Sirlin's Principles and how they apply to Smash

[SuSa]

**** sirlin. Just read sun tzu. Cut the middle man.

If you meatride sirlin, it just means you're too dumb to make analogies.

I already quoted Sun Tzu's Art of War. Like.. word for word in another thread. I've done it 2-3 times now.
Seen here

I then asked others to make an analogy. Someone did - and it fit rather well.
You can see that here

I think 2500 years of competitive philosophy that has proven to be practical and work the best > under 25 years of competitive philosophy that has proven to be unstable and even more immediately, 10~ years of competitive philosophy that has proven to be unstable, and even more relevant 2-3~ years of horrible competitive philosophy that has proven to be both unstable and illogical.

But I digress. The 2-3 years of philosophy must be far superior to 2500 years of philosophy. Riiiiiiggghhht?

 

[Luxor]

I don't think anybody's arguing with the actual principles of how to play outlined in Art of War and borrowed by Sirlin. If that IS what you're arguing about, you're REALLY stupid. At least it's understandable if you're arguing against the principles of game balance that Sirlin outlined himself.

Again, the debate here is about principles of design, not the common sense principles of playing. Stop being stupid. and listen to Jack Kieser
The problem is that the OP considered the CORRECT principles of actual play and mixed them up with philosophic debate, scrambling the two and revealing idiocracy in a bunch of poster here.

 

[Raziek]

Ok, I missed this thread...

Did you SERIOUSLY try to claim that because my region places lower in nationals, that my philosophy is wrong?

I placed lower because my region is COMPLETELY ISOLATED. I'm a big fish in a small pond. Our metagame ISN'T THAT DEVELOPED. I guarantee if I lived in Texas or some other active, reasonably liberal region, I would destroy you.

Let's not overlook the fact that someone from a region with MK banned, just about beat you anyway, and I TWO STOCKED you on Pictochat. (Since you want to bring our match into this)

I'm seriously getting sick and tired of people claiming that because the best players don't always follow our principles, that our principles are wrong.

That's a preposterous correlation to try to draw.

Good on you, Jack, for fighting against the dissenters.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Hell, I'm just glad that I'm finally not alone anymore. It's nice to finally have a subset of the community that WANTS to be logical and reasonable.

...but then these threads come along and make me want to bash my head against my desk. <_<;

 

[theunabletable]

The vast majority of player who play Brawl play under a conservative rule set, consequently the best player from a much, much, much larger pool are on average going to be better than the pool of players from a smaller one. I mean how many Liberals are there? 100 or so at most, or even a lot less than that? then compare that to the rest of the world. Perhaps playing with a more conservative rule set does yield better results but you cannot realistically derive such a truth when you have no good data to base it on...

Sure, correlation =/= causation, but you're really going to say it doesn't mean anything when every player who does very well at nationals (afaik) seems to have a conservative view?

The growth of the metagame? Is that what we should base our rule set on? Why does this have any value whatsoever?

So you're saying it's better to stunt our metagame just for the sake of symantics?

I'll reply to the rest of your post, Veel, when I have more time. It's a good post, haha.

David Sirlin's principles and writings DO NOT apply to only Street fighter. Nowhere in any of his articles does he say that they do. David sirlin is a game balancer and philosopher. His principles and writings are DESIGNED to apply to ALL COMPETITIVE GAMING.

My OP was a lie? Where did I state a lie? Is it not true that Sirlin is primarily a fighting game player? Is it not true that he doesn't really play smash?

I never said that Playing to Win ONLY applied to Street Fighter, and you'd be a liar for saying that I did. I pointed out that his primary game was street fighter, as it's the game he references the most, and it's the game he was really good at.

Irrelevant. Whether it was DESIGNED to be competitive or not is in no way indicative of competitive depth and potential. My proof? Melee. Wasn't designed to be competitive, and it had a competitive following for over 8 years.

Should I go and point out how much the commonly used Melee rules contradict Sirlin's philosophies on banning?

Show me where my post was wrong. I said that he doesn't have much experience with smash, and seemingly all the top players have a different opinion than his on this game. Same with Melee, atleast if we look at the ruleset and stagelist.

Saying "the best players have the best ideas" is still pretty much ad hominem, as it implies that if you're not the best, your ideas are irrelevant.

