurs.

How important is the ability to counterpick a stage against your opponent? Meta Knight arguably has no disadvantageous stages. He breaks the stage counterpick system.

How important is the ability to counterpick characters against your opponent? Meta Knight answers this question with - pick Meta Knight. This automatically centralizes the entire counterpick system on him which causes the metagame (which has proven to be very dependant on counterpicks) to be entirely focused on him. Doesn't this qualify as overcentralization of the metagame?

Hope you can bring this up with the BBR, feel free to use this PM if you want to. However, I'd love to get 5-10 opinions from the BBR answering all of my questions.. just to get an idea on how they think.

It's commonly agreed that MK breaks the Counter-Pick system for the most part. We discussed the counterpick system once, and we concluded that while rubberbanding is typically discouraged as a competitive feature, allowing the opponent to do it as well balances things out. While I may not entirely agree with this, I'm of the opinion that the CP system is fine, and hence I'm not looking to change it, and have yet to be introduced to a superior alternative.

Marc has told me otherwise. Rubberbanding? I see about the balance, and I don't really agree with it..... just because it's balanced does not mean it should be there. There is no essential reason for the counterpick system to be in place. None at all. If there is an essential reason, than MK breaks that - centralizes the gameplay around him by doing so - and that can be used as ban criteria.

See what I'm trying to get at? The counterpick system is not essential yet we include it. This means it's important, but not essential. No reasons are stated for why it is in place. There are no reasons as to why it is in place. For everything else the BBR does, they try to include a reason. They removed the Bowsercide/Ganoncide rule because they believe the winner screen should be followed. So what is there reasoning behind the counterpick system being in place?

No one has yet to suggest an alternative that we find superior.

Superior: No counterpicking, best 2/3 3 stock rounds, random stage selected from the stage list.

Or, no counterpicking characters as that part is definately not essential - but you can counterpick stages.

What can be superior to a non-essential, but wanted system? Nothing. You are avoiding my question of what makes the counterpick system essential to competitive gameplay?

The correct answer:
It isn't.

However that raises another question. Why is it incorperated if not essential? Which this is now a subjective point, and it is only around because we believe it should be.

There are no superior alternatives? That's completely avoiding the questions.... there doesn't need to be an alternative because it doesn't need to be around. (Bit sick of having to say this...)

What makes different stages essential to competitive gameplay? Nothing. It's implied
that very few rules or setting are essential. I didn't avoid your question, I just viewed it to be rhetorical.

I would say giving players the OPTIONS of the stage the play on is superior to having it randomly decided. I would guess that most of the community agrees with me. I would also agree that people would feel more comfortable with the ability to switch out of unwinnables on a double blind, even if it means you can get CPed.

I'm speaking of the counterpick system. For both stages and characters.

You were completely avoiding the question. Now you answered finally with "It is not essential"

And you also used words like "comfortable" and "ability to switch out from unwinnables" (which technically don't exist to be honest)

Without a counterpick system, there is a clear line drawn between "tournament viable" and "not tournament viable". Characters whom are infinited by DDD for example, are less tournament viable. In fact - the only reason they are tournament viable is because of the counterpick system. If you were a DK, I'd go DDD. You'd ask for a double-blind pick. At this point, I'm safer going DDD than you are DK. Especially if you are a DK main, I'd have the advantage of going my main vs your secondary. Without a counterpick system, if we did choose our mains - and because DDD's infinite is not banned by the BBR it would give you an "unwinnable" (don't get grabbed, hur hur) matchup.

Now, this is not essential to competitive gameplay. In fact, it only exists to make certain characters more viable in competitive play. This goes against everything that the BBR argues for. This goes against banning the small-step CG, this goes against banning [selective] infinites. This goes against banning Meta Knight.

Now do you see why I want you to bring this up to the BBR? Essentially it is an extreme double standard of making the game more varied and "balanced". It's something many people overlook, but the blatant fact is there.

If you want criteria for a ban against Meta Knight, look at the non-essential counter-pick system in place. In order to remove the double-standard, you either need to remove the counterpick system for characters, or remove Meta Knight.

As I stated it's actually very uncompetitive to have a counterpick system in place. If you don't want to be counterpicked, the answer is clear. Pick Meta Knight. With the counterpick system, if you don't want to be counterpicked, the answer is clear. Pick Meta Knight.

Removing the counterpick system - leaves Meta Knight as the center of metagame.

Keeping counterpick system, removing Meta Knight - Every other character has a counterpick, making no one character the best choice. Now it comes down to preference, and.. le gasp! You have a varied metagame with no one overly dominate character!

Spoiler

So what do you think personally of my argument? I've only seen anything similar used once, it didn't get very detailed like mine - and it was completely ignored.

Please... just present this to the BBR for discussion, I feel like I'm only getting your input - and I know you don't speak for the BBR.. just as PR for them...

If you were under the impression that I'm going to nitpick words and debate with you through PM, you're sadly mistaken. I take time out of my day every Wednesday to do this, and I'm surely not going to do it on a relaxing Saturday night.

You yourself said that the CP system increases the "viability" of several characters. You go on to state that MK breaks the system. This has already been known forever.

You want me to bring up your argument to the BBR? And say what exactly?

"Susa has pointed out a flaw in our counter-pick system. Like several other features of our ruleset, it is not essential. Furthermore, it's ruined by MK. Therefore, we are creating a double standard by having a counter-pick system and MK together in the same ruleset."

It would get argued over for a bit, then probably laughed at, then ignored while a couple of die-hards debate it.

By the way, it's quite false that we do not have rules to be fair to the cast. Realistically, a shorter timer helps some characters clock each other out, and a neutral stage list helps to keep the game as balanced as possible. Furthermore, counterpick is done to give the players more options, not to balance the cast. Whether or not it's essential, it's a widely accepted and appreciated clause in our ruleset, and it's unlikely that the BBR would recommend it for change, or that the public would even accept such a recommendation if it were to happen.

Saying that removing MK leaves a more diverse metagame is an age old proban argument that I have used myself. It's not new.

Why have you not started a thread in Tactical titled "Removing the Counter-Pick system" where you proceed to explain how you don't think the CP system is good. You really don't need to talk about MK at all to do this. Then you could suggest an alternative in public.

If you do this, then I will bring it up in the BR.

The PM's between myself and yourself are now open for public criticism. I have stated my points, and you have stated yours as well as do your best to answer said points. I will let the public discuss on whom they feel is correct.

Also giving a player more options, essentially balances the cast.

Now watch how fast the thread turns into an MK debate and it gets locked.

Also your argument brings up "neutral" stages being "the most fair" which I again refer to BPC's argument against that and the polarization of many of these stages towards certain characters.

 

[IxxI]

So, someone suggested I post?

 

[etecoon]

stop overreacting lol, we still <3 you

O **** FENCE SIGHTING!

 

[SuSa]

Love me or not, I'm not posting anything I find public anymore. Anything I discover is SL only out of respect of my promise that I wouldn't just join and leave.

The Counterpick System is NOT essential.

Spoiler

Everything you will need to be informed about this debate will be posted momentarily.


Updated, easier to read, double-checking order of replies.

Referenced thread about neutrals/stage selection this is "BPC's thread"

Pierce's first reply to this thread (Reply #4)

Spoiler

I want a second opinion on whether I'd be entirely justified on locking and deleting a thread that quotes me several times in private message without my knowledge or consent that the message was going to be used publicly. This is typically considered extremely rude. In this particular instance, I don't REALLY care all that much. I merely encourage everyone to take everything I say with a tad bit grain of salt, simply because thing things I say past midnight in PM doesn't imply that I put as much thought into a well thought out address to the public.

For instance, if I had written this in a post, I would've used the phrase "Starter" instead of "Neutral" because that is the official terminology of the BBR.

Also, keep in mind that everything said in this thread is in no way representative of the BBR. It is merely my own opinion and speculation.

Joking title is so not going to fit the length of this post. I figured I'd try to get a laugh out of you before continuing. Expect a lengthy read, but I'll try to keep it as short and to-the-point as possible.

1) Heard Marc you're trying to speak to the BBR and get things worked about accepting people whom are voted in by the community. Kudos, if that can happen my CH idea can be thrown down the drain (for the most part) seeing as the next-best-thing happened. However, I'd like to know the factors in which they are trying to consider for this. (To remove the possibility of bribes for votes, as an example)


2) As far as the MK Ban discussion goes, Anti-Ban needs to come up with data they want to see to have Pro-Ban be able to find, organize, and display such data to them. I posted this in the thread in the SS in a response to Marc so if you want further details read there please. The TL;DR however is that Pro-Ban has to randomly find and present information, and Anti-Ban just says "well we're not looking for that" but doesn't tell Pro-Ban what they ARE looking for. If they can give us criteria that must be met, or data that must be shown - then we can finally make progress on this issue.

3) I honestly didn't know you had this job. Otherwise I would have gone through you. I usually avoid admins (JV) because it can take weeks/months to get an answer on the simplist and shortest of questions due to how busy/non-existant they really are.

4) Stage Discussion needs to be considered. BudgetPlayerCadet (or something like that) posted a WONERFUL stage analysis of how much a double-standard our stage list currenty is. It creates character bias and can't be seen as "fair" even with "neutral" stages. I believe the BBR should at least discuss this amongst themselves, or provide some input into this matter. I think the thread is called "OH NO IT MOVES" or something like that... It's made by BPC and is front page, not hard to find.

I'll leave my 5th point to be explained at a later date, depending on how #1 ends up. because until that happens, it's rather moot.

1) I can't tell you too much, because that goes against the privacy of the BBR. You obviously already know that I did bring it up.

2) I don't have much interest in discussing the MK ban, because I honestly couldn't care either way atm. I have too much bias at this point. However, I think it's important to allow people to talk about it, and I'll see about getting that allowed again.

3) I'll refrain from replying to this.

4) Stage discussion in the BBR typically occurs each time we go into updating the ruleset. Also, I read every post in Tactical, and I read BPC's thread already, even though I opted not to post this time.

Understood.

My stance on it is very confusing. It doesn't really effect me either way - but I do care about which direction it goes...I don't see the community dwindling because he's NOT around.... =\

3) It didn't even need to be answered, I was just stating the fact. =P

4) Okay.

5th Point, now that I have some answers:

How important/essential is the counterpick system? First - stage wise; Second - character wise.

SSB is one of the few (only one I know about personally actually..) games that allow a counterpick between rounds. This has become an established standard. If you lose, you may counterpick. The fact it has become standard deems it of some importance, however how essential is it? Not factoring in MK (yet) whom ruins the entire system (arguably... with no bad matchups or stages); how essential is it, if essential at all?

Why is it in place? Would it hurt to remove the system? The system itself actually seems uncompetitive. It allows you to try and place yourself at a huge advantage over your opponent by hard countering them and picking their characters worse stage. How is that competitive? In fact, that's detrimental to competitiveness, but we have it around anyways. Why? It's obviously "more fair" but is that a good enough reason?

So for what reason is this system around?

Now if we add the MK factor, it would have us lead that counterpicking is not essential to Brawl and should therefore... be removed. If it's not essential, why keep it around? If it has been proven essential - this is where the MK discussion occurs.

How important is the ability to counterpick a stage against your opponent? Meta Knight arguably has no disadvantageous stages. He breaks the stage counterpick system.

How important is the ability to counterpick characters against your opponent? Meta Knight answers this question with - pick Meta Knight. This automatically centralizes the entire counterpick system on him which causes the metagame (which has proven to be very dependant on counterpicks) to be entirely focused on him. Doesn't this qualify as overcentralization of the metagame?

Hope you can bring this up with the BBR, feel free to use this PM if you want to. However, I'd love to get 5-10 opinions from the BBR answering all of my questions.. just to get an idea on how they think.

It's commonly agreed that MK breaks the Counter-Pick system for the most part. We discussed the counterpick system once, and we concluded that while rubberbanding is typically discouraged as a competitive feature, allowing the opponent to do it as well balances things out. While I may not entirely agree with this, I'm of the opinion that the CP system is fine, and hence I'm not looking to change it, and have yet to be introduced to a superior alternative.

Marc has told me otherwise. Rubberbanding? I see about the balance, and I don't really agree with it..... just because it's balanced does not mean it should be there. There is no essential reason for the counterpick system to be in place. None at all. If there is an essential reason, than MK breaks that - centralizes the gameplay around him by doing so - and that can be used as ban criteria.

