Social SGD: The hedgehogs are back in town.

[Tesh]

They mad at your SuSa.

 

[SuSa]

I can tell that. I don't see how posting his responses to my points is a huge invasion of privacy.. yea, its rude as HELL, but it's not like he posted his social security number...

Aww well, I did as he asked - and now I have a new ending to every post. Oh, and except for SL research - I won't be releasing any information regarding any advances for any character I find. Nothing. Unless the SL wants to pick up my Grab Formula thread, only Yoshi will be done. I'm not working on it any longer.

Why? Cuz I'm a douche.

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.

 

[Tesh]

I'm getting a pretty harsh reaction from the clueless folks in the ruleset discussion. I think they might just be trolling me though. Its these same guys that post together pretty much everywhere.

 

[DtJ SmithZzz]

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

Discuss?

I don't see how Pepsi has anything to do with counterpicks..

 

[SuSa]

I've been banned from Tactical Discussion.

Discuss?

 

[Tesh]

LOL, make new account? You made alot of threads, I guess they dont want to taking over. Is it a temp ban or something? Whats to even stop you from making threads in general brawl discussion. Most of the stuff in tactical belongs there anyway.

Regardless of how strong you feel about your opinions. Change is very difficult to realize. And in a situation like this, its pretty much impossible. MK won't be banned. the damage ratio isnt changing, stock count wont change, items wont be turned on. Nothing will be done for better or for worse. Because people like things the way they like things.

Everyone else can just go play the game exactly the way they like it. ALONE.

 

[SuSa]

It's a room ban, and I don't care for it. The one thing I want to say will now be in my posts wherever I go.

Also - I was posting the double standard between the CP system and the BBR's stance on Meta Knight.... they have to rid of one or the other, removing the CP system only further increases how overcentralizing MK is and would kill the scene/actually cause MK to be banned. Banning MK skips having to rid of the CP system.

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.

 

[Kinzer]

LOL, make new account?

Using a new account to get around any temp of ban would only get him in more trouble than he already is in.

I haven't seen what's up, I just got back from Kita's house, I'm kind of tired.

Regardless, Susa just to keep track of some of this stuff:

You wanted me to see if windboxes did anything concerning the stale move list, you wanted me to reconfirm my grab frame data, and I think that's it as far as anything that you haven't already tested yourself/got confirmation from other people, right?

I really should stop letting Kita tell me what to do. His laziness is starting to rub off on me, and I don't like it. :< I do suppose it is nice to get out of the house and meet my friends IRL every now and then, but at the same time I have things I said I'd get done, and if I end up never doing them then people will see me as unreliable (if I'm not already), and *insert a bunch of negative consequences here.*

I hope he doesn't read this. I have a social problem, obviously, but I'm not sure how to go about it in any bit.

 

[Trent]

The thread WOULD have been good, if you didn't quote his PMs without permission.

Oh well. Perhaps another day.

 

[SuSa]

I don't think windboxes actually will count towards the stale moves lost (not an actual hitbox, only an effect) so I no longer think it's actually worth testing.

Pummel data is confusing, check the SL

I never leave the house except for Smash. I have a social problem - I hate most of society.


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.

 

[Kinzer]

I don't think windboxes actually will count towards the stale moves lost (not an actual hitbox, only an effect) so I no longer think it's actually worth testing.

Pummel data is confusing, check the SL

I never leave the house except for Smash. I have a social problem - I hate most of society.

Fair enough, thank you for relieving me of this much at least. I honestly feel bad when I make empty promises, because I hate it when people do the same with me, and me doing the very thing I hate puts a heavy weight on my conscious.

Yes sir.

Oey. I'm not sure if I will want to bring this up with you in here. Either AIM or PMs or something, but-

... I wonder...

Spoiler

I don't want to say whether I believe society is the problem, or the way I see it as, or the perspective I see it from.

I only know that I have a lot of inexperience; and that's probably for a good reason. Can't trust my biological father, step-father is a terrible peoples' person, many friends moving on to other(better?) things, among other people; I can't really trust people after so long so I like to put up walls.