That implication wasn't intended :/

It just seems worth noting that all the top players seem to have mindsets different than the liberals on this site, and they tend to have far better results.

Underlined is something I want to touch on: what makes "best for learning"="best for competing"? FD/SV/BF are awesome for learning your character, sure, but are they the most competitive stages in the game?

True, and again, I'm personally fine with nationals having more diverse stages, as then it would really test players on everything. But, for the sake of progress, wouldn't it make sense to use a stagelist in locals and regionals that promotes improvement at the more important things in the game?

The first thing you underlined in that quote isn't ad hominem, although it is slightly implying that correlation=causation. He said his mentality is better, I gave a response that implies other mentalities garner better results. That's not a personal attack.

Yeah that last thing you underlined, though, was ad hominem. It's an observation, and is a bit relevant, but is ad hominem.

Sirlin's principles are global, you know.

The Melee community has lasted a while from ignoring Sirlin's principles.

I wonder how well they would've lasted if they'd kept on items.

Because his principles have logic and reason backing them up, as well as hundreds of years of human history. If you can disprove them, go for it. People have tried, and failed... because they are, in a general sense, logically and practically correct.

I'm not saying that they are wrong, I'm saying that some of it doesn't apply to smash well. Give me the names of some top players (the players who get top 5 at nationals) with liberal opinions.

Let's not overlook the fact that someone from a region with MK banned, just about beat you anyway, and I TWO STOCKED you on Pictochat. (Since you want to bring our match into this)

I had 4 hours of sleep the night before and had trouble keeping my eyes open for most of the day. And anyone who knows me and watched me play knew I was playing way worse. The people from my carpool that I was two stocking were beating me bad on that Saturday.

You can tell that I played like **** that set (and the one after it, as well) because it took me TWO entire games to adapt to your horrible short hop habits, and to not **** up my tornado auto cancel (you did punish my auto pilot tornado ending lag well).

Good job, you took an unranked player whose pretty much only experience is level 3 CPUs, to third game, and lost the set on a stage that's generally a counterpick for your character in that matchup, while your opponent was playing on auto pilot with 4 hours of sleep. (Since you want to talk about our match more)

I'm seriously getting sick and tired of people claiming that because the best players don't always follow our principles, that our principles are wrong.

I guess the best players are wrong about the best methods on what rulesets cause you to get better, and faster. I guess you're better in that aspect than TKD.

After having been super liberal like some of you, and having changed after going to a major tournament and seeing for myself how much improvement can be made by not wasting your time with stupid **** (TKD talks a bit about this in one of his blogs), I can see why TKD stopped debating with you people.

w/e I'm going with the mindset and attitude of the players who do really well, and I'm going to advocate for tournaments in my region to have more conservative rulesets so that my region, and myself, can improve at the game faster.

 

[Luxor]

You know, the fact that many pros have conservative mindsets could be because the stages themselves are unpopular while the conservative mindset is extremely popular. Heck, I'm liberal and I don't even LIKE playing on "far-out" stages.

However, nowhere does Sirlin or ANYBODY say that following sound principles of game balance will make you PERSONALLY a better player. What it DOES lead to is a more diverse, "healthy" metagame in the end. Since lots of tournaments are, sadly, conservative, playing all conservative tourneys will in all likelihood make you better in the current metagame.

tl;dr Liberalism is good for making the community healthier but conservatism may improve your personal player skills, which makes sense because the added depth in a conservative stagelist does take time to learn that's wasted when you go to a 5-starter tourney.

Back to Jack and Raziek, since arguing fruitlessly wears my nerves.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Well, Luxor, that's an argument that profoundly scares the upper echelon right now. don't think that top players don't know this. Hell, don't think that unabletable doesn't know this. They do. They know, just like we've proven, that the current metagame is a very stilted one, one that rewards players who excel at a very marginalized subset of Brawl skills, but not ALL of the skills that Brawl, as a fully competitively deep game, requires. Ultimately, if Brawl was restored back to a state that follows the proven tenants of competitive game design, those players would drop in skill level (relatively speaking, of course). They are, in a very real sense, WORSE at the real competitive version of Brawl that they are at this broken, carved, selectively created version of Brawl.