See what I'm trying to get at? The counterpick system is not essential yet we include it. This means it's important, but not essential. No reasons are stated for why it is in place. There are no reasons as to why it is in place. For everything else the BBR does, they try to include a reason. They removed the Bowsercide/Ganoncide rule because they believe the winner screen should be followed. So what is there reasoning behind the counterpick system being in place?

No one has yet to suggest an alternative that we find superior.

Superior: No counterpicking, best 2/3 3 stock rounds, random stage selected from the stage list.

Or, no counterpicking characters as that part is definately not essential - but you can counterpick stages.

What can be superior to a non-essential, but wanted system? Nothing. You are avoiding my question of what makes the counterpick system essential to competitive gameplay?

The correct answer:
It isn't.

However that raises another question. Why is it incorperated if not essential? Which this is now a subjective point, and it is only around because we believe it should be.

There are no superior alternatives? That's completely avoiding the questions.... there doesn't need to be an alternative because it doesn't need to be around. (Bit sick of having to say this...)

What makes different stages essential to competitive gameplay? Nothing. It's implied
that very few rules or setting are essential. I didn't avoid your question, I just viewed it to be rhetorical.

I would say giving players the OPTIONS of the stage the play on is superior to having it randomly decided. I would guess that most of the community agrees with me. I would also agree that people would feel more comfortable with the ability to switch out of unwinnables on a double blind, even if it means you can get CPed.

I'm speaking of the counterpick system. For both stages and characters.

You were completely avoiding the question. Now you answered finally with "It is not essential"

And you also used words like "comfortable" and "ability to switch out from unwinnables" (which technically don't exist to be honest)

Without a counterpick system, there is a clear line drawn between "tournament viable" and "not tournament viable". Characters whom are infinited by DDD for example, are less tournament viable. In fact - the only reason they are tournament viable is because of the counterpick system. If you were a DK, I'd go DDD. You'd ask for a double-blind pick. At this point, I'm safer going DDD than you are DK. Especially if you are a DK main, I'd have the advantage of going my main vs your secondary. Without a counterpick system, if we did choose our mains - and because DDD's infinite is not banned by the BBR it would give you an "unwinnable" (don't get grabbed, hur hur) matchup.

Now, this is not essential to competitive gameplay. In fact, it only exists to make certain characters more viable in competitive play. This goes against everything that the BBR argues for. This goes against banning the small-step CG, this goes against banning [selective] infinites. This goes against banning Meta Knight.

Now do you see why I want you to bring this up to the BBR? Essentially it is an extreme double standard of making the game more varied and "balanced". It's something many people overlook, but the blatant fact is there.

If you want criteria for a ban against Meta Knight, look at the non-essential counter-pick system in place. In order to remove the double-standard, you either need to remove the counterpick system for characters, or remove Meta Knight.

As I stated it's actually very uncompetitive to have a counterpick system in place. If you don't want to be counterpicked, the answer is clear. Pick Meta Knight. With the counterpick system, if you don't want to be counterpicked, the answer is clear. Pick Meta Knight.

Removing the counterpick system - leaves Meta Knight as the center of metagame.

Keeping counterpick system, removing Meta Knight - Every other character has a counterpick, making no one character the best choice. Now it comes down to preference, and.. le gasp! You have a varied metagame with no one overly dominate character!

Spoiler

So what do you think personally of my argument? I've only seen anything similar used once, it didn't get very detailed like mine - and it was completely ignored.

Please... just present this to the BBR for discussion, I feel like I'm only getting your input - and I know you don't speak for the BBR.. just as PR for them...

If you were under the impression that I'm going to nitpick words and debate with you through PM, you're sadly mistaken. I take time out of my day every Wednesday to do this, and I'm surely not going to do it on a relaxing Saturday night.

You yourself said that the CP system increases the "viability" of several characters. You go on to state that MK breaks the system. This has already been known forever.

You want me to bring up your argument to the BBR? And say what exactly?

"Susa has pointed out a flaw in our counter-pick system. Like several other features of our ruleset, it is not essential. Furthermore, it's ruined by MK. Therefore, we are creating a double standard by having a counter-pick system and MK together in the same ruleset."

It would get argued over for a bit, then probably laughed at, then ignored while a couple of die-hards debate it.

By the way, it's quite false that we do not have rules to be fair to the cast. Realistically, a shorter timer helps some characters clock each other out, and a neutral stage list helps to keep the game as balanced as possible. Furthermore, counterpick is done to give the players more options, not to balance the cast. Whether or not it's essential, it's a widely accepted and appreciated clause in our ruleset, and it's unlikely that the BBR would recommend it for change, or that the public would even accept such a recommendation if it were to happen.

Saying that removing MK leaves a more diverse metagame is an age old proban argument that I have used myself. It's not new.

Why have you not started a thread in Tactical titled "Removing the Counter-Pick system" where you proceed to explain how you don't think the CP system is good. You really don't need to talk about MK at all to do this. Then you could suggest an alternative in public.

If you do this, then I will bring it up in the BR.

The PM's between myself and yourself are now open for public criticism. I have stated my points, and you have stated yours as well as do your best to answer said points. I will let the public discuss on whom they feel is correct.

Also giving a player more options, essentially balances the cast.

Now watch how fast the thread turns into an MK debate and it gets locked.

Also your argument brings up "neutral" stages being "the most fair" which I again refer to BPC's argument against that and the polarization of many of these stages towards certain characters.

 

[Tech-Nelium the Shark]

I'm apparently the biggest douche ever for using my PM logs without someones permission for a thread, in which they said they "Don't REALLY care".



I'm probably the officially #1 hated person on SWF right now.

Blame Underload because he was your enabler. You left this behind and he gave you a reason to come back to SWF and now you can't control yourself. How many post have you made since coming back.? I think I saw it at a bit above 8000 and now you're above 8700. This site is like meth to you. I personally think you don't deserve the hate though.

 

[DtJ SmithZzz]

lmao SuSa you're not that important calm down

 

[IxxI]

Can someone teach me how to Smashboards? I seriously forgot how to use this thing. T____T

Updates: I'm now at University. I'm really busy. Don't expect too much out of me. I haven't touched Brawl or a Wii in ages.

 

[SuSa]

Blame Underload because he was your enabler. You left this behind and he gave you a reason to come back to SWF and now you can't control yourself. How many post have you made since coming back.? I think I saw it at a bit above 8000 and now you're above 8700. This site is like meth to you. I personally think you don't deserve the hate though.

I got nothing better to do. I made like 400~ posts on the dA forum as well as my 700~ on this one, and another 350~ on another. :s

I'm back because I'm back in the scene, and I care more about it than ever. I've already poured hours into trying to bring up new ideas and research data to expand the metagame. Now I'll just be a selfish douche and keep anything I find to myself.


The Counterpick System is NOT essential.

Spoiler

Everything you will need to be informed about this debate will be posted momentarily.


Updated, easier to read, double-checking order of replies.

Referenced thread about neutrals/stage selection this is "BPC's thread"

Pierce's first reply to this thread (Reply #4)

Spoiler

I want a second opinion on whether I'd be entirely justified on locking and deleting a thread that quotes me several times in private message without my knowledge or consent that the message was going to be used publicly. This is typically considered extremely rude. In this particular instance, I don't REALLY care all that much. I merely encourage everyone to take everything I say with a tad bit grain of salt, simply because thing things I say past midnight in PM doesn't imply that I put as much thought into a well thought out address to the public.

For instance, if I had written this in a post, I would've used the phrase "Starter" instead of "Neutral" because that is the official terminology of the BBR.

Also, keep in mind that everything said in this thread is in no way representative of the BBR. It is merely my own opinion and speculation.

Joking title is so not going to fit the length of this post. I figured I'd try to get a laugh out of you before continuing. Expect a lengthy read, but I'll try to keep it as short and to-the-point as possible.

1) Heard Marc you're trying to speak to the BBR and get things worked about accepting people whom are voted in by the community. Kudos, if that can happen my CH idea can be thrown down the drain (for the most part) seeing as the next-best-thing happened. However, I'd like to know the factors in which they are trying to consider for this. (To remove the possibility of bribes for votes, as an example)


2) As far as the MK Ban discussion goes, Anti-Ban needs to come up with data they want to see to have Pro-Ban be able to find, organize, and display such data to them. I posted this in the thread in the SS in a response to Marc so if you want further details read there please. The TL;DR however is that Pro-Ban has to randomly find and present information, and Anti-Ban just says "well we're not looking for that" but doesn't tell Pro-Ban what they ARE looking for. If they can give us criteria that must be met, or data that must be shown - then we can finally make progress on this issue.

3) I honestly didn't know you had this job. Otherwise I would have gone through you. I usually avoid admins (JV) because it can take weeks/months to get an answer on the simplist and shortest of questions due to how busy/non-existant they really are.

4) Stage Discussion needs to be considered. BudgetPlayerCadet (or something like that) posted a WONERFUL stage analysis of how much a double-standard our stage list currenty is. It creates character bias and can't be seen as "fair" even with "neutral" stages. I believe the BBR should at least discuss this amongst themselves, or provide some input into this matter. I think the thread is called "OH NO IT MOVES" or something like that... It's made by BPC and is front page, not hard to find.

I'll leave my 5th point to be explained at a later date, depending on how #1 ends up. because until that happens, it's rather moot.

1) I can't tell you too much, because that goes against the privacy of the BBR. You obviously already know that I did bring it up.

2) I don't have much interest in discussing the MK ban, because I honestly couldn't care either way atm. I have too much bias at this point. However, I think it's important to allow people to talk about it, and I'll see about getting that allowed again.

3) I'll refrain from replying to this.

4) Stage discussion in the BBR typically occurs each time we go into updating the ruleset. Also, I read every post in Tactical, and I read BPC's thread already, even though I opted not to post this time.

Understood.

My stance on it is very confusing. It doesn't really effect me either way - but I do care about which direction it goes...I don't see the community dwindling because he's NOT around.... =\

3) It didn't even need to be answered, I was just stating the fact. =P

4) Okay.

5th Point, now that I have some answers:

How important/essential is the counterpick system? First - stage wise; Second - character wise.

SSB is one of the few (only one I know about personally actually..) games that allow a counterpick between rounds. This has become an established standard. If you lose, you may counterpick. The fact it has become standard deems it of some importance, however how essential is it? Not factoring in MK (yet) whom ruins the entire system (arguably... with no bad matchups or stages); how essential is it, if essential at all?

Why is it in place? Would it hurt to remove the system? The system itself actually seems uncompetitive. It allows you to try and place yourself at a huge advantage over your opponent by hard countering them and picking their characters worse stage. How is that competitive? In fact, that's detrimental to competitiveness, but we have it around anyways. Why? It's obviously "more fair" but is that a good enough reason?

So for what reason is this system around?

Now if we add the MK factor, it would have us lead that counterpicking is not essential to Brawl and should therefore... be removed. If it's not essential, why keep it around? If it has been proven essential - this is where the MK discussion occurs.

How important is the ability to counterpick a stage against your opponent? Meta Knight arguably has no disadvantageous stages. He breaks the stage counterpick system.

How important is the ability to counterpick characters against your opponent? Meta Knight answers this question with - pick Meta Knight. This automatically centralizes the entire counterpick system on him which causes the metagame (which has proven to be very dependant on counterpicks) to be entirely focused on him. Doesn't this qualify as overcentralization of the metagame?

Hope you can bring this up with the BBR, feel free to use this PM if you want to. However, I'd love to get 5-10 opinions from the BBR answering all of my questions.. just to get an idea on how they think.

It's commonly agreed that MK breaks the Counter-Pick system for the most part. We discussed the counterpick system once, and we concluded that while rubberbanding is typically discouraged as a competitive feature, allowing the opponent to do it as well balances things out. While I may not entirely agree with this, I'm of the opinion that the CP system is fine, and hence I'm not looking to change it, and have yet to be introduced to a superior alternative.

Marc has told me otherwise. Rubberbanding? I see about the balance, and I don't really agree with it..... just because it's balanced does not mean it should be there. There is no essential reason for the counterpick system to be in place. None at all. If there is an essential reason, than MK breaks that - centralizes the gameplay around him by doing so - and that can be used as ban criteria.

See what I'm trying to get at? The counterpick system is not essential yet we include it. This means it's important, but not essential. No reasons are stated for why it is in place. There are no reasons as to why it is in place. For everything else the BBR does, they try to include a reason. They removed the Bowsercide/Ganoncide rule because they believe the winner screen should be followed. So what is there reasoning behind the counterpick system being in place?

No one has yet to suggest an alternative that we find superior.