I am uncomfortable around Kit-

... I am uncomfortable around Michael a lot of the times for this because he likes to get inside of me (no homo) and (help?) make me open up more. Not a bad thing, but I have my reasons after so much abandonment, broken promises, and betrayal that I'm tired of taking these chances with people. Isn't it sad that after people do so much for me and go so far out of their way that I still have my doubts with them? I would even go as far as to say that it's this skepticism I have that in the end makes me look ungrateful, and it may even turn out that I am ungrateful and that I am right in saying I deserve none of it.

Actually, let me ask anybody that's actually reading this: Why? As far as I know, I didn't exactly do anything to earn such a life of privilege. I just happen to get lucky with it. Am I any bit right to behave the way I do, or to not take things for granted?

I have so much left to do with people, and I find it a shame that I have to think about this stuff everyday. If I am to find a significant other for example, how would I go about that if I don't even give that person a first chance; nevermind second chances? I have two difficult choices from this, I am to either close myself out from people forever and feel empty inside while having the assurance that nobody will ever get close enough to me to make me regret knowing them, or I basically go through what I already mentioned earlier and hope that in the end that I won't have to die alone.

Testing the collapse tag. I'm going to start doing these for personal rants, because I know some people cannot be bothered to read through them.

Also, your links are broken.

 

[Tesh]

I'm pretty sure windboxes count, at least thats what i read on the ganon boards. Then again, ganon doesnt really have to hit you 9 times to take a stock.

 

[Kuraudo]

C.C.'s mad cute.

 

[SuSa]

Agreed. =P

 

[culexus・wau]

Misanthropist/Socially challenged reporting in.

**** normal people.

I tolerate people for the sake of making life exciting though.

 

[Trent]

Sonic 4 comes out tomorrow.

Hype?

 

[Mr. Johan]

I got the Iphone port of the game Friday. One of the best afternoons I ever had.

The port is basically the original beta of the game (minecart level, high jumps, etc.), but it didn't make it any less fun though.

It's been given high scores all around, at the moment, the highest being GamesRadar which gave it a 9/10.

The Special Stages are a ***** though.

 

[SuSa]

I managed to get ununmodded. lol....

Invisible + Full PM Inbox (by 850~ messages) + Disabled Wall

I really do hope nobody ever needs to contact me. EVER.

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.

 

[MdrnDayMercutio]

Yo SuSa, don't know if you use AiB at all. But blog I just wrote that I think you should check out.

Mostly the comment from t0mmy.

http://allisbrawl.com/blogpost.aspx?id=88644

 

[Tesh]

I'm picking up Metaknight, but I'll still use Sonic for Metaknight's bad matchups.

 

[SuSa]

You don't understand the issue of hosting ProBan tourneys on such a small scale to gather the results.

If you do, your community is hurt when they travel out of state.

Imagine not having fought an MK for 4 months, then going to a tournament and fighting one.... likely wouldn't place well. This is why many TO's aren't banning MK. They don't want it to be detrimental to their community/region.


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.

 

[~TBS~]

I'm picking up Metaknight, but I'll still use Sonic for Metaknight's bad matchups.

I hope this isnt a serious post...if it is, why? Other than the reason of wanting to win. D:

 

[Tesh]

Imagine maining MK for 4 months, and then traveling out of state to an MK banned tournament and getting your marth/wario/pika/falco/snake ***** because you're an epic failure.

Obviously if enough people banned him at once, it would be the other way around. All you need to do is convince all the big TOs. BBR doesn't matter. Half of them aren't top players or TOs right?

@ SonicMaster5, I'm gonna spam nado and shuttle loop. Anyone know the kill percents for a fully stales shuttle loop? Its gotta be like sonic's upthrow. Should feel very familar.WOOSH, you're dead.

 

[SuSa]

No, it wouldn't be the other way around. The only way it WOULD matter is if the large TO's banned MK. The people who hold the regional and national tourneys.

That way, when Mk mains do travel OoS - they're hurt because they can't use MK.

If a ton of small communities banned him, they're just hurting their communities still.

 

[Tesh]

Thats what I said/meant. Its not like you have to be the same community. It can be like Brawl+/-/bbrawl project m etc. Play the game the way you want to play it, hopefully you still have someone to play with though.