Don't think they don't know that, because it's exactly why they want to STOP the current movement towards a competitively deep game. It's exactly the same as people who argue vehemently against taxes; everyone knows that society needs taxes to survive, but some people like money more than they like the rest of society, so they'd rather damage the majority by cutting taxes that raise the collective by paying them. It's a selfish worldview.

I'm better at conservative Brawl than I am at liberal Brawl. I'm terrible at dealing with stages, and my bad spacing is only made worse by stage movement and interference. But, I'm of sound enough mind to know that even if I'm personally worse at a more competitively deep Brawl, the ENTIRE COMMUNITY will be made better by it, so I take the hit. My already marginal chances of ever placing in the money are lowered, but for the betterment of the collective (and more importantly, for a more logically sound metagame).

Top players, and players like unabletable and other lower-skilled players who happen to be better at conservative Brawl, know that any ruleset change that brings us all closer to a philosophically sound Brawl also brings them more work to do. Which is why top players shouldn't be making the ruleset. Why NO PLAYERS should be making the ruleset.

Because they have a conflict of interest.

 

[theunabletable]

Oh right, I, the MK player, obviously gain nothing from liberal rulesets.

My bad.

It's not that I'm better at conservative Brawl, it's that I'll GET better, faster, for playing conservative Brawl.

**** this, I'm goin' with this guy's view:

I think the best approach to dealing with "smash serlin" advocates is to continue to let them write dozens of threads with 3 page posts online...and then continue to ignore them offline. Its worked out well so far.

Also Hugs had the best interpretations of Serlin to smash.

You guys can continue acting like you'll get better at this game by playing on Green Greens, I'm gonna sit here and learn the game with advice from player's like TKD who's better, and smarter, than all of you, and his advice and methods have proven to be better. I don't have the patience for this ****.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Sure, you gain, as a MK player, but every bit you gain from Norfair is also offset by having to learn how the lava works. Every bit of bonus you get by sharking on PTAD is offset by you needing to know how to dodge the cars. You gain, but you lose, too. And that extra work puts you off. Hey, it's only human; humans don't like work.

Oh, and I have a nice gift for you, too. Here's your own words, so you can eat them.

If people in general get better and more consistent at winning by following TKD’s philosophy on playing to win in Brawl, then doesn’t that kind of refute the whole POINT of Sirlin’s book? Doesn’t that make his views, in regards to smash and how to play to win (when literally translated from street fighter to smash (which are two completely different games, but apparently we’re supposed to be a traditional fighter, which means we play with as much lava flying at us as we can… or something, but I digress)) essentially wrong?

See that part there? That's you equating all of Sirlin's works to, essentially, a book about nothing but Street Fighter. You (smartly) never come out and say "Sirlin wrote a book about SF that we're trying to force on Brawl", but you constantly imply and assert that all of Sirlin's works apply SPECIFICALLY to a subset of games, namely traditional 2D fighters, ignoring the fact that he talks about games like Chess, Go, and Starcraft in his essays.

Foot, meet mouth.

 

[Pierce7d]

This is getting old, so I won't really hop into the discussion.

I'll simply state that I am an advocate of open-mindedness. I think it makes perfect sense for players to choose the game they wish to play.

 

[Luxor]

Also, @ the Melee argument, removing stages doesn't destroy a game or a community; we're just arguing that keeping them in makes it better. In Starcraft, for example, you have to make choices about the relative amounts of minerals vs. gas you have to mine. If gas was altogether removed, a very deep element of gameplay is suddenly gone and Starcraft would be worse for it. Oh sure, there'd still be the depth of when to mine minerals and when to produce units and it would still be a classic game- it just wouldn't be as good. Stages in Smash simply add depth (although to be fair, Melee didn't have a lot of decent stages in the first place).


And @unabletable
You didn't even read what we said, did you? I want an answer- we addressed that point not ONCE but TWICE in the two posts above yours. Lrn2argue.

 

[SuSa]

Who are you theunabletable and why have I not fought you in a SoCal tournament yet? :<

Or... have I?

EDIT:
Also since Ad hominem is awesome and so are lack-of-sleep johns.

I took TKD to last hit last stock twice after 11 months of not playing this game where players whom were watching agreed I would have won if I wasn't so rusty.