Superior: No counterpicking, best 2/3 3 stock rounds, random stage selected from the stage list.

Or, no counterpicking characters as that part is definately not essential - but you can counterpick stages.

What can be superior to a non-essential, but wanted system? Nothing. You are avoiding my question of what makes the counterpick system essential to competitive gameplay?

The correct answer:
It isn't.

However that raises another question. Why is it incorperated if not essential? Which this is now a subjective point, and it is only around because we believe it should be.

There are no superior alternatives? That's completely avoiding the questions.... there doesn't need to be an alternative because it doesn't need to be around. (Bit sick of having to say this...)

What makes different stages essential to competitive gameplay? Nothing. It's implied
that very few rules or setting are essential. I didn't avoid your question, I just viewed it to be rhetorical.

I would say giving players the OPTIONS of the stage the play on is superior to having it randomly decided. I would guess that most of the community agrees with me. I would also agree that people would feel more comfortable with the ability to switch out of unwinnables on a double blind, even if it means you can get CPed.

I'm speaking of the counterpick system. For both stages and characters.

You were completely avoiding the question. Now you answered finally with "It is not essential"

And you also used words like "comfortable" and "ability to switch out from unwinnables" (which technically don't exist to be honest)

Without a counterpick system, there is a clear line drawn between "tournament viable" and "not tournament viable". Characters whom are infinited by DDD for example, are less tournament viable. In fact - the only reason they are tournament viable is because of the counterpick system. If you were a DK, I'd go DDD. You'd ask for a double-blind pick. At this point, I'm safer going DDD than you are DK. Especially if you are a DK main, I'd have the advantage of going my main vs your secondary. Without a counterpick system, if we did choose our mains - and because DDD's infinite is not banned by the BBR it would give you an "unwinnable" (don't get grabbed, hur hur) matchup.

Now, this is not essential to competitive gameplay. In fact, it only exists to make certain characters more viable in competitive play. This goes against everything that the BBR argues for. This goes against banning the small-step CG, this goes against banning [selective] infinites. This goes against banning Meta Knight.

Now do you see why I want you to bring this up to the BBR? Essentially it is an extreme double standard of making the game more varied and "balanced". It's something many people overlook, but the blatant fact is there.

If you want criteria for a ban against Meta Knight, look at the non-essential counter-pick system in place. In order to remove the double-standard, you either need to remove the counterpick system for characters, or remove Meta Knight.

As I stated it's actually very uncompetitive to have a counterpick system in place. If you don't want to be counterpicked, the answer is clear. Pick Meta Knight. With the counterpick system, if you don't want to be counterpicked, the answer is clear. Pick Meta Knight.

Removing the counterpick system - leaves Meta Knight as the center of metagame.

Keeping counterpick system, removing Meta Knight - Every other character has a counterpick, making no one character the best choice. Now it comes down to preference, and.. le gasp! You have a varied metagame with no one overly dominate character!

Spoiler

So what do you think personally of my argument? I've only seen anything similar used once, it didn't get very detailed like mine - and it was completely ignored.

Please... just present this to the BBR for discussion, I feel like I'm only getting your input - and I know you don't speak for the BBR.. just as PR for them...

If you were under the impression that I'm going to nitpick words and debate with you through PM, you're sadly mistaken. I take time out of my day every Wednesday to do this, and I'm surely not going to do it on a relaxing Saturday night.

You yourself said that the CP system increases the "viability" of several characters. You go on to state that MK breaks the system. This has already been known forever.

You want me to bring up your argument to the BBR? And say what exactly?

"Susa has pointed out a flaw in our counter-pick system. Like several other features of our ruleset, it is not essential. Furthermore, it's ruined by MK. Therefore, we are creating a double standard by having a counter-pick system and MK together in the same ruleset."

It would get argued over for a bit, then probably laughed at, then ignored while a couple of die-hards debate it.

By the way, it's quite false that we do not have rules to be fair to the cast. Realistically, a shorter timer helps some characters clock each other out, and a neutral stage list helps to keep the game as balanced as possible. Furthermore, counterpick is done to give the players more options, not to balance the cast. Whether or not it's essential, it's a widely accepted and appreciated clause in our ruleset, and it's unlikely that the BBR would recommend it for change, or that the public would even accept such a recommendation if it were to happen.

Saying that removing MK leaves a more diverse metagame is an age old proban argument that I have used myself. It's not new.

Why have you not started a thread in Tactical titled "Removing the Counter-Pick system" where you proceed to explain how you don't think the CP system is good. You really don't need to talk about MK at all to do this. Then you could suggest an alternative in public.

If you do this, then I will bring it up in the BR.

The PM's between myself and yourself are now open for public criticism. I have stated my points, and you have stated yours as well as do your best to answer said points. I will let the public discuss on whom they feel is correct.

Also giving a player more options, essentially balances the cast.

Now watch how fast the thread turns into an MK debate and it gets locked.

Also your argument brings up "neutral" stages being "the most fair" which I again refer to BPC's argument against that and the polarization of many of these stages towards certain characters.

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

At least do not be a douche and give me the pummeling speeds >_> Or else I would have used up a couple hours making and perfecting that spreadsheet for no reason at all.

 

[SuSa]

I'M A DOUCHE SORRY YOU WASTED YOUR TIME


That sum it up? If you have issues, ***** at the people who called me a douche in the thread. Jokingly or not, they got it locked up quickly for flaming and I'm ****ing pissed off. Who gives a **** for private messages being private when no personal information is given.

Outside of personal research, and research for the SL, I'm not doing jack **** that's productive for this piece of **** community. Much as I love you guys, if it has any possibility of helping other communities - **** it.


Generic copy-pasta of our PM logs for the rest of eternity until this issue is resolved.
The Counterpick System is NOT essential.

Spoiler

Everything you will need to be informed about this debate will be posted momentarily.


Updated, easier to read, double-checking order of replies.

Referenced thread about neutrals/stage selection this is "BPC's

thread"

Pierce's first reply to this thread (Reply #4)

Spoiler

I want a second opinion on whether I'd be entirely justified on locking and deleting a thread that quotes

me several times in private message without my knowledge or consent that the message was going to be used publicly. This is

typically considered extremely rude. In this particular instance, I don't REALLY care all that much. I merely encourage everyone to

take everything I say with a tad bit grain of salt, simply because thing things I say past midnight in PM doesn't imply that I put

as much thought into a well thought out address to the public.

For instance, if I had written this in a post, I would've used the phrase "Starter" instead of "Neutral" because that is the

official terminology of the BBR.

Also, keep in mind that everything said in this thread is in no way representative of the BBR. It is merely my own opinion and

speculation.

Joking title is so not going to fit the length of this post. I figured I'd try to get a laugh out of

you before continuing. Expect a lengthy read, but I'll try to keep it as short and to-the-point as possible.

1) Heard Marc you're trying to speak to the BBR and get things worked about accepting people whom are voted in by the community.

Kudos, if that can happen my CH idea can be thrown down the drain (for the most part) seeing as the next-best-thing happened.

However, I'd like to know the factors in which they are trying to consider for this. (To remove the possibility of bribes for

votes, as an example)


2) As far as the MK Ban discussion goes, Anti-Ban needs to come up with data they want to see to have Pro-Ban be able to

find, organize, and display such data to them. I posted this in the thread in the SS in a response to Marc so if you want further

details read there please. The TL;DR however is that Pro-Ban has to randomly find and present information, and Anti-Ban just says

"well we're not looking for that" but doesn't tell Pro-Ban what they ARE looking for. If they can give us criteria that must be

met, or data that must be shown - then we can finally make progress on this issue.

3) I honestly didn't know you had this job. Otherwise I would have gone through you. I usually avoid admins (JV)

because it can take weeks/months to get an answer on the simplist and shortest of questions due to how busy/non-existant they

really are.

4) Stage Discussion needs to be considered. BudgetPlayerCadet (or something like that) posted a WONERFUL stage analysis of how much

a double-standard our stage list currenty is. It creates character bias and can't be seen as "fair" even with "neutral" stages. I

believe the BBR should at least discuss this amongst themselves, or provide some input into this matter. I think the thread is

called "OH NO IT MOVES" or something like that... It's made by BPC and is front page, not hard to find.

I'll leave my 5th point to be explained at a later date, depending on how #1 ends up. because until that happens, it's rather moot.

1) I can't tell you too much, because that goes against the privacy of the BBR. You obviously already know that I

did bring it up.

2) I don't have much interest in discussing the MK ban, because I honestly couldn't care either way atm. I have too much bias at

this point. However, I think it's important to allow people to talk about it, and I'll see about getting that allowed again.

3) I'll refrain from replying to this.

4) Stage discussion in the BBR typically occurs each time we go into updating the ruleset. Also, I read every post in Tactical, and

I read BPC's thread already, even though I opted not to post this time.

Understood.

My stance on it is very confusing. It doesn't really effect me either way - but I do care about which direction it goes...I

don't see the community dwindling because he's NOT around.... =\

3) It didn't even need to be answered, I was just stating the fact. =P

4) Okay.

5th Point, now that I have some answers:

How important/essential is the counterpick system? First - stage wise; Second - character wise.

SSB is one of the few (only one I know about personally actually..) games that allow a counterpick between rounds. This has become

an established standard. If you lose, you may counterpick. The fact it has become standard deems it of some importance, however how

essential is it? Not factoring in MK (yet) whom ruins the entire system (arguably... with no bad matchups or stages); how essential

is it, if essential at all?

Why is it in place? Would it hurt to remove the system? The system itself actually seems uncompetitive. It allows you to try and

place yourself at a huge advantage over your opponent by hard countering them and picking their characters worse stage. How

is that competitive? In fact, that's detrimental to competitiveness, but we have it around anyways. Why? It's obviously "more fair"

but is that a good enough reason?

So for what reason is this system around?

Now if we add the MK factor, it would have us lead that counterpicking is not essential to Brawl and should therefore... be

removed. If it's not essential, why keep it around? If it has been proven essential - this is where the MK discussion occurs.

How important is the ability to counterpick a stage against your opponent? Meta Knight arguably has no disadvantageous stages. He

breaks the stage counterpick system.

How important is the ability to counterpick characters against your opponent? Meta Knight answers this question with - pick Meta

Knight. This automatically centralizes the entire counterpick system on him which causes the metagame (which has proven to

be very dependant on counterpicks) to be entirely focused on him. Doesn't this qualify as overcentralization of the

metagame?

Hope you can bring this up with the BBR, feel free to use this PM if you want to. However, I'd love to get 5-10 opinions from the

BBR answering all of my questions.. just to get an idea on how they think.

It's commonly agreed that MK breaks the Counter-Pick system for the most part. We discussed the counterpick system

once, and we concluded that while rubberbanding is typically discouraged as a competitive feature, allowing the opponent to do it

as well balances things out. While I may not entirely agree with this, I'm of the opinion that the CP system is fine, and hence I'm

not looking to change it, and have yet to be introduced to a superior alternative.

Marc has told me otherwise. Rubberbanding? I see about the balance, and I don't really agree with

it..... just because it's balanced does not mean it should be there. There is no essential reason for the counterpick

system to be in place. None at all. If there is an essential reason, than MK breaks that - centralizes the gameplay around him by

doing so - and that can be used as ban criteria.

See what I'm trying to get at? The counterpick system is not essential yet we include it. This means it's important, but not

essential. No reasons are stated for why it is in place. There are no reasons as to why it is in place. For everything else

the BBR does, they try to include a reason. They removed the Bowsercide/Ganoncide rule because they believe the winner screen

should be followed. So what is there reasoning behind the counterpick system being in place?

No one has yet to suggest an alternative that we find superior.

Superior: No counterpicking, best 2/3 3 stock rounds, random stage selected from the stage list.

Or, no counterpicking characters as that part is definately not essential - but you can counterpick stages.

What can be superior to a non-essential, but wanted system? Nothing. You are avoiding my question of what makes the

counterpick system essential to competitive gameplay?

The correct answer:
It isn't.

However that raises another question. Why is it incorperated if not essential? Which this is now a subjective point, and it

is only around because we believe it should be.

There are no superior alternatives? That's completely avoiding the questions.... there doesn't need to be an alternative

because it doesn't need to be around. (Bit sick of having to say this...)

What makes different stages essential to competitive gameplay? Nothing. It's implied
that very few rules or setting are essential. I didn't avoid your question, I just viewed it to be rhetorical.

