Ruleset changes at Apex 2015

[KeroKeroppi]

I'm in, though I might be bored by that point from dominating all of you at the yestercades tourney

wait are you conf for the tourney

 

[clubbadubba]

yes. get scurred

 

[KeroKeroppi]

yooooooooooooooooo

hype

 

[Herbert Von Karajan]

In Dota, Hon and LOL (i think) the stage isn't symmetric. (roshan/kongor is in the top team's side, neutral creeps distribution are not equal too)
In counterstrike it's the same deal, each team should learn how to play in both positions.

clubba pointed out why counterstrike fails my criteria

No one will probably find a physical sport example that fits my criteria. And if you are going to use ESPORT examples, you should at least try to find games that are in the same genre as SSB, aka Fighting Games. SSB is closer to real life fencing than it is the video game LoL.

My extent of fighting game knowledge ends at smash, but I am willing to wager that almost all competitive fighting games play on a symmetric field. I thing @ Fireblaster could tell you. The only counterexample I can think of is Melee, where they play on a yoshi stage and pokemon stadium (and they should ban that stage in tournament anyways).

And campy hyrule matches are way more boring than dreamland. If I'm in a tournament to win, I dont want random spawning deadly stage hazards that make the game "exciting" have an effect on the outcome of the match. Dreamland is the most symmetric stage so we should play on it.

Viability of other characters against pika is a moot point. The other characters all have a way more difficult time against pikachu on hyrule than on the other tournament legal stage (well, maybe not fox / kriby)

 

[Shears]

Just to play devils advocate, you could argue that baseball isn't symmetrical. Baseball parks themselves are not symmetrical and just about every single park differs from every other park in the league. Granted both teams have the same objective, and both teams take turns on the asymmetric field which evens things out, baseball parks by definition are not symmetric though.

With that said, I do agree that symmetry is a necessity for competitive play. To argue against Studstill since he is the only one who really has opinions so against the grain, the current tournament structure and ruleset is designed over years of trial and error. It has converged to where it is now for several reasons.

Where is this text you keep alluding to that definitively states that "symmetry" has any bearing on anything?

Symmetry means that everything on the left equals everything on the right, everything on one side reflects everything on the other, so when you take the summation of elements on both sides and find the difference you get 0. 0 is good, and here is why 0 is good. If a stage was asymmetric that would mean that the set of left side elements does not equal the set of right side elements.

Symmetric stage:
{elements of left side} - {elements of right side} = 0

Asymmetric stage:
{elements of left side} - {elements of right side} > 0 || {elements of left side} - {elements of right side} < 0

This is problematic because now one side is quantifiably better than the other, and this brings stage favoritism. Because characters do not start in the same space, one will start in a position that is closer to the advantageous part of the stage while the other starts in a disadvantageous spot, and assuming skill is equal and characters are the same, a player will win because the stage gave them the advantage. For example, what is more fair, running a race with each runner at the same starting line, or randomly giving a runner a head start? With runners at the same starting line the difference of the elements in favor of one runner versus the elements in favor of another runner equals 0. But in a head start, the difference is no longer 0 and is in favor of the runner with a better starting position. Telling someone to be faster and run harder isn't fair when they are already running as hard and as fast as they can. The runner with worse starting position crosses the finish line in 10s while the runner with better starting position crosses in 9.9s, although the runner lost, the time it took him to run the same distance as the head start guy was 9.5s and if they had neutral starting positions, the runner would have won. Do you now see why neutral starting positions are important? On a stage, neutral starting positions means a stage must be symmetric otherwise no starting position can be neutral since the elements on either side will never equal each other.

No, dude, again, Hyrule isn`t the problem, the "campy pikas" are the problem. Also, I`m fully opposed to timers of any kind, but if this kind of cancer is allowed to creep into what is a timerless game (stock mode right?) then it would be an absolute travesty if a timer decided any match after pools.
Further, this argument that "time constraints" is the kind of stuff that lowers the game. It takes as long as it takes. They don`t go removing innings from baseball because some people who don`t really even like baseball want a shorter game. And this is what I get the sense of reading these things, that the DL only bunch doesnt actually like Super Smash Bros 64 at all, they like a very small, specific game called "3 plats, not a lot of space, and two characters" which to be sure, has it`s merits, but not enough to remove almost the entirety of the game.