So I'm guessing since my level of skill is roughly equivalent to TKD's with some "I haven't played in like a year" johns - that my logic must be on a pretty similar level to his?

Because that's what I'm getting out of your posts.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Jack...I am totally gay for you. Totally homo.

 

[theunabletable]

See that part there? That's you equating all of Sirlin's works to, essentially, a book about nothing but Street Fighter. You (smartly) never come out and say "Sirlin wrote a book about SF that we're trying to force on Brawl", but you constantly imply and assert that all of Sirlin's works apply SPECIFICALLY to a subset of games, namely traditional 2D fighters, ignoring the fact that he talks about games like Chess, Go, and Starcraft in his essays.

Foot, meet mouth.

Yeah but most of his stuff that people apply to smash apply more to street fighter than Chess.

You take things waaaay too literally. I could've said "when translated from traditional fighters to smash" and the meaning of my sentence, and the intention behind it, really wouldn't have changed much at all. And since I was saying "traditional fighters" later in that same sentence, I said "street fighter" instead; because it IS the game that Sirlin talks about the most, and why would I be repetitive when I could use a different game that conveys the same meaning? Why would I assume that someone was going to nitpick something like that and assume that I haven't read playing to win (which I have, ATLEAST 3 times), or that I'm ignoring it?

I'm simply too lazy to word everything specifically so that people don't point out symantical errors that have no relevance on ANYTHING.

Who are you theunabletable and why have I not fought you in a SoCal tournament yet? :<

Or... have I?

Nah we haven't played. I live really far away from most tournaments :/

Also since Ad hominem is awesome and so are lack-of-sleep johns.

I took TKD to last hit last stock twice after 11 months of not playing this game where players whom were watching agreed I would have won if I wasn't so rusty.

So I'm guessing since my level of skill is roughly equivalent to TKD's with some "I haven't played in like a year" johns - that my logic must be on a pretty similar level to his?

Because that's what I'm getting out of your posts.

Good ****.

I've taken Dphat and Zex to last hit, and people have told me in the past that if my nerves hadn't have gotten to me so bad, I would've won. That doesn't mean I'm close to their level, it means I played a few alright matches, or they played some bad ones.

Nah I normally don't john so hard about lack of sleep. But when someone starts talking about how almost beating a trash MK on a stage that's their counterpick in the matchup seems to mean something, it's just too tempting to not point out that that MK was playing EVEN worse than usual (which is pretty bad).

When you start winning and getting top 5 at big tournaments, tell me about how amazing that mindset is. Until then, I'm going with TKD's (along with many other top player's). No offense intended, or anything.

Also, I like Pierce's view.

 

[AgentJGV]

In Starcraft, for example, you have to make choices about the relative amounts of minerals vs. gas you have to mine. If gas was altogether removed, a very deep element of gameplay is suddenly gone and Starcraft would be worse for it.

sorry i gotta say this: That and u could only build zealots, zerglings, and marines. XD


In all seriousness though, i think the best way to look at his book is that although its mostly about SF we can take a lot out of it and apply it to smash.

 

[SuSa]

Jack...I am totally gay for you. Totally homo.

I think it's because he's majoring in philosophy and it seems to be what people think they understand better than he does.

But I'm of the same stance as you SL.

EDIT:

i think the best way to look at his book is that although its mostly about SF

Have you ever read his book? =\

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

This is getting old, so I won't really hop into the discussion.

I'll simply state that I am an advocate of open-mindedness. I think it makes perfect sense for players to choose the game they wish to play.

I'm an advocate of what's right. And I'll give you a hint-it's not being open-minded. It's the objectively correct ruleset. Which is, for the record, out there, assuming we want to play the most competitively valid version of this game. I've covered this very extensively.

Now, referring to the OP, you're making the same ludicrous fallacy as you made in my thread (which I will refute after school today). You're claiming that because it's easier to practice the skillset you value highly on certain stages, that those stages are better for competition... or better, in fact, at anything. This is a ridiculous fallacy. There's no reason to believe this. What if a community valued stage interaction above all, and decided to ban those 3 stages. Would your argument still be valid? No, because they, like you, are overemphasizing a certain element of the game with no real reason to.