 

[SuSa]

Then are you really playing competitively at that point? I made a new thread, this one has NO excuse to be closed. But 3 posters do deserve to be infracted for spam.

Also, since I'm no longer an unmod, I don't feel obligated to report anything anymore. I kind of wish I didn't report that HOTD signature now. Because now I wouldn't have to... I have no obligation for staff to do so....

 

[Tesh]

I guess that is sort of a gray area then. When it comes down to it, people consider their preferences first. THEN they will justify it. So arguing philosophy won't really win you anything in tactical.

Also, who this DA KID guy who keeps trolling me in tactical?



edit-
Lol, your thread SuSa. You were warned to never speak of it again.

 

[Kupo Rose]

Also, who this DA KID guy who keeps trolling me in tactical?

Just some random person http://www.smashboards.com/member.php?u=161587

 

[Tesh]

Oh, he is a Jamaican Metaknight, no wonder he is trolling.

 

[SuSa]

I guess that is sort of a gray area then. When it comes down to it, people consider their preferences first. THEN they will justify it. So arguing philosophy won't really win you anything in tactical.

Also, who this DA KID guy who keeps trolling me in tactical?



edit-
Lol, your thread SuSa. You were warned to never speak of it again.

I was warned to not post a thread about it, he nitpicked my thread for one statement as an excuse to ban it.

Why?

BBR don't got **** on it. I proved that using my PM log with Pierce, and now the fact it's repeatingly the BBR members shutting down my ideas. (Omni, Hylian, Pierce)


The Counterpick system is NOT competitive.

Spoiler

The Counterpick System is NOT competitive​

____________________________________________

Part 1 - Stages​

Stage counterpicking has become an important, but not essential, factor of determining the outcome of a match. It allows you do place your opponent at a disadvantage by picking a stage that they are not familiar with, picking a stage their character gains a disadvantage on, or picking a stage your character gains an advantage. Two of these factors are not competitive.

• Placing your opponent at an uncontrollable disadvantage.
• Placing yourself at an advantage uncontrollable by your opponent.

Why are these two points uncompetitive?

The only disadvantage your opponent is placed at depends on the character whom they choose to use. They have control over this factor so they are willingly placing themselves ata disadvantage. However...

When you control the stage your opponent plays on, you are placing them at a disadvantage that is largely out of their control. Players only get to select 1 ban, and most characters are at a disadvantage on more than 1 stage. It does not matter if you are weakening their character, or strengthening yours - it is a disadvantage to your opponent.

It is a widely agreed upon fact that there is only one character whom is good on every stage. This breaks the counterpick system for stages.

Why does this matter?

The stage counterpick system is not competitive. It is there because we feel it is important. Would you consider the weakening of an opponent competitive?

___________________________________________
Part 2 - Characters​

The second part to our counterpick system is the ability to counter your opponents character. This is also an uncompetitive rule, that has become a standard for our community. Most every other competitive game, you pick your characters and that's it. You can't swap, you're stuck until you win or lose. This means choosing a viable character is an important factor in winning.

Without a character counterpick system, many characters become unviable. Characters whom are easily infinited by DDD for example. Would you take the risk of double-blind picking your character?

The double-blind system is actually competitive and essential to keeping tournaments run in time. Without it, people may constantly be trying to counterpick eachother before the match even starts. It often doesn't happen like that, but it occasionally does so they agree on a double blind.

However let's take two mains. A DK main and a DDD main. They agree on a double blind.

The DDD main is at an advantage if he stays DDD, while he could be countered - the DK main is a DK main. He will not be as skilled with his secondary as his main, and going his secondary may be a huge risk for him. Without a counterpick character system, DK becomes less viable. You can't counterpick your opponent the next round if you lose, and you essentially get locked into an "unwinnable" matchup.

So why is a rule in place, when the only purpose it serves is making characters more viable? Why don't we have other rules in place to make a large portion of the cast more viable? Banning infinites? Banning small-step CG? Banning Meta Knight? It's essentially because we are living a double standard.

Without a counterpick system for characters - the undisputable best character, Meta Knight, would be the best choice to be locked into a match with. He essentially becomes the center of the metagame. To best avoid ever being countered, go MK. This centralizes the metagame around one character, and may eventually lead to him being banned.