Campy pikas aren't the problem, Hyrule is. Pikas aren't campy because the character or player influences them to be, pikas are campy because the stage influences them to be. Pikas aren't campy on dreamland, or peachs, or congo, but they are campy on Hyrule, along with just about every other character. It is bad competition to have a stage encourage campy play style because campy play styles (without a timer) break the game by putting matches into an infinite loop. This is why timers are necessary, because if players are going to be campy because of stage, character, whatever, something is needed to end it. A game doesn't take as long as it takes, it ends when the venue says it ends, and if matches aren't finished because no timer forced them to, then the tournament doesn't finish and no prizes are rewarded and there is no champion or anything and everyone wasted their time and money to never get any result. M2K camped at smashacre and the game didn't take as long as it took, it took as long as the venue owners patience ran out and they flipped the switch on the circuit breakers and shut off power to the building. This is what happens when you not only allow campy stages, but you don't implement a timer to end matches and let them take as long as they need to take. There is a saying that you're as fast as your slowest member, or as strong as your weakest link. These sayings have use in engineering because you have to design everything as if it was its worst case scenario. Clock cycles on computers are designed to be the length of the longest instruction. Elevator weight capacity is determined by the lowest limit of what the cables and structure can hold. In mathematics we represent these worst case scenarios, as Big O notation. In tournament design and competitive play it is used as well. We have to design the tournament play to account for the worst case scenario, the minority here makes the decision, not the majority. If its possible that someone could camp for infinity and break the game, then the rules need to be adjusted to handle this rare situation. That is why Hyrule is illegal, and that is why timers are needed. 99/100 players could play on any stage without timers and never have an issue, but rules are made for the 1/100 that break them. 99/100 people wouldn't ever care to commit murder, but its illegal because if it wasn't that 1/100 would exploit the absence of the law.

Who or whom is responsible for declaring the rules?
Strife?
Nintendude?
Steeeeeeve?
There should be a community wide, ACTUAL vote, in a community of this size I actually believe we don`t need a 'council' or 'backroom'. We could literally just count all the votes and do majority rules. If that isn`t possible, as it is clearly preferable, then we should have as large of a vote as possible on who those people should be who are making the decisions.
This is MY game. Everyone in here can say that with the same authority and weight.

First of all, thats what this thread is, a community wide, actual vote on what the rules should be. Now why are the options limited? Because voting for all the other rules have already been done, for years they were worked out. Our legislature doesn't vote on every amendment every year on whether we should reconsider freedom of speech or womens rights (although the latter really should be reconsidered), they vote on new laws and bills instead. Does strifes opinion matter more than mine? Well kind of. He runs the largest tournaments in the country for smash, so when it comes to rules regarding logistics, his opinion does matter more because he is more knowledgeable about what is needed, however, he doesn't play the game much and so his opinion on whats legal and illegal doesn't exactly matter. Does nintendudes opinion matter more than mine? Yes, he runs tournaments and plays the game. I'm not saying he matters more because his years of experience are greater than mine, but because after years of playing I found the things I disagreed with were things I ended up agreeing with when I began to see the game and understand it better and understood competitive play as well as nintendude. Does steves opinion matter more than mine? Yeah I would say so. Does steve have more experience, maybe idk. Does steve run more tournaments, yeah a little bit more. Does steve have a better knowledge of the game and understands the communities, logistics, and balance more than me, yes and thats why I think his opinion matters more than mine. Is my opinion meaningless, no but like your opinion and many others it doesn't necessarily solve the problems or get the job done the way steve, strife, nintendude, and everyone else may. Their opinions matter more the same way the march madness committees opinion of who should make the bracket matter more than the fans opinion. Taking how you think things should be run, I will extrapolate it to march madness and lets see if its really a good idea:

Current format for deciding the 36 at-large entrants (the other 32 are decided by being conference champions and is a clear black and white decision):
Use a panel of athletic directors and conference executives that are selected by their peers to be the most knowledgeable and unbiased authorities in the sport to meticulously go through every team and evaluate its chances on being a tournament contender and establishing the rules upon which these teams are selected. Outcome: the 36 teams are chosen by measures that are relevant to the sport.