I would say giving players the OPTIONS of the stage the play on is superior to having it randomly decided. I would guess that most

of the community agrees with me. I would also agree that people would feel more comfortable with the ability to switch out of

unwinnables on a double blind, even if it means you can get CPed.

I'm speaking of the counterpick system. For both stages and characters.

You were completely avoiding the question. Now you answered finally with "It is not essential"

And you also used words like "comfortable" and "ability to switch out from unwinnables" (which technically don't exist to be

honest)

Without a counterpick system, there is a clear line drawn between "tournament viable" and "not tournament viable". Characters whom

are infinited by DDD for example, are less tournament viable. In fact - the only reason they are tournament viable is

because of the counterpick system. If you were a DK, I'd go DDD. You'd ask for a double-blind pick. At this point, I'm safer going

DDD than you are DK. Especially if you are a DK main, I'd have the advantage of going my main vs your secondary. Without a

counterpick system, if we did choose our mains - and because DDD's infinite is not banned by the BBR it would give you an

"unwinnable" (don't get grabbed, hur hur) matchup.

Now, this is not essential to competitive gameplay. In fact, it only exists to make certain characters more viable in

competitive play. This goes against everything that the BBR argues for. This goes against banning the small-step CG,

this goes against banning [selective] infinites. This goes against banning Meta Knight.

Now do you see why I want you to bring this up to the BBR? Essentially it is an extreme double standard of making

the game more varied and "balanced". It's something many people overlook, but the blatant fact is there.

If you want criteria for a ban against Meta Knight, look at the non-essential counter-pick system in place. In order

to remove the double-standard, you either need to remove the counterpick system for characters, or remove Meta Knight.

As I stated it's actually very uncompetitive to have a counterpick system in place. If you don't want to be counterpicked,

the answer is clear. Pick Meta Knight. With the counterpick system, if you don't want to be counterpicked, the answer is

clear. Pick Meta Knight.

Removing the counterpick system - leaves Meta Knight as the center of metagame.

Keeping counterpick system, removing Meta Knight - Every other character has a counterpick, making no one character the best

choice. Now it comes down to preference, and.. le gasp! You have a varied metagame with no one overly dominate character!

Spoiler

So what do you think personally of my argument? I've only seen anything similar used once, it didn't get very detailed

like mine - and it was completely ignored.

Please... just present this to the BBR for discussion, I feel like I'm only getting your input - and I know you don't speak for the

BBR.. just as PR for them...

If you were under the impression that I'm going to nitpick words and debate with you through PM, you're sadly

mistaken. I take time out of my day every Wednesday to do this, and I'm surely not going to do it on a relaxing Saturday night.

You yourself said that the CP system increases the "viability" of several characters. You go on to state that MK breaks the system.

This has already been known forever.

You want me to bring up your argument to the BBR? And say what exactly?

"Susa has pointed out a flaw in our counter-pick system. Like several other features of our ruleset, it is not essential.

Furthermore, it's ruined by MK. Therefore, we are creating a double standard by having a counter-pick system and MK together in the

same ruleset."

It would get argued over for a bit, then probably laughed at, then ignored while a couple of die-hards debate it.

By the way, it's quite false that we do not have rules to be fair to the cast. Realistically, a shorter timer helps some characters

clock each other out, and a neutral stage list helps to keep the game as balanced as possible. Furthermore, counterpick is done to

give the players more options, not to balance the cast. Whether or not it's essential, it's a widely accepted and appreciated

clause in our ruleset, and it's unlikely that the BBR would recommend it for change, or that the public would even accept such a

recommendation if it were to happen.

Saying that removing MK leaves a more diverse metagame is an age old proban argument that I have used myself. It's not new.

Why have you not started a thread in Tactical titled "Removing the Counter-Pick system" where you proceed to explain how you don't

think the CP system is good. You really don't need to talk about MK at all to do this. Then you could suggest an alternative in

public.

If you do this, then I will bring it up in the BR.

The PM's between myself and yourself are now open for public criticism. I have stated my points, and you have

stated yours as well as do your best to answer said points. I will let the public discuss on whom they feel is correct.

Also giving a player more options, essentially balances the cast.

Now watch how fast the thread turns into an MK debate and it gets locked.

Also your argument brings up "neutral" stages being "the most fair" which I again refer to BPC's argument against that and the

polarization of many of these stages towards certain characters.

 

[etecoon]

keeping your **** to yourself is fine, I share very little of anything myself, got dat meta knight paranoia. but obviously this is stressing you out more than it should, don't let tactical ***s get to you

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

Alright, then I guess I should go post a couple images of Snake's pummel ranges just for us :3

 

[deepseadiva]

If you have issues, ***** at the people who called me a douche in the thread.

You're a child.

 

[SuSa]

keeping your **** to yourself is fine, I share very little of anything myself, got dat meta knight paranoia. but obviously this is stressing you out more than it should, don't let tactical ***s get to you

I'm letting them win. I'm a douche? Fine. No more public research. Ever.

I almost feel like removing all my threads from tactical and replacing them with
The Counterpick System is NOT essential.

Spoiler

Everything you will need to be informed about this debate will be posted momentarily.


Updated, easier to read, double-checking order of replies.

Referenced thread about neutrals/stage selection this is "BPC's

thread"

Pierce's first reply to this thread (Reply #4)

Spoiler

I want a second opinion on whether I'd be entirely justified on locking and deleting a thread that quotes

me several times in private message without my knowledge or consent that the message was going to be used publicly. This is

typically considered extremely rude. In this particular instance, I don't REALLY care all that much. I merely encourage everyone to

take everything I say with a tad bit grain of salt, simply because thing things I say past midnight in PM doesn't imply that I put

as much thought into a well thought out address to the public.

For instance, if I had written this in a post, I would've used the phrase "Starter" instead of "Neutral" because that is the

official terminology of the BBR.

Also, keep in mind that everything said in this thread is in no way representative of the BBR. It is merely my own opinion and

speculation.

Joking title is so not going to fit the length of this post. I figured I'd try to get a laugh out of

you before continuing. Expect a lengthy read, but I'll try to keep it as short and to-the-point as possible.

1) Heard Marc you're trying to speak to the BBR and get things worked about accepting people whom are voted in by the community.

Kudos, if that can happen my CH idea can be thrown down the drain (for the most part) seeing as the next-best-thing happened.

However, I'd like to know the factors in which they are trying to consider for this. (To remove the possibility of bribes for

votes, as an example)


2) As far as the MK Ban discussion goes, Anti-Ban needs to come up with data they want to see to have Pro-Ban be able to

find, organize, and display such data to them. I posted this in the thread in the SS in a response to Marc so if you want further

details read there please. The TL;DR however is that Pro-Ban has to randomly find and present information, and Anti-Ban just says

"well we're not looking for that" but doesn't tell Pro-Ban what they ARE looking for. If they can give us criteria that must be

met, or data that must be shown - then we can finally make progress on this issue.

3) I honestly didn't know you had this job. Otherwise I would have gone through you. I usually avoid admins (JV)

because it can take weeks/months to get an answer on the simplist and shortest of questions due to how busy/non-existant they

really are.

4) Stage Discussion needs to be considered. BudgetPlayerCadet (or something like that) posted a WONERFUL stage analysis of how much

a double-standard our stage list currenty is. It creates character bias and can't be seen as "fair" even with "neutral" stages. I

believe the BBR should at least discuss this amongst themselves, or provide some input into this matter. I think the thread is

called "OH NO IT MOVES" or something like that... It's made by BPC and is front page, not hard to find.

I'll leave my 5th point to be explained at a later date, depending on how #1 ends up. because until that happens, it's rather moot.

1) I can't tell you too much, because that goes against the privacy of the BBR. You obviously already know that I

did bring it up.

2) I don't have much interest in discussing the MK ban, because I honestly couldn't care either way atm. I have too much bias at

this point. However, I think it's important to allow people to talk about it, and I'll see about getting that allowed again.

3) I'll refrain from replying to this.

4) Stage discussion in the BBR typically occurs each time we go into updating the ruleset. Also, I read every post in Tactical, and

I read BPC's thread already, even though I opted not to post this time.

Understood.

My stance on it is very confusing. It doesn't really effect me either way - but I do care about which direction it goes...I

don't see the community dwindling because he's NOT around.... =\

3) It didn't even need to be answered, I was just stating the fact. =P

4) Okay.

5th Point, now that I have some answers:

How important/essential is the counterpick system? First - stage wise; Second - character wise.

SSB is one of the few (only one I know about personally actually..) games that allow a counterpick between rounds. This has become

an established standard. If you lose, you may counterpick. The fact it has become standard deems it of some importance, however how

essential is it? Not factoring in MK (yet) whom ruins the entire system (arguably... with no bad matchups or stages); how essential

is it, if essential at all?

Why is it in place? Would it hurt to remove the system? The system itself actually seems uncompetitive. It allows you to try and

place yourself at a huge advantage over your opponent by hard countering them and picking their characters worse stage. How

is that competitive? In fact, that's detrimental to competitiveness, but we have it around anyways. Why? It's obviously "more fair"

but is that a good enough reason?

So for what reason is this system around?

Now if we add the MK factor, it would have us lead that counterpicking is not essential to Brawl and should therefore... be

removed. If it's not essential, why keep it around? If it has been proven essential - this is where the MK discussion occurs.

How important is the ability to counterpick a stage against your opponent? Meta Knight arguably has no disadvantageous stages. He

breaks the stage counterpick system.

How important is the ability to counterpick characters against your opponent? Meta Knight answers this question with - pick Meta

Knight. This automatically centralizes the entire counterpick system on him which causes the metagame (which has proven to

be very dependant on counterpicks) to be entirely focused on him. Doesn't this qualify as overcentralization of the

metagame?

Hope you can bring this up with the BBR, feel free to use this PM if you want to. However, I'd love to get 5-10 opinions from the

BBR answering all of my questions.. just to get an idea on how they think.

It's commonly agreed that MK breaks the Counter-Pick system for the most part. We discussed the counterpick system

once, and we concluded that while rubberbanding is typically discouraged as a competitive feature, allowing the opponent to do it

as well balances things out. While I may not entirely agree with this, I'm of the opinion that the CP system is fine, and hence I'm

not looking to change it, and have yet to be introduced to a superior alternative.

Marc has told me otherwise. Rubberbanding? I see about the balance, and I don't really agree with

it..... just because it's balanced does not mean it should be there. There is no essential reason for the counterpick

system to be in place. None at all. If there is an essential reason, than MK breaks that - centralizes the gameplay around him by

doing so - and that can be used as ban criteria.

See what I'm trying to get at? The counterpick system is not essential yet we include it. This means it's important, but not

essential. No reasons are stated for why it is in place. There are no reasons as to why it is in place. For everything else

the BBR does, they try to include a reason. They removed the Bowsercide/Ganoncide rule because they believe the winner screen

should be followed. So what is there reasoning behind the counterpick system being in place?

No one has yet to suggest an alternative that we find superior.

Superior: No counterpicking, best 2/3 3 stock rounds, random stage selected from the stage list.

Or, no counterpicking characters as that part is definately not essential - but you can counterpick stages.

What can be superior to a non-essential, but wanted system? Nothing. You are avoiding my question of what makes the

counterpick system essential to competitive gameplay?

The correct answer:
It isn't.

However that raises another question. Why is it incorperated if not essential? Which this is now a subjective point, and it

is only around because we believe it should be.

There are no superior alternatives? That's completely avoiding the questions.... there doesn't need to be an alternative

because it doesn't need to be around. (Bit sick of having to say this...)

What makes different stages essential to competitive gameplay? Nothing. It's implied
that very few rules or setting are essential. I didn't avoid your question, I just viewed it to be rhetorical.

I would say giving players the OPTIONS of the stage the play on is superior to having it randomly decided. I would guess that most

of the community agrees with me. I would also agree that people would feel more comfortable with the ability to switch out of

unwinnables on a double blind, even if it means you can get CPed.

I'm speaking of the counterpick system. For both stages and characters.

You were completely avoiding the question. Now you answered finally with "It is not essential"

And you also used words like "comfortable" and "ability to switch out from unwinnables" (which technically don't exist to be

honest)

Without a counterpick system, there is a clear line drawn between "tournament viable" and "not tournament viable". Characters whom

are infinited by DDD for example, are less tournament viable. In fact - the only reason they are tournament viable is

because of the counterpick system. If you were a DK, I'd go DDD. You'd ask for a double-blind pick. At this point, I'm safer going

DDD than you are DK. Especially if you are a DK main, I'd have the advantage of going my main vs your secondary. Without a

counterpick system, if we did choose our mains - and because DDD's infinite is not banned by the BBR it would give you an

"unwinnable" (don't get grabbed, hur hur) matchup.