 

[ShadowLink84]

In all seriousness though, i think the best way to look at his book is that although its mostly about SF we can take a lot out of it and apply it to smash.

You never went past the discussion on banning did you?
Sirlin's book does not cover SF, at all, it talks about the competitive state of gaming.
Street Fighter only gains a mentioning while other games, such as Starcraft, Go, and many others are brought into the discussion as examples of competitive gaming.

His book does not stick to one particular genre or another, and if you read it in its entirety, you will find it encompasses every single competitive game, including those based entirely on luck such as Poker.

 

[Blacknight99923]

PBC makes great arguments in his stage thread about stages and why they should be legal, quite frankly I can't refute them without the semantics and I respect him for it. But for reasons table has put forward I agree on why not to use liberal stages. Better players have a correlation to favor more conservative stages, does playing on only Starters+ mild counter picks really make the game more competitive, no not particularly, but it does however correlate to people getting better as players.

From an aim convo I had with PBC he felt that using starters provided for a better training enviroment, he claimed to be under the influence at the time however so if he would like to refute that now I will allow it. However if I am a top player and my goal is to win nationals I would want as to become the best player I can going into those nationals and I would want all of my tournament matches to be played in the best possible environment to improve in.

So the question is this... what to you defines a more competitive game? a game that utilizes every potential aspect of it 100% of the time even if it may never be used in a tournament match or cannot be something you rely on, or a game that favors you for being better at its fundamental, core gameplay, and a more universal knowledge about the game.

quite frankly I pick the latter because I would rather win money

 

[Jack Kieser]

Yeah but most of his stuff that people apply to smash apply more to street fighter than Chess.

You take things waaaay too literally. I could've said "when translated from traditional fighters to smash" and the meaning of my sentence, and the intention behind it, really wouldn't have changed much at all. And since I was saying "traditional fighters" later in that same sentence, I said "street fighter" instead; because it IS the game that Sirlin talks about the most, and why would I be repetitive when I could use a different game that conveys the same meaning? Why would I assume that someone was going to nitpick something like that and assume that I haven't read playing to win (which I have, ATLEAST 3 times), or that I'm ignoring it?

I'm simply too lazy to word everything specifically so that people don't point out symantical errors that have no relevance on ANYTHING.

Except, my dear unabletable, that Sirlin's essays don't apply to just traditional fighters, and they don't just apply to video games... THEY APPLY TO ALL FORMS OF COMPETITION AND GAME MAKING. That's why he can apply his logic to SF, Starcraft, Chess, and Brawl all in the same essay, if he wanted to (he doesn't, to the extent of my knowledge, do this). So, even giving you the benefit of the doubt, you're still not getting the point of the essays. And, there are NO parts of his philosophies that fit more to SF than to SC or Brawl or Chess. Read them again. "Games are better designed with more competitive depth" is not a concept that is owned by video games, Street Fighter in particular.

Jack...I am totally gay for you. Totally homo.

... ... ... <_< >_> <_< ...

 

[AgentJGV]

whoops. sorry guys.s its late where im at so im just gunna take myself outta this discussion.

Also, i have not read it, but i heard about it. thought it was mostly on SF. My bad.

 

[Luxor]

I'm simply too lazy to word everything specifically so that people don't point out symantical errors that have no relevance on ANYTHING.

Resisting urge to go grammar nazi and enlighten you.

Also, i have not read it, but i heard about it. thought it was mostly on SF. My bad.

I would honestly recommend reading it at least once; it's not very long and pretty insightful.

 

[theunabletable]

Except, my dear unabletable, that Sirlin's essays don't apply to just traditional fighters, and they don't just apply to video games... THEY APPLY TO ALL FORMS OF COMPETITION AND GAME MAKING. That's why he can apply his logic to SF, Starcraft, Chess, and Brawl all in the same essay, if he wanted to (he doesn't, to the extent of my knowledge, do this). So, even giving you the benefit of the doubt, you're still not getting the point of the essays. And, there are NO parts of his philosophies that fit more to SF than to SC or Brawl or Chess. Read them again. "Games are better designed with more competitive depth" is not a concept that is owned by video games, Street Fighter in particular.