With a counterpick system, with Meta Knight allowed - our current system - the best option to counter your opponent, is to switch to Meta Knight. Your opponent, whom may switch their character before you counter them, may also switch to Meta Knight to avoid the counter - and instead go in an even matchup. This centralizes the counterpick system around Meta Knight.

With a counterpick system, but with Meta Knight banned, every character can be counterpicked. The system does not revolve around picking Meta Knight to counter your opponent. The system is now revolving around soft counters and being the better player.

_____________________________________________
Joining the 2 counterpick systems​

When you join our two counterpick systems, you have a system centralizing around one character. This character breaks both counterpick systems. Systems that we have decided our important enough to be a standard, although neither is competitive.

In a matchup that is a soft counter in general, there may be certain stages that turn the tables. This creates a complex system about knowing matchups and how stages effect characters. However, when you add Meta Knight to the mix - you can no longer counter him. You cannot counterpick Meta Knight to place yourself into an advantageous situation. The best you get is a neutral match. To do this, you must also choose Meta Knight - and then the stage doesn't matter at this point.

Meta Knight is the only character in the game that you may not counterpick. He alone, breaks the counterpick system. The BBR agrees he breaks the counterpick system but has made no comment as to why we have the counterpick system.

The counterpick system was established a long time ago, in a different game entirely. It was established in a game that there was not a character whom broke the counterpick system. There was also a character you could go, that wasn't a ditto, or a stage you may take the enemy to - to place yourself at an advantage. Upon changing games, the very foundation that we have built our competitive rules need to be relooked at.

Unlike Melee, Brawl does not have a working counterpick system. It's flawed, it's broken - and it is not needed. It's an established standard that needs to be looked at for how it effects Brawl, independantly from it's predecessors.

Brawl does not need a counterpick system. If we choose to keep it however - we are admitting that it is okay for one character to not follow the system. We are saying the system is not important enough to be fixed.

We are to keep the system, or ban a character to protect the system. Keeping both is a double-standard. Are we competitive? Then remove the counterpick system. Do we care about balance? Then ban Meta Knight.

_____________________________________________________
The TL;DR​

Read it. Inform yourselves. Discuss amongst yourselves. Decide for yourselves. Counter my arguments, bring up points. Advance our community.

 

[WedginatorX]

Espy came.
10Espycame.

 

[Life]

^

o_0

Is that Sonic? (Looks more like Wolf to me, just askin') yes, I know what Zangoose is, who is that texture for?

 

[Tesh]

BBR is pretty stupid. There really should only be a council of TOs and perhaps some actually good players to give them advice. But, the BBR is just a bunch of people trying to shut down things they don't like.

 

[da K.I.D.]

So. im just going to go ahead and say being an outspoken **** of a douche bag and calling everyone out on everything they say ever in bright green text, with a completely tactless style is the easiest way to get IP banned, and in the grand scheme, affecting nothing and only serving to amuse a few people for a couple weeks.

when that happens. in your future memory, if I ever hold a tournament again, Ill probably name it SUSA. and ban MK at it.

also, kin, the colapse tags are a fkn amazing idea, and you should have thought of it like 3-4 weeks ago.

that being said, in general, the main/first thing that you need to work on personally, is showing the same amount of emotion (as long as its not emo) that you show on the internet in person, and being more assertive. Kita acts that way one because hes trying to help, but mainly its because he has something of a domineering personality. so there are inevitably going to be times where you going to have to sit him down, look him in the face and say, 'yo, shut the fk up for a second. this is what I want to do and this is whats going to happen.'

its all about establishing boundaries, mah dood.

 

[sonictailslink]

Espy came.
10Espycame.

Whoa! That looks pretty cool. It kinda does look like a custom Wolf texture.

 

[SuSa]

Who's kin? :o And who's Kita? Oo



The Counterpick system is NOT competitive.

Spoiler

The Counterpick System is NOT competitive​

____________________________________________

Part 1 - Stages​

Stage counterpicking has become an important, but not essential, factor of determining the outcome of a match. It allows you do

place your opponent at a disadvantage by picking a stage that they are not familiar with, picking a stage their character gains a

disadvantage on, or picking a stage your character gains an advantage. Two of these factors are not competitive.