Now, this is not essential to competitive gameplay. In fact, it only exists to make certain characters more viable in

competitive play. This goes against everything that the BBR argues for. This goes against banning the small-step CG,

this goes against banning [selective] infinites. This goes against banning Meta Knight.

Now do you see why I want you to bring this up to the BBR? Essentially it is an extreme double standard of making

the game more varied and "balanced". It's something many people overlook, but the blatant fact is there.

If you want criteria for a ban against Meta Knight, look at the non-essential counter-pick system in place. In order

to remove the double-standard, you either need to remove the counterpick system for characters, or remove Meta Knight.

As I stated it's actually very uncompetitive to have a counterpick system in place. If you don't want to be counterpicked,

the answer is clear. Pick Meta Knight. With the counterpick system, if you don't want to be counterpicked, the answer is

clear. Pick Meta Knight.

Removing the counterpick system - leaves Meta Knight as the center of metagame.

Keeping counterpick system, removing Meta Knight - Every other character has a counterpick, making no one character the best

choice. Now it comes down to preference, and.. le gasp! You have a varied metagame with no one overly dominate character!

Spoiler

So what do you think personally of my argument? I've only seen anything similar used once, it didn't get very detailed

like mine - and it was completely ignored.

Please... just present this to the BBR for discussion, I feel like I'm only getting your input - and I know you don't speak for the

BBR.. just as PR for them...

If you were under the impression that I'm going to nitpick words and debate with you through PM, you're sadly

mistaken. I take time out of my day every Wednesday to do this, and I'm surely not going to do it on a relaxing Saturday night.

You yourself said that the CP system increases the "viability" of several characters. You go on to state that MK breaks the system.

This has already been known forever.

You want me to bring up your argument to the BBR? And say what exactly?

"Susa has pointed out a flaw in our counter-pick system. Like several other features of our ruleset, it is not essential.

Furthermore, it's ruined by MK. Therefore, we are creating a double standard by having a counter-pick system and MK together in the

same ruleset."

It would get argued over for a bit, then probably laughed at, then ignored while a couple of die-hards debate it.

By the way, it's quite false that we do not have rules to be fair to the cast. Realistically, a shorter timer helps some characters

clock each other out, and a neutral stage list helps to keep the game as balanced as possible. Furthermore, counterpick is done to

give the players more options, not to balance the cast. Whether or not it's essential, it's a widely accepted and appreciated

clause in our ruleset, and it's unlikely that the BBR would recommend it for change, or that the public would even accept such a

recommendation if it were to happen.

Saying that removing MK leaves a more diverse metagame is an age old proban argument that I have used myself. It's not new.

Why have you not started a thread in Tactical titled "Removing the Counter-Pick system" where you proceed to explain how you don't

think the CP system is good. You really don't need to talk about MK at all to do this. Then you could suggest an alternative in

public.

If you do this, then I will bring it up in the BR.

The PM's between myself and yourself are now open for public criticism. I have stated my points, and you have

stated yours as well as do your best to answer said points. I will let the public discuss on whom they feel is correct.

Also giving a player more options, essentially balances the cast.

Now watch how fast the thread turns into an MK debate and it gets locked.

Also your argument brings up "neutral" stages being "the most fair" which I again refer to BPC's argument against that and the

polarization of many of these stages towards certain characters.

 

[Zajice]

Sure is dramatic in here.

 

[SuSa]

If I was acting rashly I'd have a default name with Banned (6 Points) under my title right now.

Luckily I'm not a ****ing idiot.

 

[etecoon]

tactical is like a swamp where it's regular users are the disease carrying insects, you *really* shouldn't get upset about what they think

 

[SuSa]

It wasn't even regular users whom posted there. Seemed like a **** load of randoms hopping on the Susa your a douche boat.

I'm riding it til I hit land.


The Counterpick System is NOT essential.

Spoiler

Everything you will need to be informed about this debate will be posted momentarily.


Updated, easier to read, double-checking order of replies.

Referenced thread about neutrals/stage selection this is "BPC's

thread"

Pierce's first reply to this thread (Reply #4)

Spoiler

I want a second opinion on whether I'd be entirely justified on locking and deleting a thread that quotes

me several times in private message without my knowledge or consent that the message was going to be used publicly. This is

typically considered extremely rude. In this particular instance, I don't REALLY care all that much. I merely encourage everyone to

take everything I say with a tad bit grain of salt, simply because thing things I say past midnight in PM doesn't imply that I put

as much thought into a well thought out address to the public.

For instance, if I had written this in a post, I would've used the phrase "Starter" instead of "Neutral" because that is the

official terminology of the BBR.

Also, keep in mind that everything said in this thread is in no way representative of the BBR. It is merely my own opinion and

speculation.

Joking title is so not going to fit the length of this post. I figured I'd try to get a laugh out of

you before continuing. Expect a lengthy read, but I'll try to keep it as short and to-the-point as possible.

1) Heard Marc you're trying to speak to the BBR and get things worked about accepting people whom are voted in by the community.

Kudos, if that can happen my CH idea can be thrown down the drain (for the most part) seeing as the next-best-thing happened.

However, I'd like to know the factors in which they are trying to consider for this. (To remove the possibility of bribes for

votes, as an example)


2) As far as the MK Ban discussion goes, Anti-Ban needs to come up with data they want to see to have Pro-Ban be able to

find, organize, and display such data to them. I posted this in the thread in the SS in a response to Marc so if you want further

details read there please. The TL;DR however is that Pro-Ban has to randomly find and present information, and Anti-Ban just says

"well we're not looking for that" but doesn't tell Pro-Ban what they ARE looking for. If they can give us criteria that must be

met, or data that must be shown - then we can finally make progress on this issue.

3) I honestly didn't know you had this job. Otherwise I would have gone through you. I usually avoid admins (JV)

because it can take weeks/months to get an answer on the simplist and shortest of questions due to how busy/non-existant they

really are.

4) Stage Discussion needs to be considered. BudgetPlayerCadet (or something like that) posted a WONERFUL stage analysis of how much

a double-standard our stage list currenty is. It creates character bias and can't be seen as "fair" even with "neutral" stages. I

believe the BBR should at least discuss this amongst themselves, or provide some input into this matter. I think the thread is

called "OH NO IT MOVES" or something like that... It's made by BPC and is front page, not hard to find.

I'll leave my 5th point to be explained at a later date, depending on how #1 ends up. because until that happens, it's rather moot.

1) I can't tell you too much, because that goes against the privacy of the BBR. You obviously already know that I

did bring it up.

2) I don't have much interest in discussing the MK ban, because I honestly couldn't care either way atm. I have too much bias at

this point. However, I think it's important to allow people to talk about it, and I'll see about getting that allowed again.

3) I'll refrain from replying to this.

4) Stage discussion in the BBR typically occurs each time we go into updating the ruleset. Also, I read every post in Tactical, and

I read BPC's thread already, even though I opted not to post this time.

Understood.

My stance on it is very confusing. It doesn't really effect me either way - but I do care about which direction it goes...I

don't see the community dwindling because he's NOT around.... =\

3) It didn't even need to be answered, I was just stating the fact. =P

4) Okay.

5th Point, now that I have some answers:

How important/essential is the counterpick system? First - stage wise; Second - character wise.

SSB is one of the few (only one I know about personally actually..) games that allow a counterpick between rounds. This has become

an established standard. If you lose, you may counterpick. The fact it has become standard deems it of some importance, however how

essential is it? Not factoring in MK (yet) whom ruins the entire system (arguably... with no bad matchups or stages); how essential

is it, if essential at all?

Why is it in place? Would it hurt to remove the system? The system itself actually seems uncompetitive. It allows you to try and

place yourself at a huge advantage over your opponent by hard countering them and picking their characters worse stage. How

is that competitive? In fact, that's detrimental to competitiveness, but we have it around anyways. Why? It's obviously "more fair"

but is that a good enough reason?

So for what reason is this system around?

Now if we add the MK factor, it would have us lead that counterpicking is not essential to Brawl and should therefore... be

removed. If it's not essential, why keep it around? If it has been proven essential - this is where the MK discussion occurs.

How important is the ability to counterpick a stage against your opponent? Meta Knight arguably has no disadvantageous stages. He

breaks the stage counterpick system.

How important is the ability to counterpick characters against your opponent? Meta Knight answers this question with - pick Meta

Knight. This automatically centralizes the entire counterpick system on him which causes the metagame (which has proven to

be very dependant on counterpicks) to be entirely focused on him. Doesn't this qualify as overcentralization of the

metagame?

Hope you can bring this up with the BBR, feel free to use this PM if you want to. However, I'd love to get 5-10 opinions from the

BBR answering all of my questions.. just to get an idea on how they think.

It's commonly agreed that MK breaks the Counter-Pick system for the most part. We discussed the counterpick system

once, and we concluded that while rubberbanding is typically discouraged as a competitive feature, allowing the opponent to do it

as well balances things out. While I may not entirely agree with this, I'm of the opinion that the CP system is fine, and hence I'm

not looking to change it, and have yet to be introduced to a superior alternative.

Marc has told me otherwise. Rubberbanding? I see about the balance, and I don't really agree with

it..... just because it's balanced does not mean it should be there. There is no essential reason for the counterpick

system to be in place. None at all. If there is an essential reason, than MK breaks that - centralizes the gameplay around him by

doing so - and that can be used as ban criteria.

See what I'm trying to get at? The counterpick system is not essential yet we include it. This means it's important, but not

essential. No reasons are stated for why it is in place. There are no reasons as to why it is in place. For everything else

the BBR does, they try to include a reason. They removed the Bowsercide/Ganoncide rule because they believe the winner screen

should be followed. So what is there reasoning behind the counterpick system being in place?

No one has yet to suggest an alternative that we find superior.

Superior: No counterpicking, best 2/3 3 stock rounds, random stage selected from the stage list.

Or, no counterpicking characters as that part is definately not essential - but you can counterpick stages.

What can be superior to a non-essential, but wanted system? Nothing. You are avoiding my question of what makes the

counterpick system essential to competitive gameplay?

The correct answer:
It isn't.

However that raises another question. Why is it incorperated if not essential? Which this is now a subjective point, and it

is only around because we believe it should be.

There are no superior alternatives? That's completely avoiding the questions.... there doesn't need to be an alternative

because it doesn't need to be around. (Bit sick of having to say this...)

What makes different stages essential to competitive gameplay? Nothing. It's implied
that very few rules or setting are essential. I didn't avoid your question, I just viewed it to be rhetorical.

I would say giving players the OPTIONS of the stage the play on is superior to having it randomly decided. I would guess that most

of the community agrees with me. I would also agree that people would feel more comfortable with the ability to switch out of

unwinnables on a double blind, even if it means you can get CPed.

I'm speaking of the counterpick system. For both stages and characters.

You were completely avoiding the question. Now you answered finally with "It is not essential"

And you also used words like "comfortable" and "ability to switch out from unwinnables" (which technically don't exist to be

honest)

Without a counterpick system, there is a clear line drawn between "tournament viable" and "not tournament viable". Characters whom

are infinited by DDD for example, are less tournament viable. In fact - the only reason they are tournament viable is

because of the counterpick system. If you were a DK, I'd go DDD. You'd ask for a double-blind pick. At this point, I'm safer going

DDD than you are DK. Especially if you are a DK main, I'd have the advantage of going my main vs your secondary. Without a

counterpick system, if we did choose our mains - and because DDD's infinite is not banned by the BBR it would give you an

"unwinnable" (don't get grabbed, hur hur) matchup.

Now, this is not essential to competitive gameplay. In fact, it only exists to make certain characters more viable in

competitive play. This goes against everything that the BBR argues for. This goes against banning the small-step CG,

this goes against banning [selective] infinites. This goes against banning Meta Knight.

Now do you see why I want you to bring this up to the BBR? Essentially it is an extreme double standard of making

the game more varied and "balanced". It's something many people overlook, but the blatant fact is there.

If you want criteria for a ban against Meta Knight, look at the non-essential counter-pick system in place. In order

to remove the double-standard, you either need to remove the counterpick system for characters, or remove Meta Knight.

As I stated it's actually very uncompetitive to have a counterpick system in place. If you don't want to be counterpicked,

the answer is clear. Pick Meta Knight. With the counterpick system, if you don't want to be counterpicked, the answer is

clear. Pick Meta Knight.