The Studstill (people's choice/libertarian/community/hippie we're all individuals man) way:
Let the fans and everybody vote on who should be in. Outcome: the 36 teams are chosen by whoever has the biggest fan base, prettiest school colors, hottest starting center, most swag.

Which one returns a better, fairer, objectively more competitive tournament? One has the decisions made being relevant to basketball one has the decisions made being irrelevant to basketball. We have a legislative branch, a selection committee, and SSB64 authorities because they are proven to make better decisions than the majority of people in the community. People don't know what the want or whats good for them, so instead of allowing them to make decisions and weigh their opinions that lead to their own self destruction, we permit the people that are qualified to make the right decisions for the people to do so.

The Hyrule argument has been beat to death and Hyrule lost, thats why the rules are they way they are and the votes are the way they are. The timer argument has been beat to death and the anti-timers lost, thats why the votes are the way they are. The stock argument has been beat to death and everything outside of 4 and 5 stocks lost, thats why the options are the way they are. After years of arguments, threads, polls, tournaments, etc. we have converged to tournaments being either 4 or 5 stock with most favoring 5 stock, dreamland and possibly peachs and/or congo with most favoring all 3, and timers being needed but their implementation being difficult with most favoring to go forward with the difficult implementation. You want community wide, actual, voting, then look at the results, they are overwhelmingly in favor of what the expected Apex ruleset is to be.

Case closed. If you don't agree with the rules you don't have to play by them, you don't have to enter tournaments with these rules adopted. You aren't going to change the opinions of people here on how these tournaments should be run. You can either suffer and abide by the rules and enter these tournaments or you can make your own tournaments and use your own rules, but radically changing these tournaments to be like the ones you want to run is not an option, not unless you are running tournaments bigger and more successful than Apex and Zenith.

 

[Cobrevolution]

to be fair

Pikas aren't campy on dreamland, or peachs, or congo

they are, in that campy people will be campy, BUT the game isn't ****ed when you're in chasedown mode

unless you're samus

 

[Herbert Von Karajan]

Just to play devils advocate, you could argue that baseball isn't symmetrical. Baseball parks themselves are not symmetrical and just about every single park differs from every other park in the league. Granted both teams have the same objective, and both teams take turns on the asymmetric field which evens things out, baseball parks by definition are not symmetric though.

they are reflectively symmetric over the line extending from home base through second base. the game isnt symmetric because the players go counter clockwise, but it doesnt actually fit my critera because both parites arent trying to accomplish the same goal at the same time: turn based, plus one party is trying to get strike outs the other party is trying to get runs. In soccer for example both parties are trying to score goals at the same time.

 

[Herbert Von Karajan]

to be fair

they are, in that campy people will be campy, BUT the game isn't ****ed when you're in chasedown mode

unless you're ROB STONE

fixed that for you

 

[Cobrevolution]

sustained.

 

[Shears]

they are reflectively symmetric over the line extending from home base through second base.

I agree with you on a lot of this but you are very wrong on this and baseball. Most parks have no symmetry whatsoever when you get into the outfield. All infields are symmetric, but outfields and foul territory differ on every park. Here is a picture of Fenway (the oldest park in baseball), ignore the bleachers and stands and just pay attention to the park:

In fact, I believe Dodgers stadium is the only symmetric park.

http://www.andrewclem.com/Baseball/Dimensions.html

I'll concede that at any given time no team is trying to achieve the same goal and so on and so forth, but you mentioned baseball as being an example of sports with symmetrical fields, to correct a factual error I am letting you know that it does not have symmetrical fields. But yes, fighting games, fencing, boxing, etc. all have symmetry.

 

[Fireblaster]

All 2d fighters use symmetrical stages. From the games that I've played and I've seen, most 3D fighting games (tekken, soul calibur, etc.) don't always have stages that are simple flat squares or whatever, but they are still symmetrical and both fighters always begin the fight on even ground.