• Placing your opponent at an uncontrollable disadvantage.
• Placing yourself at an advantage uncontrollable by your opponent.

Why are these two points uncompetitive?

The only disadvantage your opponent is placed at depends on the character whom they choose to use. They have control over this

factor so they are willingly placing themselves ata disadvantage. However...

When you control the stage your opponent plays on, you are placing them at a disadvantage that is largely out of their control.

Players only get to select 1 ban, and most characters are at a disadvantage on more than 1 stage. It does not matter if you are

weakening their character, or strengthening yours - it is a disadvantage to your opponent.

It is a widely agreed upon fact that there is only one character whom is good on every stage. This breaks the counterpick

system for stages.

Why does this matter?

The stage counterpick system is not competitive. It is there because we feel it is important. Would you consider the

weakening of an opponent competitive?

___________________________________________
Part 2 - Characters​

The second part to our counterpick system is the ability to counter your opponents character. This is also an uncompetitive rule,

that has become a standard for our community. Most every other competitive game, you pick your characters and that's it. You can't

swap, you're stuck until you win or lose. This means choosing a viable character is an important factor in winning.

Without a character counterpick system, many characters become unviable. Characters whom are easily infinited by DDD for example.

Would you take the risk of double-blind picking your character?

The double-blind system is actually competitive and essential to keeping tournaments run in time. Without it, people may

constantly be trying to counterpick eachother before the match even starts. It often doesn't happen like that, but it occasionally

does so they agree on a double blind.

However let's take two mains. A DK main and a DDD main. They agree on a double blind.

The DDD main is at an advantage if he stays DDD, while he could be countered - the DK main is a DK main. He will not be as skilled

with his secondary as his main, and going his secondary may be a huge risk for him. Without a counterpick character system, DK

becomes less viable. You can't counterpick your opponent the next round if you lose, and you essentially get locked into an

"unwinnable" matchup.

So why is a rule in place, when the only purpose it serves is making characters more viable? Why don't we have other rules in place

to make a large portion of the cast more viable? Banning infinites? Banning small-step CG? Banning Meta Knight? It's

essentially because we are living a double standard.

Without a counterpick system for characters - the undisputable best character, Meta Knight, would be the best choice to be locked

into a match with. He essentially becomes the center of the metagame. To best avoid ever being countered, go MK. This

centralizes the metagame around one character, and may eventually lead to him being banned.

With a counterpick system, with Meta Knight allowed - our current system - the best option to counter your opponent,

is to switch to Meta Knight. Your opponent, whom may switch their character before you counter them, may also switch to Meta Knight

to avoid the counter - and instead go in an even matchup. This centralizes the counterpick system around Meta Knight.

With a counterpick system, but with Meta Knight banned, every character can be counterpicked. The system does not

revolve around picking Meta Knight to counter your opponent. The system is now revolving around soft counters and being the

better player.

_____________________________________________
Joining the 2 counterpick systems​

When you join our two counterpick systems, you have a system centralizing around one character. This character breaks both

counterpick systems. Systems that we have decided our important enough to be a standard, although neither is competitive.

In a matchup that is a soft counter in general, there may be certain stages that turn the tables. This creates a complex system

about knowing matchups and how stages effect characters. However, when you add Meta Knight to the mix - you can no longer counter

him. You cannot counterpick Meta Knight to place yourself into an advantageous situation. The best you get is a neutral match

. To do this, you must also choose Meta Knight - and then the stage doesn't matter at this point.

Meta Knight is the only character in the game that you may not counterpick. He alone, breaks the counterpick system. The BBR

agrees he breaks the counterpick system but has made no comment as to why we have the counterpick system.

The counterpick system was established a long time ago, in a different game entirely. It was established in a game that there

was not a character whom broke the counterpick system. There was also a character you could go, that wasn't a ditto, or a stage

you may take the enemy to - to place yourself at an advantage. Upon changing games, the very foundation that we have built our

competitive rules need to be relooked at.

Unlike Melee, Brawl does not have a working counterpick system. It's flawed, it's broken - and it is not needed. It's an

established standard that needs to be looked at for how it effects Brawl, independantly from it's predecessors.