Alright, I guess Sirlin (and by virtue, you and BPC) knows more about how to apply logic to smash than TKD. I'll just throw away TKD's opinion and go the Sirlin way like I used to!

Now, referring to the OP, you're making the same ludicrous fallacy as you made in my thread (which I will refute after school today). You're claiming that because it's easier to practice the skillset you value highly on certain stages, that those stages are better for competition... or better, in fact, at anything. This is a ridiculous fallacy. There's no reason to believe this. What if a community valued stage interaction above all, and decided to ban those 3 stages. Would your argument still be valid? No, because they, like you, are overemphasizing a certain element of the game with no real reason to.

http://allisbrawl.com/blogpost.aspx?id=90378 "Moral of the story (aka tl:dr): While you sit there and learn how to count the seconds on Jungle Japes, I'm learning how to not suck d***"

I think HugS said what I think pretty well there, actually.

Practicing on FD/BF/SV is far more universal and helpful than learning stage gimmicks. But, w/e, guess TKD's an incorrect scrub!

Resisting urge to go grammar nazi and enlighten you.

lol'd.

 

[Blacknight99923]

Resisting urge to go grammar nazi and enlighten you.



I would honestly reccomend reading it at least once; it's not very long and pretty insightful.

AND THE WAY YOUR TREATING TABLE IS AN AWFUL LOT LIKE THE WAY BROWN SHIRTS IN GERMANY TREATED JEWS. MOST OF YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW THE KID BUT YOU ALL THINK ITS POPULAR TO HATE HIM, AND LIKE SHEEP YOU FOLLOW HITLER TO *****.

-lord jerith's advice to all of you......

 

[AgentJGV]

I would honestly recommend reading it at least once; it's not very long and pretty insightful.

Hm. I'll have to add it on my to read list. Thank! :D

 

[Jack Kieser]

Unabletable, TKD is a player, and therefore is BIASED. I have no doubt that he knows quite a bit about Brawl execution. He knows more about pushing buttons than me. But, because he's a player, he is a biased source of information when it comes to debating the merits of one rulset change over another, because at the end of the day, he'll like whichever ruleset change that makes the game easier for him to win.

(BTW, TKD, I'm not meaning to force all of this on you. I'd have said the same thing about any top player unable could have brought up; I'm just using you because he is. I mean none of this personally, nor do I mean to imply you aren't a good dude; I haven't even met you yet. So... sorry about that.)

Also, stop saying that just because SV, BF, and FD are good training stages, that they must be the end-all-be-all of Brawl. They have the most basic elements of stages, not the most complete. Hell, by your logic, we should all play our matches in training mode, since it doesn't have that pesky move decay.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

PBC makes great arguments in his stage thread about stages and why they should be legal, quite frankly I can't refute them without the semantics and I respect him for it. But for reasons table has put forward I agree on why not to use liberal stages. Better players have a correlation to favor more conservative stages, does playing on only Starters+ mild counter picks really make the game more competitive, no not particularly, but it does however correlate to people getting better as players.

From an aim convo I had with PBC he felt that using starters provided for a better training enviroment, he claimed to be under the influence at the time however so if he would like to refute that now I will allow it. However if I am a top player and my goal is to win nationals I would want as to become the best player I can going into those nationals and I would want all of my tournament matches to be played in the best possible environment to improve in.

No refutation on that point. Starters ARE a better training environment, at least until you've mastered the basics. Before you really have your spacing/ATs/etc. down pat on a flat level, you shouldn't be trying to apply and reform them on stages like RC, Brinstar, Green Greens, or Distant Planet. However, there is no reason why this should mean that sticking to the "starters" overall is a good idea. It means that they are a better training ground and nothing more. In tournaments, where we're trying to figure out who's the best overall at smash, you cannot consequently afford to ignore various skills such as stage zoning, adaptation, and the like.

So the question is this... what to you defines a more competitive game? a game that utilizes every potential aspect of it 100% of the time even if it may never be used in a tournament match or cannot be something you rely on

You have to know every part of the game because even if it's unlikely that it'll show up, if it does you're kinda ****ed. This leads to players needing to know more, and therefore more competitive depth and a better competitive game. I mean, hell, I could use the same kind of argument you guys are using here to try to get Yoshi banned. Or ICs. Or any other rarely-used fringe character that functions completely differently from all others.

or a game that favors you for being better at its fundamental, core gameplay, and a more universal knowledge about the game.