Removing the counterpick system - leaves Meta Knight as the center of metagame.

Keeping counterpick system, removing Meta Knight - Every other character has a counterpick, making no one character the best

choice. Now it comes down to preference, and.. le gasp! You have a varied metagame with no one overly dominate character!

Spoiler

So what do you think personally of my argument? I've only seen anything similar used once, it didn't get very detailed

like mine - and it was completely ignored.

Please... just present this to the BBR for discussion, I feel like I'm only getting your input - and I know you don't speak for the

BBR.. just as PR for them...

If you were under the impression that I'm going to nitpick words and debate with you through PM, you're sadly

mistaken. I take time out of my day every Wednesday to do this, and I'm surely not going to do it on a relaxing Saturday night.

You yourself said that the CP system increases the "viability" of several characters. You go on to state that MK breaks the system.

This has already been known forever.

You want me to bring up your argument to the BBR? And say what exactly?

"Susa has pointed out a flaw in our counter-pick system. Like several other features of our ruleset, it is not essential.

Furthermore, it's ruined by MK. Therefore, we are creating a double standard by having a counter-pick system and MK together in the

same ruleset."

It would get argued over for a bit, then probably laughed at, then ignored while a couple of die-hards debate it.

By the way, it's quite false that we do not have rules to be fair to the cast. Realistically, a shorter timer helps some characters

clock each other out, and a neutral stage list helps to keep the game as balanced as possible. Furthermore, counterpick is done to

give the players more options, not to balance the cast. Whether or not it's essential, it's a widely accepted and appreciated

clause in our ruleset, and it's unlikely that the BBR would recommend it for change, or that the public would even accept such a

recommendation if it were to happen.

Saying that removing MK leaves a more diverse metagame is an age old proban argument that I have used myself. It's not new.

Why have you not started a thread in Tactical titled "Removing the Counter-Pick system" where you proceed to explain how you don't

think the CP system is good. You really don't need to talk about MK at all to do this. Then you could suggest an alternative in

public.

If you do this, then I will bring it up in the BR.

The PM's between myself and yourself are now open for public criticism. I have stated my points, and you have

stated yours as well as do your best to answer said points. I will let the public discuss on whom they feel is correct.

Also giving a player more options, essentially balances the cast.

Now watch how fast the thread turns into an MK debate and it gets locked.

Also your argument brings up "neutral" stages being "the most fair" which I again refer to BPC's argument against that and the

polarization of many of these stages towards certain characters.

 

[etecoon]

most of the randoms in this community could also be personified as disease carrying insects or rodents

really just take a break from here and do something that's actually fun you'll feel much better

 

[SuSa]

Fun:
Getting advancement done


The Counterpick System is NOT essential.

Spoiler

Everything you will need to be informed about this debate will be posted momentarily.


Updated, easier to read, double-checking order of replies.

Referenced thread about neutrals/stage selection this is "BPC's

thread"

Pierce's first reply to this thread (Reply #4)

Spoiler

I want a second opinion on whether I'd be entirely justified on locking and deleting a thread that quotes

me several times in private message without my knowledge or consent that the message was going to be used publicly. This is

typically considered extremely rude. In this particular instance, I don't REALLY care all that much. I merely encourage everyone to

take everything I say with a tad bit grain of salt, simply because thing things I say past midnight in PM doesn't imply that I put

as much thought into a well thought out address to the public.

For instance, if I had written this in a post, I would've used the phrase "Starter" instead of "Neutral" because that is the

official terminology of the BBR.

Also, keep in mind that everything said in this thread is in no way representative of the BBR. It is merely my own opinion and

speculation.

Joking title is so not going to fit the length of this post. I figured I'd try to get a laugh out of

you before continuing. Expect a lengthy read, but I'll try to keep it as short and to-the-point as possible.

1) Heard Marc you're trying to speak to the BBR and get things worked about accepting people whom are voted in by the community.

Kudos, if that can happen my CH idea can be thrown down the drain (for the most part) seeing as the next-best-thing happened.

However, I'd like to know the factors in which they are trying to consider for this. (To remove the possibility of bribes for

votes, as an example)


2) As far as the MK Ban discussion goes, Anti-Ban needs to come up with data they want to see to have Pro-Ban be able to

find, organize, and display such data to them. I posted this in the thread in the SS in a response to Marc so if you want further

details read there please. The TL;DR however is that Pro-Ban has to randomly find and present information, and Anti-Ban just says

"well we're not looking for that" but doesn't tell Pro-Ban what they ARE looking for. If they can give us criteria that must be

met, or data that must be shown - then we can finally make progress on this issue.

3) I honestly didn't know you had this job. Otherwise I would have gone through you. I usually avoid admins (JV)

because it can take weeks/months to get an answer on the simplist and shortest of questions due to how busy/non-existant they

really are.

4) Stage Discussion needs to be considered. BudgetPlayerCadet (or something like that) posted a WONERFUL stage analysis of how much

a double-standard our stage list currenty is. It creates character bias and can't be seen as "fair" even with "neutral" stages. I

believe the BBR should at least discuss this amongst themselves, or provide some input into this matter. I think the thread is

called "OH NO IT MOVES" or something like that... It's made by BPC and is front page, not hard to find.

I'll leave my 5th point to be explained at a later date, depending on how #1 ends up. because until that happens, it's rather moot.

1) I can't tell you too much, because that goes against the privacy of the BBR. You obviously already know that I

did bring it up.

2) I don't have much interest in discussing the MK ban, because I honestly couldn't care either way atm. I have too much bias at

this point. However, I think it's important to allow people to talk about it, and I'll see about getting that allowed again.

3) I'll refrain from replying to this.

4) Stage discussion in the BBR typically occurs each time we go into updating the ruleset. Also, I read every post in Tactical, and

I read BPC's thread already, even though I opted not to post this time.

Understood.

My stance on it is very confusing. It doesn't really effect me either way - but I do care about which direction it goes...I

don't see the community dwindling because he's NOT around.... =\

3) It didn't even need to be answered, I was just stating the fact. =P

4) Okay.

5th Point, now that I have some answers:

How important/essential is the counterpick system? First - stage wise; Second - character wise.

SSB is one of the few (only one I know about personally actually..) games that allow a counterpick between rounds. This has become

an established standard. If you lose, you may counterpick. The fact it has become standard deems it of some importance, however how

essential is it? Not factoring in MK (yet) whom ruins the entire system (arguably... with no bad matchups or stages); how essential

is it, if essential at all?

Why is it in place? Would it hurt to remove the system? The system itself actually seems uncompetitive. It allows you to try and

place yourself at a huge advantage over your opponent by hard countering them and picking their characters worse stage. How

is that competitive? In fact, that's detrimental to competitiveness, but we have it around anyways. Why? It's obviously "more fair"

but is that a good enough reason?

So for what reason is this system around?

Now if we add the MK factor, it would have us lead that counterpicking is not essential to Brawl and should therefore... be

removed. If it's not essential, why keep it around? If it has been proven essential - this is where the MK discussion occurs.

How important is the ability to counterpick a stage against your opponent? Meta Knight arguably has no disadvantageous stages. He

breaks the stage counterpick system.

How important is the ability to counterpick characters against your opponent? Meta Knight answers this question with - pick Meta

Knight. This automatically centralizes the entire counterpick system on him which causes the metagame (which has proven to

be very dependant on counterpicks) to be entirely focused on him. Doesn't this qualify as overcentralization of the

metagame?

Hope you can bring this up with the BBR, feel free to use this PM if you want to. However, I'd love to get 5-10 opinions from the

BBR answering all of my questions.. just to get an idea on how they think.

It's commonly agreed that MK breaks the Counter-Pick system for the most part. We discussed the counterpick system

once, and we concluded that while rubberbanding is typically discouraged as a competitive feature, allowing the opponent to do it

as well balances things out. While I may not entirely agree with this, I'm of the opinion that the CP system is fine, and hence I'm

not looking to change it, and have yet to be introduced to a superior alternative.

Marc has told me otherwise. Rubberbanding? I see about the balance, and I don't really agree with

it..... just because it's balanced does not mean it should be there. There is no essential reason for the counterpick

system to be in place. None at all. If there is an essential reason, than MK breaks that - centralizes the gameplay around him by

doing so - and that can be used as ban criteria.

See what I'm trying to get at? The counterpick system is not essential yet we include it. This means it's important, but not

essential. No reasons are stated for why it is in place. There are no reasons as to why it is in place. For everything else

the BBR does, they try to include a reason. They removed the Bowsercide/Ganoncide rule because they believe the winner screen

should be followed. So what is there reasoning behind the counterpick system being in place?

No one has yet to suggest an alternative that we find superior.

Superior: No counterpicking, best 2/3 3 stock rounds, random stage selected from the stage list.

Or, no counterpicking characters as that part is definately not essential - but you can counterpick stages.

What can be superior to a non-essential, but wanted system? Nothing. You are avoiding my question of what makes the

counterpick system essential to competitive gameplay?

The correct answer:
It isn't.

However that raises another question. Why is it incorperated if not essential? Which this is now a subjective point, and it

is only around because we believe it should be.

There are no superior alternatives? That's completely avoiding the questions.... there doesn't need to be an alternative

because it doesn't need to be around. (Bit sick of having to say this...)

What makes different stages essential to competitive gameplay? Nothing. It's implied
that very few rules or setting are essential. I didn't avoid your question, I just viewed it to be rhetorical.

I would say giving players the OPTIONS of the stage the play on is superior to having it randomly decided. I would guess that most

of the community agrees with me. I would also agree that people would feel more comfortable with the ability to switch out of

unwinnables on a double blind, even if it means you can get CPed.

I'm speaking of the counterpick system. For both stages and characters.

You were completely avoiding the question. Now you answered finally with "It is not essential"

And you also used words like "comfortable" and "ability to switch out from unwinnables" (which technically don't exist to be

honest)

Without a counterpick system, there is a clear line drawn between "tournament viable" and "not tournament viable". Characters whom

are infinited by DDD for example, are less tournament viable. In fact - the only reason they are tournament viable is

because of the counterpick system. If you were a DK, I'd go DDD. You'd ask for a double-blind pick. At this point, I'm safer going

DDD than you are DK. Especially if you are a DK main, I'd have the advantage of going my main vs your secondary. Without a

counterpick system, if we did choose our mains - and because DDD's infinite is not banned by the BBR it would give you an

"unwinnable" (don't get grabbed, hur hur) matchup.

Now, this is not essential to competitive gameplay. In fact, it only exists to make certain characters more viable in

competitive play. This goes against everything that the BBR argues for. This goes against banning the small-step CG,

this goes against banning [selective] infinites. This goes against banning Meta Knight.

Now do you see why I want you to bring this up to the BBR? Essentially it is an extreme double standard of making

the game more varied and "balanced". It's something many people overlook, but the blatant fact is there.

If you want criteria for a ban against Meta Knight, look at the non-essential counter-pick system in place. In order

to remove the double-standard, you either need to remove the counterpick system for characters, or remove Meta Knight.

As I stated it's actually very uncompetitive to have a counterpick system in place. If you don't want to be counterpicked,

the answer is clear. Pick Meta Knight. With the counterpick system, if you don't want to be counterpicked, the answer is

clear. Pick Meta Knight.

Removing the counterpick system - leaves Meta Knight as the center of metagame.

Keeping counterpick system, removing Meta Knight - Every other character has a counterpick, making no one character the best

choice. Now it comes down to preference, and.. le gasp! You have a varied metagame with no one overly dominate character!

Spoiler

So what do you think personally of my argument? I've only seen anything similar used once, it didn't get very detailed

like mine - and it was completely ignored.

Please... just present this to the BBR for discussion, I feel like I'm only getting your input - and I know you don't speak for the

BBR.. just as PR for them...

If you were under the impression that I'm going to nitpick words and debate with you through PM, you're sadly

mistaken. I take time out of my day every Wednesday to do this, and I'm surely not going to do it on a relaxing Saturday night.

You yourself said that the CP system increases the "viability" of several characters. You go on to state that MK breaks the system.

This has already been known forever.

You want me to bring up your argument to the BBR? And say what exactly?

"Susa has pointed out a flaw in our counter-pick system. Like several other features of our ruleset, it is not essential.

Furthermore, it's ruined by MK. Therefore, we are creating a double standard by having a counter-pick system and MK together in the

same ruleset."

It would get argued over for a bit, then probably laughed at, then ignored while a couple of die-hards debate it.