Brawl does not need a counterpick system. If we choose to keep it however - we are admitting that it is okay for one

character to not follow the system. We are saying the system is not important enough to be fixed.

We are to keep the system, or ban a character to protect the system. Keeping both is a double-standard. Are we competitive? Then

remove the counterpick system. Do we care about balance? Then ban Meta Knight.

_____________________________________________________
The TL;DR​

Read it. Inform yourselves. Discuss amongst yourselves. Decide for yourselves. Counter my arguments, bring up points. Advance

our community.

 

[Kupo Rose]

^

o_0

Is that Sonic? (Looks more like Wolf to me, just askin') yes, I know what Zangoose is, who is that texture for?

Whoa! That looks pretty cool. It kinda does look like a custom Wolf texture.

It is for Wolf. <.<

Who's kin? :o And who's Kita? Oo



The Counterpick system is NOT competitive.

Spoiler

The Counterpick System is NOT competitive​

____________________________________________

Part 1 - Stages​

Stage counterpicking has become an important, but not essential, factor of determining the outcome of a match. It allows you do

place your opponent at a disadvantage by picking a stage that they are not familiar with, picking a stage their character gains a

disadvantage on, or picking a stage your character gains an advantage. Two of these factors are not competitive.

• Placing your opponent at an uncontrollable disadvantage.
• Placing yourself at an advantage uncontrollable by your opponent.

Why are these two points uncompetitive?

The only disadvantage your opponent is placed at depends on the character whom they choose to use. They have control over this

factor so they are willingly placing themselves ata disadvantage. However...

When you control the stage your opponent plays on, you are placing them at a disadvantage that is largely out of their control.

Players only get to select 1 ban, and most characters are at a disadvantage on more than 1 stage. It does not matter if you are

weakening their character, or strengthening yours - it is a disadvantage to your opponent.

It is a widely agreed upon fact that there is only one character whom is good on every stage. This breaks the counterpick

system for stages.

Why does this matter?

The stage counterpick system is not competitive. It is there because we feel it is important. Would you consider the

weakening of an opponent competitive?

___________________________________________
Part 2 - Characters​

The second part to our counterpick system is the ability to counter your opponents character. This is also an uncompetitive rule,

that has become a standard for our community. Most every other competitive game, you pick your characters and that's it. You can't

swap, you're stuck until you win or lose. This means choosing a viable character is an important factor in winning.

Without a character counterpick system, many characters become unviable. Characters whom are easily infinited by DDD for example.

Would you take the risk of double-blind picking your character?

The double-blind system is actually competitive and essential to keeping tournaments run in time. Without it, people may

constantly be trying to counterpick eachother before the match even starts. It often doesn't happen like that, but it occasionally

does so they agree on a double blind.

However let's take two mains. A DK main and a DDD main. They agree on a double blind.

The DDD main is at an advantage if he stays DDD, while he could be countered - the DK main is a DK main. He will not be as skilled

with his secondary as his main, and going his secondary may be a huge risk for him. Without a counterpick character system, DK

becomes less viable. You can't counterpick your opponent the next round if you lose, and you essentially get locked into an

"unwinnable" matchup.

So why is a rule in place, when the only purpose it serves is making characters more viable? Why don't we have other rules in place

to make a large portion of the cast more viable? Banning infinites? Banning small-step CG? Banning Meta Knight? It's

essentially because we are living a double standard.

Without a counterpick system for characters - the undisputable best character, Meta Knight, would be the best choice to be locked

into a match with. He essentially becomes the center of the metagame. To best avoid ever being countered, go MK. This

centralizes the metagame around one character, and may eventually lead to him being banned.

With a counterpick system, with Meta Knight allowed - our current system - the best option to counter your opponent,

is to switch to Meta Knight. Your opponent, whom may switch their character before you counter them, may also switch to Meta Knight

to avoid the counter - and instead go in an even matchup. This centralizes the counterpick system around Meta Knight.

With a counterpick system, but with Meta Knight banned, every character can be counterpicked. The system does not

revolve around picking Meta Knight to counter your opponent. The system is now revolving around soft counters and being the

better player.