 

[Cobrevolution]

and in...NL?? pitchers hit

my buddy thought he could hit a baseball across the hudson river

the hudson is almost a mile wide

pretty sure the furthest baseball homerun is like 480 ft or something


on topic, congo and peach's are symmetrical, but meh

 

[Fireblaster]

ban peach and kongo

 

[Shears]

Yeah I'm not saying baseball disproves the point, I'm saying baseball wasn't a good example.

team sports:
soccer - symmetric field
cricket - symmetric field
basketball - symmetric court
hockey - symmetric rink (or field)
volleyball - symmetric court
pingpong - symmetric table
tennis - symmetric court
baseball - symmetric field
football - symmetric field
rugby - symmetric field
handball - symmetric court
waterpolo - symmetric pool

Continue reading my previous post, I go on to prove why symmetry is important and necessary in a fighting game like smash.

 

[Fireblaster]

I'm only confirming what karajan said about other fighting games

 

[Shears]

and in...NL?? pitchers hit

my buddy thought he could hit a baseball across the hudson river

the hudson is almost a mile wide

pretty sure the furthest baseball homerun is like 480 ft or something


on topic, congo and peach's are symmetrical, but meh

The longest recorded was Babe Ruth at 575' and the longest after rolling was supposedly 643'. Usually 480' or so is the longest in any given season. I think Giancarlo Stanton had the longest this year and it was around 480'. I don't think your friend could even hit a baseball across a football field (300')

 

[Cobrevolution]

i completely agree

 

[Herbert Von Karajan]

on topic, congo and peach's are symmetrical, but meh

no

the top platform of peaches is not symmetrical and all bent and ****. also, the moving platform moves side to side so no its not symmetrical

kongo is not symmetrical because of the barrel and the rotating platforms

the only thing unsymmetrical about dreamland is is that one side you get blown off and the other side you dont.

if you put a character in a spot where the wind would affect it and unplug the controller, the character wont die unless it is on the ground on the left side
if you put a character in the barrel and unplug the controller, the character will most likely die.

but the big difference is that if the wind blows you off the stage its not an instant kill
a rotating barrel can automatically shoot you out and kill you instantly

i'd take a minor convenience over a stage 0 - death anyday

 

[Shears]

Actually isn't the right platform slightly higher than the left platform?

 

[Herbert Von Karajan]

Actually isn't the right platform slightly higher than the left platform?

which stage? dreamland i can falcon kick from one to the other so i doubt it

 

[Cobrevolution]

dreamland's right plat is slightly higher, forget where the picture is though, think it's mixa's?

pc and congo: almost symmetrical, then. whateva. congo's moreso than pc.

 

[Shears]

Congo is symmetrical when the barrel is at 0 on the Y-axis. Peachs is nearly symmetrical when the center of the moving platform is at 0 on the Y-axis but due to the top platform being wavy it will never at any point be 100% symmetrical. And yeah on DL the right platform is like a pixel or two higher than the left. No stage is 100% symmetrical, but the difference on DL is negligible. We need a GS hack to reposition the DL platforms and remove wispy, to remove the barrel from Congo, and to flatten the top platform and stop the bottom platform from moving on Peachs. Also unlock FD and Battlefied. @Madao and @Kahnu you have your work cut out for you.

 

[Cobrevolution]

Also unlock FD and Battlefied.

STOP

 

[Shears]

New ruleset proposal, all matches must be played on Mushroom Kingdom.

 

[Cobrevolution]

@Smokey ... wait @drinkwildturkey? what the **** is smokey's swf name goddammit

 

[Herbert Von Karajan]

The top of the platform [A] appears to be the same height
the bottom of the platform which doesnt matter appears to be different
this is probably just an issue with the camera positioning when the thing says GO
best way to check is with character coordinates in ram

 

[Herbert Von Karajan]

Congo is symmetrical when the barrel is at 0 on the Y-axis.