By the way, it's quite false that we do not have rules to be fair to the cast. Realistically, a shorter timer helps some characters

clock each other out, and a neutral stage list helps to keep the game as balanced as possible. Furthermore, counterpick is done to

give the players more options, not to balance the cast. Whether or not it's essential, it's a widely accepted and appreciated

clause in our ruleset, and it's unlikely that the BBR would recommend it for change, or that the public would even accept such a

recommendation if it were to happen.

Saying that removing MK leaves a more diverse metagame is an age old proban argument that I have used myself. It's not new.

Why have you not started a thread in Tactical titled "Removing the Counter-Pick system" where you proceed to explain how you don't

think the CP system is good. You really don't need to talk about MK at all to do this. Then you could suggest an alternative in

public.

If you do this, then I will bring it up in the BR.

The PM's between myself and yourself are now open for public criticism. I have stated my points, and you have

stated yours as well as do your best to answer said points. I will let the public discuss on whom they feel is correct.

Also giving a player more options, essentially balances the cast.

Now watch how fast the thread turns into an MK debate and it gets locked.

Also your argument brings up "neutral" stages being "the most fair" which I again refer to BPC's argument against that and the

polarization of many of these stages towards certain characters.

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

Snake's Grab Pummel Ranges

With SuSa being the starter of this project, a system has been created to show the number of pummels possible at any given percentage below 250%, plus the addition of some theorized pummel ranges.

This first one shows Snake's maximum pummels at any percent provided the opponent never struggles to get out. This is the most accurate pummel range.

This next pummel range is theorized for an "average" player who struggles to get out. This one should be seen more as a guideline for trying to poke pummels out of people.

This next range is was taken with the idea of having very high button mashing skills. If you are ever worried about someone getting out of your grabs because you think they are a huge button masher, then use this pummel range to dictate your choices.

 

[SuSa]

Cool, now give it it's own thread.

Also just so you don't look like a possible idiot, I'll get one last data for you. Snake's pummel, once I get the formula for hitstun.

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

That is why I am keeping this a post lol I used the 18 pummel speed that you ripped out of the game files for these particular ranges.

 

[SuSa]

It's 18 + hitlag from pummel, which is our pummel % / 3 rounded down + 1.

How much does our pummel do again? XD

 

[Darkshadow7827]

I usually never read tactical thread. Also, do regular people have access to observe but not post in Smash Lab? This just shows you how much I browse SWF besides blogs when I'm bored, character boards, and regional boards.

Also, SuSa pretty much revived Fence. Soon Candy will start posting again heh heh.

 

[SuSa]

I honestly have no idea if you can see into SL. I don't think you can because I never noticed it before I became a researcher.


The Counterpick System is NOT essential.

Spoiler

Everything you will need to be informed about this debate will be posted momentarily.


Updated, easier to read, double-checking order of replies.

Referenced thread about neutrals/stage selection this is "BPC's

thread"

Pierce's first reply to this thread (Reply #4)

Spoiler

I want a second opinion on whether I'd be entirely justified on locking and deleting a thread that quotes

me several times in private message without my knowledge or consent that the message was going to be used publicly. This is

typically considered extremely rude. In this particular instance, I don't REALLY care all that much. I merely encourage everyone to

take everything I say with a tad bit grain of salt, simply because thing things I say past midnight in PM doesn't imply that I put

as much thought into a well thought out address to the public.

For instance, if I had written this in a post, I would've used the phrase "Starter" instead of "Neutral" because that is the

official terminology of the BBR.

Also, keep in mind that everything said in this thread is in no way representative of the BBR. It is merely my own opinion and

speculation.

Joking title is so not going to fit the length of this post. I figured I'd try to get a laugh out of

you before continuing. Expect a lengthy read, but I'll try to keep it as short and to-the-point as possible.

1) Heard Marc you're trying to speak to the BBR and get things worked about accepting people whom are voted in by the community.

Kudos, if that can happen my CH idea can be thrown down the drain (for the most part) seeing as the next-best-thing happened.

However, I'd like to know the factors in which they are trying to consider for this. (To remove the possibility of bribes for

votes, as an example)


2) As far as the MK Ban discussion goes, Anti-Ban needs to come up with data they want to see to have Pro-Ban be able to

find, organize, and display such data to them. I posted this in the thread in the SS in a response to Marc so if you want further

details read there please. The TL;DR however is that Pro-Ban has to randomly find and present information, and Anti-Ban just says

"well we're not looking for that" but doesn't tell Pro-Ban what they ARE looking for. If they can give us criteria that must be

met, or data that must be shown - then we can finally make progress on this issue.

3) I honestly didn't know you had this job. Otherwise I would have gone through you. I usually avoid admins (JV)

because it can take weeks/months to get an answer on the simplist and shortest of questions due to how busy/non-existant they

really are.

4) Stage Discussion needs to be considered. BudgetPlayerCadet (or something like that) posted a WONERFUL stage analysis of how much

a double-standard our stage list currenty is. It creates character bias and can't be seen as "fair" even with "neutral" stages. I

believe the BBR should at least discuss this amongst themselves, or provide some input into this matter. I think the thread is

called "OH NO IT MOVES" or something like that... It's made by BPC and is front page, not hard to find.

I'll leave my 5th point to be explained at a later date, depending on how #1 ends up. because until that happens, it's rather moot.

1) I can't tell you too much, because that goes against the privacy of the BBR. You obviously already know that I

did bring it up.

2) I don't have much interest in discussing the MK ban, because I honestly couldn't care either way atm. I have too much bias at

this point. However, I think it's important to allow people to talk about it, and I'll see about getting that allowed again.

3) I'll refrain from replying to this.

4) Stage discussion in the BBR typically occurs each time we go into updating the ruleset. Also, I read every post in Tactical, and

I read BPC's thread already, even though I opted not to post this time.

Understood.

My stance on it is very confusing. It doesn't really effect me either way - but I do care about which direction it goes...I

don't see the community dwindling because he's NOT around.... =\

3) It didn't even need to be answered, I was just stating the fact. =P

4) Okay.

5th Point, now that I have some answers:

How important/essential is the counterpick system? First - stage wise; Second - character wise.

SSB is one of the few (only one I know about personally actually..) games that allow a counterpick between rounds. This has become

an established standard. If you lose, you may counterpick. The fact it has become standard deems it of some importance, however how

essential is it? Not factoring in MK (yet) whom ruins the entire system (arguably... with no bad matchups or stages); how essential

is it, if essential at all?

Why is it in place? Would it hurt to remove the system? The system itself actually seems uncompetitive. It allows you to try and

place yourself at a huge advantage over your opponent by hard countering them and picking their characters worse stage. How

is that competitive? In fact, that's detrimental to competitiveness, but we have it around anyways. Why? It's obviously "more fair"

but is that a good enough reason?

So for what reason is this system around?

Now if we add the MK factor, it would have us lead that counterpicking is not essential to Brawl and should therefore... be

removed. If it's not essential, why keep it around? If it has been proven essential - this is where the MK discussion occurs.

How important is the ability to counterpick a stage against your opponent? Meta Knight arguably has no disadvantageous stages. He

breaks the stage counterpick system.

How important is the ability to counterpick characters against your opponent? Meta Knight answers this question with - pick Meta

Knight. This automatically centralizes the entire counterpick system on him which causes the metagame (which has proven to

be very dependant on counterpicks) to be entirely focused on him. Doesn't this qualify as overcentralization of the

metagame?

Hope you can bring this up with the BBR, feel free to use this PM if you want to. However, I'd love to get 5-10 opinions from the

BBR answering all of my questions.. just to get an idea on how they think.

It's commonly agreed that MK breaks the Counter-Pick system for the most part. We discussed the counterpick system

once, and we concluded that while rubberbanding is typically discouraged as a competitive feature, allowing the opponent to do it

as well balances things out. While I may not entirely agree with this, I'm of the opinion that the CP system is fine, and hence I'm

not looking to change it, and have yet to be introduced to a superior alternative.

Marc has told me otherwise. Rubberbanding? I see about the balance, and I don't really agree with

it..... just because it's balanced does not mean it should be there. There is no essential reason for the counterpick

system to be in place. None at all. If there is an essential reason, than MK breaks that - centralizes the gameplay around him by

doing so - and that can be used as ban criteria.

See what I'm trying to get at? The counterpick system is not essential yet we include it. This means it's important, but not

essential. No reasons are stated for why it is in place. There are no reasons as to why it is in place. For everything else

the BBR does, they try to include a reason. They removed the Bowsercide/Ganoncide rule because they believe the winner screen

should be followed. So what is there reasoning behind the counterpick system being in place?

No one has yet to suggest an alternative that we find superior.

Superior: No counterpicking, best 2/3 3 stock rounds, random stage selected from the stage list.

Or, no counterpicking characters as that part is definately not essential - but you can counterpick stages.

What can be superior to a non-essential, but wanted system? Nothing. You are avoiding my question of what makes the

counterpick system essential to competitive gameplay?

The correct answer:
It isn't.

However that raises another question. Why is it incorperated if not essential? Which this is now a subjective point, and it

is only around because we believe it should be.

There are no superior alternatives? That's completely avoiding the questions.... there doesn't need to be an alternative

because it doesn't need to be around. (Bit sick of having to say this...)

What makes different stages essential to competitive gameplay? Nothing. It's implied
that very few rules or setting are essential. I didn't avoid your question, I just viewed it to be rhetorical.

I would say giving players the OPTIONS of the stage the play on is superior to having it randomly decided. I would guess that most

of the community agrees with me. I would also agree that people would feel more comfortable with the ability to switch out of

unwinnables on a double blind, even if it means you can get CPed.

I'm speaking of the counterpick system. For both stages and characters.

You were completely avoiding the question. Now you answered finally with "It is not essential"

And you also used words like "comfortable" and "ability to switch out from unwinnables" (which technically don't exist to be

honest)

Without a counterpick system, there is a clear line drawn between "tournament viable" and "not tournament viable". Characters whom

are infinited by DDD for example, are less tournament viable. In fact - the only reason they are tournament viable is

because of the counterpick system. If you were a DK, I'd go DDD. You'd ask for a double-blind pick. At this point, I'm safer going

DDD than you are DK. Especially if you are a DK main, I'd have the advantage of going my main vs your secondary. Without a

counterpick system, if we did choose our mains - and because DDD's infinite is not banned by the BBR it would give you an

"unwinnable" (don't get grabbed, hur hur) matchup.

Now, this is not essential to competitive gameplay. In fact, it only exists to make certain characters more viable in

competitive play. This goes against everything that the BBR argues for. This goes against banning the small-step CG,

this goes against banning [selective] infinites. This goes against banning Meta Knight.

Now do you see why I want you to bring this up to the BBR? Essentially it is an extreme double standard of making

the game more varied and "balanced". It's something many people overlook, but the blatant fact is there.

If you want criteria for a ban against Meta Knight, look at the non-essential counter-pick system in place. In order

to remove the double-standard, you either need to remove the counterpick system for characters, or remove Meta Knight.

As I stated it's actually very uncompetitive to have a counterpick system in place. If you don't want to be counterpicked,

the answer is clear. Pick Meta Knight. With the counterpick system, if you don't want to be counterpicked, the answer is

clear. Pick Meta Knight.

Removing the counterpick system - leaves Meta Knight as the center of metagame.

Keeping counterpick system, removing Meta Knight - Every other character has a counterpick, making no one character the best

choice. Now it comes down to preference, and.. le gasp! You have a varied metagame with no one overly dominate character!

Spoiler

So what do you think personally of my argument? I've only seen anything similar used once, it didn't get very detailed

like mine - and it was completely ignored.

Please... just present this to the BBR for discussion, I feel like I'm only getting your input - and I know you don't speak for the

BBR.. just as PR for them...

If you were under the impression that I'm going to nitpick words and debate with you through PM, you're sadly

mistaken. I take time out of my day every Wednesday to do this, and I'm surely not going to do it on a relaxing Saturday night.

You yourself said that the CP system increases the "viability" of several characters. You go on to state that MK breaks the system.

This has already been known forever.

You want me to bring up your argument to the BBR? And say what exactly?

"Susa has pointed out a flaw in our counter-pick system. Like several other features of our ruleset, it is not essential.

Furthermore, it's ruined by MK. Therefore, we are creating a double standard by having a counter-pick system and MK together in the

same ruleset."

It would get argued over for a bit, then probably laughed at, then ignored while a couple of die-hards debate it.