_____________________________________________
Joining the 2 counterpick systems​

When you join our two counterpick systems, you have a system centralizing around one character. This character breaks both

counterpick systems. Systems that we have decided our important enough to be a standard, although neither is competitive.

In a matchup that is a soft counter in general, there may be certain stages that turn the tables. This creates a complex system

about knowing matchups and how stages effect characters. However, when you add Meta Knight to the mix - you can no longer counter

him. You cannot counterpick Meta Knight to place yourself into an advantageous situation. The best you get is a neutral match

. To do this, you must also choose Meta Knight - and then the stage doesn't matter at this point.

Meta Knight is the only character in the game that you may not counterpick. He alone, breaks the counterpick system. The BBR

agrees he breaks the counterpick system but has made no comment as to why we have the counterpick system.

The counterpick system was established a long time ago, in a different game entirely. It was established in a game that there

was not a character whom broke the counterpick system. There was also a character you could go, that wasn't a ditto, or a stage

you may take the enemy to - to place yourself at an advantage. Upon changing games, the very foundation that we have built our

competitive rules need to be relooked at.

Unlike Melee, Brawl does not have a working counterpick system. It's flawed, it's broken - and it is not needed. It's an

established standard that needs to be looked at for how it effects Brawl, independantly from it's predecessors.

Brawl does not need a counterpick system. If we choose to keep it however - we are admitting that it is okay for one

character to not follow the system. We are saying the system is not important enough to be fixed.

We are to keep the system, or ban a character to protect the system. Keeping both is a double-standard. Are we competitive? Then

remove the counterpick system. Do we care about balance? Then ban Meta Knight.

_____________________________________________________
The TL;DR​

Read it. Inform yourselves. Discuss amongst yourselves. Decide for yourselves. Counter my arguments, bring up points. Advance

our community.

I'm Kin Kinzer = Kin
Kita = Kitamerby

 

[Kinzer]

also, kin, the colapse tags are a fkn amazing idea, and you should have thought of it like 3-4 weeks ago.

that being said, in general, the main/first thing that you need to work on personally, is showing the same amount of emotion (as long as its not emo) that you show on the internet in person, and being more assertive. Kita acts that way one because hes trying to help, but mainly its because he has something of a domineering personality. so there are inevitably going to be times where you going to have to sit him down, look him in the face and say, 'yo, shut the fk up for a second. this is what I want to do and this is whats going to happen.'

its all about establishing boundaries, mah dood.

I didn't want to use the tags before because I'm not exactly sure how it'd turn out, or in what situation they'd be used in. I suppose I've found out how, now if only somebody could tell me how to title the collapsed text, that'd be pretty neat. I'm still learning how2thisforum. There's so much to remember too, it's kind of hard at times. Regardless.

I see what you mean. Yeah, that's another thing I'm working on slowly but surely. It's fun to let him have his way, but I kind of want to do my own thing at times.

... Now, if I can find a moment where actually going my own way was better than his/other peoples' proposed ideas... >_>

Kinzer = Kin
Kita = Kitamerby

Strange. I never told anybody that Kita is my way of addressing Kitamerby, as I am just too lazy to type out his full SN. Yet here you stand, knowing exactly who I'm referring to. Did I ever tell you, or say it somewhere? I don't recall. :X


and Susa-

Being room-banned from Brawl-tactical is no huge loss.

Trust me on this, I get ripped apart by voicing my own neutral opinion.

I can't stress enough how I didn't even try to start an argument with one guy, but I don't think I care to prove myself right because I don't think I've ever seen the guy at any tournament so I don't know why I care so much.

I guess it's because I think of all those unfortunate newbies that go there first and think that they're right spouting all their baseless assumptions and taking them for granted. There's no disclaimer either, poor fellas.

 

[SuSa]

I saw your post, and everyone shorterns usernames like that. =P

Also I'm laughing at Ripple's suggestion.

"Hey SuSa, start a thread and have it be:

"Hey BBR, you have a double standard. Fix it."
/thread

 

[Dark 3nergy]

Espy came.
10Espycame.

look at his leg, its wolf alright lol i can tell itsa nice texture tho