A) the 2 platforms rotate in the same direction. they would need to rotate in opposite directions for symmetry
B) 3 frames in a period of like 10 seconds => it is symmetric almost never

 

[Shears]

Ok so Congo is tournament viable when the rotating platforms are aligned perfectly next to each other or above one another, and the barrel is also perfectly centered. Sounds easy enough to me.

 

[Studstill]

The longest recorded was Babe Ruth at 575' and the longest after rolling was supposedly 643'. Usually 480' or so is the longest in any given season. I think Giancarlo Stanton had the longest this year and it was around 480'. I don't think your friend could even hit a baseball across a football field (300')

Racist! Josh Gibson allegedly hit one out of Yankee.

Steve, I`ll read your argument later, but man, it`

The top of the platform [A] appears to be the same height
the bottom of the platform which doesnt matter appears to be different
this is probably just an issue with the camera positioning when the thing says GO
best way to check is with character coordinates in ram

Man the amount of......It`s like obvious you`re a bright guy and have a fundamental grasp of how reason and logic work, but you screw it up with assumption and conjecture in a way that is seriously amazing considering the first clause in this sentence.
The "discrepancy" you are talking about is from when the camera says GO, but it`s more accurately that the Camera doesn`t look straight at the stage at any non paused time.

 

[Studstill]

Further, this argument that "time constraints" is the kind of stuff that lowers the game. It takes as long as it takes. They don`t go removing innings from baseball because some people who don`t really even like baseball want a shorter game. And this is what I get the sense of reading these things, that the DL only bunch doesnt actually like Super Smash Bros 64 at all, they like a very small, specific game called "3 plats, not a lot of space, and two characters" which to be sure, has it`s merits, but not enough to remove almost the entirety of the game.

Enjoy playing Super Symmetry Bros 64
I`m withdrawing from this 'argument' as we are too far apart on fundamentals to get any meaningful stuff figured out: You all like to generalize and apply conclusions from irrelevant arguments. It`s maddening, sloppy, and I tire of dealing with it; it`s as if you are so certain of your correctness you ignore the massive flaws in reasoning. I have zero control over the rules, and apparently zero ability to influence them. In lieu: Please don`t **** this up, and maybe if I just um:
Hyrule should be legal. 8 minutes is not long enough for a maximum match time.
This isn`t a vote, because it isn`t community wide an I don`t have a single option for legal Hyrule on there.
I want a name. A name of the SPECIFIC person that is deciding this. And HE/HER can make a thread, although I`m not meaning to be ungrateful to Z with this.

 

[McGodd]

Hyrule should be legal. .

Hyrule sucks lol
You're in an argument most other people got over
Make a thread asking a question if Hyrule should be legal or not I guess but people have already done that. Community doesn't want it.

 

[pidgezero_one]

Our legislature doesn't vote on every amendment every year on whether we should reconsider freedom of speech or womens rights (although the latter really should be reconsidered)

cute

 

[Herbert Von Karajan]

Man the amount of......It`s like obvious you`re a bright guy and have a fundamental grasp of how reason and logic work, but you screw it up with assumption and conjecture in a way that is seriously amazing considering the first clause in this sentence.
The "discrepancy" you are talking about is from when the camera says GO, but it`s more accurately that the Camera doesn`t look straight at the stage at any non paused time.

Studstill whats the point of this? I was just attempting to visually determine if the 2 platforms are at the same height, and the result is inconclusive; the funny thing is you are trying to say I am dumb? but you are totally wrong contextually: The camera doesnt need to look straight at the stage to determine if the platforms have the same height. If the platforms themselves are identical then you just need the camera to be orthogonal to the x-axis* to determine if they are the same height or not.

Enjoy playing Super Symmetry Bros 64
I`m withdrawing from this 'argument' as we are too far apart on fundamentals to get any meaningful stuff figured out: You all like to generalize and apply conclusions from irrelevant arguments.

Can you at least confirm you understand the difference between a timed stock match and a timed match?
My fundamental view is that two opponents should start a match with no environmental advantages or disadvantages granted to one party or the other.

Instead of arguing all the other points brought up in the thread, can you please explain to me why you disagree with that?

If you do agree with it, the only logical way to accomplish it is with a symmetric stage with symmetric starting positions. Denying that is just disregarding logic.