By the way, it's quite false that we do not have rules to be fair to the cast. Realistically, a shorter timer helps some characters

clock each other out, and a neutral stage list helps to keep the game as balanced as possible. Furthermore, counterpick is done to

give the players more options, not to balance the cast. Whether or not it's essential, it's a widely accepted and appreciated

clause in our ruleset, and it's unlikely that the BBR would recommend it for change, or that the public would even accept such a

recommendation if it were to happen.

Saying that removing MK leaves a more diverse metagame is an age old proban argument that I have used myself. It's not new.

Why have you not started a thread in Tactical titled "Removing the Counter-Pick system" where you proceed to explain how you don't

think the CP system is good. You really don't need to talk about MK at all to do this. Then you could suggest an alternative in

public.

If you do this, then I will bring it up in the BR.

The PM's between myself and yourself are now open for public criticism. I have stated my points, and you have

stated yours as well as do your best to answer said points. I will let the public discuss on whom they feel is correct.

Also giving a player more options, essentially balances the cast.

Now watch how fast the thread turns into an MK debate and it gets locked.

Also your argument brings up "neutral" stages being "the most fair" which I again refer to BPC's argument against that and the

polarization of many of these stages towards certain characters.

 

[etecoon]

candy was never that active on this board

he does name search though so lets summon him

candy candy candy candy

 

[SuSa]

(round your result down)
{(Damage/2.6 + 5)*1

Take what you get from that, and then add 18 to it. That's snakes pummel speed.


The Counterpick System is NOT essential.

Spoiler

Everything you will need to be informed about this debate will be posted momentarily.


Updated, easier to read, double-checking order of replies.

Referenced thread about neutrals/stage selection this is "BPC's

thread"

Pierce's first reply to this thread (Reply #4)

Spoiler

I want a second opinion on whether I'd be entirely justified on locking and deleting a thread that quotes

me several times in private message without my knowledge or consent that the message was going to be used publicly. This is

typically considered extremely rude. In this particular instance, I don't REALLY care all that much. I merely encourage everyone to

take everything I say with a tad bit grain of salt, simply because thing things I say past midnight in PM doesn't imply that I put

as much thought into a well thought out address to the public.

For instance, if I had written this in a post, I would've used the phrase "Starter" instead of "Neutral" because that is the

official terminology of the BBR.

Also, keep in mind that everything said in this thread is in no way representative of the BBR. It is merely my own opinion and

speculation.

Joking title is so not going to fit the length of this post. I figured I'd try to get a laugh out of

you before continuing. Expect a lengthy read, but I'll try to keep it as short and to-the-point as possible.

1) Heard Marc you're trying to speak to the BBR and get things worked about accepting people whom are voted in by the community.

Kudos, if that can happen my CH idea can be thrown down the drain (for the most part) seeing as the next-best-thing happened.

However, I'd like to know the factors in which they are trying to consider for this. (To remove the possibility of bribes for

votes, as an example)


2) As far as the MK Ban discussion goes, Anti-Ban needs to come up with data they want to see to have Pro-Ban be able to

find, organize, and display such data to them. I posted this in the thread in the SS in a response to Marc so if you want further

details read there please. The TL;DR however is that Pro-Ban has to randomly find and present information, and Anti-Ban just says

"well we're not looking for that" but doesn't tell Pro-Ban what they ARE looking for. If they can give us criteria that must be

met, or data that must be shown - then we can finally make progress on this issue.

3) I honestly didn't know you had this job. Otherwise I would have gone through you. I usually avoid admins (JV)

because it can take weeks/months to get an answer on the simplist and shortest of questions due to how busy/non-existant they

really are.

4) Stage Discussion needs to be considered. BudgetPlayerCadet (or something like that) posted a WONERFUL stage analysis of how much

a double-standard our stage list currenty is. It creates character bias and can't be seen as "fair" even with "neutral" stages. I

believe the BBR should at least discuss this amongst themselves, or provide some input into this matter. I think the thread is

called "OH NO IT MOVES" or something like that... It's made by BPC and is front page, not hard to find.

I'll leave my 5th point to be explained at a later date, depending on how #1 ends up. because until that happens, it's rather moot.

1) I can't tell you too much, because that goes against the privacy of the BBR. You obviously already know that I

did bring it up.

2) I don't have much interest in discussing the MK ban, because I honestly couldn't care either way atm. I have too much bias at

this point. However, I think it's important to allow people to talk about it, and I'll see about getting that allowed again.

3) I'll refrain from replying to this.

4) Stage discussion in the BBR typically occurs each time we go into updating the ruleset. Also, I read every post in Tactical, and

I read BPC's thread already, even though I opted not to post this time.

Understood.

My stance on it is very confusing. It doesn't really effect me either way - but I do care about which direction it goes...I

don't see the community dwindling because he's NOT around.... =\

3) It didn't even need to be answered, I was just stating the fact. =P

4) Okay.

5th Point, now that I have some answers:

How important/essential is the counterpick system? First - stage wise; Second - character wise.

SSB is one of the few (only one I know about personally actually..) games that allow a counterpick between rounds. This has become

an established standard. If you lose, you may counterpick. The fact it has become standard deems it of some importance, however how

essential is it? Not factoring in MK (yet) whom ruins the entire system (arguably... with no bad matchups or stages); how essential

is it, if essential at all?

Why is it in place? Would it hurt to remove the system? The system itself actually seems uncompetitive. It allows you to try and

place yourself at a huge advantage over your opponent by hard countering them and picking their characters worse stage. How

is that competitive? In fact, that's detrimental to competitiveness, but we have it around anyways. Why? It's obviously "more fair"

but is that a good enough reason?

So for what reason is this system around?

Now if we add the MK factor, it would have us lead that counterpicking is not essential to Brawl and should therefore... be

removed. If it's not essential, why keep it around? If it has been proven essential - this is where the MK discussion occurs.

How important is the ability to counterpick a stage against your opponent? Meta Knight arguably has no disadvantageous stages. He

breaks the stage counterpick system.

How important is the ability to counterpick characters against your opponent? Meta Knight answers this question with - pick Meta

Knight. This automatically centralizes the entire counterpick system on him which causes the metagame (which has proven to

be very dependant on counterpicks) to be entirely focused on him. Doesn't this qualify as overcentralization of the

metagame?

Hope you can bring this up with the BBR, feel free to use this PM if you want to. However, I'd love to get 5-10 opinions from the

BBR answering all of my questions.. just to get an idea on how they think.

It's commonly agreed that MK breaks the Counter-Pick system for the most part. We discussed the counterpick system

once, and we concluded that while rubberbanding is typically discouraged as a competitive feature, allowing the opponent to do it

as well balances things out. While I may not entirely agree with this, I'm of the opinion that the CP system is fine, and hence I'm

not looking to change it, and have yet to be introduced to a superior alternative.

Marc has told me otherwise. Rubberbanding? I see about the balance, and I don't really agree with

it..... just because it's balanced does not mean it should be there. There is no essential reason for the counterpick

system to be in place. None at all. If there is an essential reason, than MK breaks that - centralizes the gameplay around him by

doing so - and that can be used as ban criteria.

See what I'm trying to get at? The counterpick system is not essential yet we include it. This means it's important, but not

essential. No reasons are stated for why it is in place. There are no reasons as to why it is in place. For everything else

the BBR does, they try to include a reason. They removed the Bowsercide/Ganoncide rule because they believe the winner screen

should be followed. So what is there reasoning behind the counterpick system being in place?

No one has yet to suggest an alternative that we find superior.

Superior: No counterpicking, best 2/3 3 stock rounds, random stage selected from the stage list.

Or, no counterpicking characters as that part is definately not essential - but you can counterpick stages.

What can be superior to a non-essential, but wanted system? Nothing. You are avoiding my question of what makes the

counterpick system essential to competitive gameplay?

The correct answer:
It isn't.

However that raises another question. Why is it incorperated if not essential? Which this is now a subjective point, and it

is only around because we believe it should be.

There are no superior alternatives? That's completely avoiding the questions.... there doesn't need to be an alternative

because it doesn't need to be around. (Bit sick of having to say this...)

What makes different stages essential to competitive gameplay? Nothing. It's implied
that very few rules or setting are essential. I didn't avoid your question, I just viewed it to be rhetorical.

I would say giving players the OPTIONS of the stage the play on is superior to having it randomly decided. I would guess that most

of the community agrees with me. I would also agree that people would feel more comfortable with the ability to switch out of

unwinnables on a double blind, even if it means you can get CPed.

I'm speaking of the counterpick system. For both stages and characters.

You were completely avoiding the question. Now you answered finally with "It is not essential"

And you also used words like "comfortable" and "ability to switch out from unwinnables" (which technically don't exist to be

honest)

Without a counterpick system, there is a clear line drawn between "tournament viable" and "not tournament viable". Characters whom

are infinited by DDD for example, are less tournament viable. In fact - the only reason they are tournament viable is

because of the counterpick system. If you were a DK, I'd go DDD. You'd ask for a double-blind pick. At this point, I'm safer going

DDD than you are DK. Especially if you are a DK main, I'd have the advantage of going my main vs your secondary. Without a

counterpick system, if we did choose our mains - and because DDD's infinite is not banned by the BBR it would give you an

"unwinnable" (don't get grabbed, hur hur) matchup.

Now, this is not essential to competitive gameplay. In fact, it only exists to make certain characters more viable in

competitive play. This goes against everything that the BBR argues for. This goes against banning the small-step CG,

this goes against banning [selective] infinites. This goes against banning Meta Knight.

Now do you see why I want you to bring this up to the BBR? Essentially it is an extreme double standard of making

the game more varied and "balanced". It's something many people overlook, but the blatant fact is there.

If you want criteria for a ban against Meta Knight, look at the non-essential counter-pick system in place. In order

to remove the double-standard, you either need to remove the counterpick system for characters, or remove Meta Knight.

As I stated it's actually very uncompetitive to have a counterpick system in place. If you don't want to be counterpicked,

the answer is clear. Pick Meta Knight. With the counterpick system, if you don't want to be counterpicked, the answer is

clear. Pick Meta Knight.

Removing the counterpick system - leaves Meta Knight as the center of metagame.

Keeping counterpick system, removing Meta Knight - Every other character has a counterpick, making no one character the best

choice. Now it comes down to preference, and.. le gasp! You have a varied metagame with no one overly dominate character!

Spoiler

So what do you think personally of my argument? I've only seen anything similar used once, it didn't get very detailed

like mine - and it was completely ignored.

Please... just present this to the BBR for discussion, I feel like I'm only getting your input - and I know you don't speak for the

BBR.. just as PR for them...

If you were under the impression that I'm going to nitpick words and debate with you through PM, you're sadly

mistaken. I take time out of my day every Wednesday to do this, and I'm surely not going to do it on a relaxing Saturday night.

You yourself said that the CP system increases the "viability" of several characters. You go on to state that MK breaks the system.

This has already been known forever.

You want me to bring up your argument to the BBR? And say what exactly?

"Susa has pointed out a flaw in our counter-pick system. Like several other features of our ruleset, it is not essential.

Furthermore, it's ruined by MK. Therefore, we are creating a double standard by having a counter-pick system and MK together in the

same ruleset."

It would get argued over for a bit, then probably laughed at, then ignored while a couple of die-hards debate it.

By the way, it's quite false that we do not have rules to be fair to the cast. Realistically, a shorter timer helps some characters

clock each other out, and a neutral stage list helps to keep the game as balanced as possible. Furthermore, counterpick is done to

give the players more options, not to balance the cast. Whether or not it's essential, it's a widely accepted and appreciated

clause in our ruleset, and it's unlikely that the BBR would recommend it for change, or that the public would even accept such a

recommendation if it were to happen.

Saying that removing MK leaves a more diverse metagame is an age old proban argument that I have used myself. It's not new.

Why have you not started a thread in Tactical titled "Removing the Counter-Pick system" where you proceed to explain how you don't

think the CP system is good. You really don't need to talk about MK at all to do this. Then you could suggest an alternative in

public.

If you do this, then I will bring it up in the BR.

The PM's between myself and yourself are now open for public criticism. I have stated my points, and you have

stated yours as well as do your best to answer said points. I will let the public discuss on whom they feel is correct.

Also giving a player more options, essentially balances the cast.

Now watch how fast the thread turns into an MK debate and it gets locked.

Also your argument brings up "neutral" stages being "the most fair" which I again refer to BPC's argument against that and the

polarization of many of these stages towards certain characters.

 

[thexsunrosered]

no I don't think you can see into it, thats why there's a smash lab portal thread somewhere, maybe in tactical idk O_O