(* except for the degenerate case your camera is parallel to the Y axis)

 

[Studstill]

Orthogonal was the word I was looking for, thank you.
Confirmed, but was rhetorically alluding that this is a distinction without difference.
I agree with your "fundamental view" in theory, but in this situation (SSB/Stage fitness for play) I believe that it is negligible: completely in the case of starting positions, and that Hyrule grants no "environm....." but that it enables ad/dis/vantages to be gained by the player situationally through skill.

Steve, skype me later to chat if you`d like, Hey McGodd! Finally got a response from you! Although I had hoped it would be on one of the 15 other messages! Those tourneys look awesome! I will go make a thread, thanks!

 

[Herbert Von Karajan]

• Axiom 1: Two opponents in a competitive match should start the match with no environmental advantages or disadvantages granted to one party or the other.

If you agree with axiom 1, then it logically follows that dreamland with players on ports 2 and 4 (the most symmetrical starting configuration in smash 64) is the only stage which satisfies this axiom.

Ya'll might say oh well environment must be equal so ban all non-classic controllers. Equivalently you could sat oh well environment must be equal so everyone must play with the same character.
Well here is the difference:

• Both players can choose to play with a hori or n64 or keyboard controller if they feel it is superior
• Both players can choose to play with e.g. pikachu if they feel pikachu is the best character
• Both players cannot choose to spawn on the top platform of dreamland

Character and controller decisions are individual choices. The stage and spawn points must be agreed upon by both parties. Any competent governing body over competitive rules would assert Axiom 1 ensures fairness and transparency for individual decisions. Making it the default configuration removes the basis for any argument that another stage to be played since it is demonstratively the most fair. If both parties agree to start in different spawn points, or if both parties agree to play on a different stage, then there is merit for being allowed to do that (even though it is akin to turning on handicaps)

 

[Herbert Von Karajan]

I agree with your "fundamental view" in theory, but in this situation (SSB/Stage fitness for play) I believe that it is negligible: completely in the case of starting positions, and that Hyrule grants no "environm....." but that it enables ad/dis/vantages to be gained by the player situationally through skill!

This is demonstrably false.

Especially on Hyrule.

The beginning of this tournament match is missing: kirby immediately ran to the left side, and fox immediately ran into the tent area. You have the best players in the world demonstrating to us that the optimal strategies for the characters that they are using is to use the stage to their advantage. If either player were to approach the other, that approaching player would most certainly be punished for their stupidity. If anyone were to approach the other in that matchup, even with the greatest skill in the world, they would lose

 

[Studstill]

Ah! This is the exact place your logic fails.
"If either player were to approach the other, that approaching player would most certainly be punished for their stupidity. If anyone were approach the other in that matchup, even with the greatest skill in the world, they would lose"
Can we not agree that this gross exaggeration is false? Again and again, you want to remove player skill from whether or not they lose a game.

 

[Fireblaster]

Ah! This is the exact place your logic fails.
"If either player were to approach the other, that approaching player would most certainly be punished for their stupidity. If anyone were approach the other in that matchup, even with the greatest skill in the world, they would lose"
Can we not agree that this gross exaggeration is false? Again and again, you want to remove player skill from whether or not they lose a game.

If you think it's false, then prove to us that it's false, don't just say it. We've shown you time after time again that a fight between two good players on hyrule can result in a stalemate that takes a ridiculous amount of time.

So out with it then. Tell us how he's "exaggerating" or what he's saying is false, as if a 50 minute match on hyrule wasn't enough.

 

[Beesy]

Come on Karajan, don't be so silly. Firstly you said best players, and secondly you said "If anyone were to approach the other in that matchup, even with the greatest skill in the world, they would lose." I'm willing to bet against that. Let's replace Isai for the kirby, and see if he can approach that fox. If he can't win, then you're probably right. But also, you're giving too much credit to these players. Kirby would be fine jumping to top plats and approaching downward against fox. That's a sufficiently favorable approach, in my opinion.

 

[Studstill]

which stage? dreamland i can falcon kick from one to the other so i doubt it

Oh and yeah, by '3' which is in game units.