The first half of this is flawed for various reasons; the second is really a misnomer.

See, the problem is, you're taking what you want to call the "fundamental, core gameplay" and raising it above all other skill in the game, to the extent that you would completely ignore all the other skill. If a player who is godlike at the "basics" required on these 3 stages you put on pedestal really will automatically fare so well on stages like Green Greens or PTAD, then there's no problem-these skills are universal and they will be effective on every stage, therefore banning stages to emphasize them further are useless. If they aren't, and don't fare so well on those stages, then it means you're trying to place far too much value on a certain part of a group of skills, which the game itself marginalizes quite often, and that you should really look at why you hold these skills above all other. Saying "they make me a better player" when your ruleset gets rid of all the stages that force you to adapt/marginalize the skills gathered on those stages, and then using that as a reasoning to back your ruleset up is obviously quite circular (and an appeal to results/authority).

quite frankly I pick the latter because I would rather win money

Personal bias much? Refer to Jack Kieser's post.

Also, Raziek, Susa, and Jack are all awesome.


There is no doubt in anyone's mind that SV, BF, and FD are the stages to practice on when you want to get the basics of smash down. There's nothing else to do there. But to take that, and carry it so far that you'd conclude that all the other stages somehow detract from the skills you really need is simply ridiculous.

 

[ShadowLink84]

PBC makes great arguments in his stage thread about stages and why they should be legal, quite frankly I can't refute them without the semantics and I respect him for it. But for reasons table has put forward I agree on why not to use liberal stages. Better players have a correlation to favor more conservative stages, does playing on only Starters+ mild counter picks really make the game more competitive, no not particularly, but it does however correlate to people getting better as players.

I agree with this mostly.
The main reason I say mostly is because I would not say it correlates to them being better as players, but that it correlates to them being better players under that format.

From an aim convo I had with PBC he felt that using starters provided for a better training enviroment, he claimed to be under the influence at the time however so if he would like to refute that now I will allow it. However if I am a top player and my goal is to win nationals I would want as to become the best player I can going into those nationals and I would want all of my tournament matches to be played in the best possible environment to improve in.

Correct again, you would want to remain conservative because after all, it is the same environment under which you trained. The issue with this is that as many have said, it sacrifices other parts of the game that would provide more in depth gameplay, namely PvS.
Brawl is not a traditional fighter, and as much as people wish to try and fight it, they will often acknowledge that starter stages themselves are not at all neutral.

Of course pro-players want to maintain the same conditions under which they trained, that gives them the best method of winning. It keeps them within the same areas of skill which they have honed. While it is understandable, I do not agree with it, primarily because the smash series does require interaction with the stage and I do believe that the game is more in depth with more stages.

So the question is this... what to you defines a more competitive game? a game that utilizes every potential aspect of it 100% of the time even if it may never be used in a tournament match or cannot be something you rely on or a game that favors you for being better at its fundamental, core gameplay, and a more universal knowledge about the game.

quite frankly I pick the latter because I would rather win money

That is a very tough question to answer, and I would say that it goes on a case to case basis. After all playing on 75m is certainly not an active measurement of skill.

 

[Luxor]

Alright, I guess Sirlin (and by virtue, you and BPC) knows more about how to apply logic to smash than TKD. I'll just throw away TKD's opinion and go the Sirlin way like I used to!

Well, TKD does have it in his own interest not to have crazy CPs for MK floating around. He is better at playing the game than those two; however, that doesn't mean that the game where you have to learn to play AND learn to count seconds on JJ (although I don't know anyone who really counts them) is less deep than the game where you just learn how to play. Essentially, adding depth DOES take more effort on the part of the player to learn, even if it makes the game deeper (and therefore, by most standards, better).

wtf triple ninja'd while I typed on my itouch

 

[Blacknight99923]

@ PBC

and my point is you can be right all you want about competitive theory on paper....but I'm still walking home with money in my pocket and your filling pots. While I personally am not of this caliber of player most of the people I know of walking home with $ are.


Again you can be right all you want I am actually profiting off of my beliefs of how I play the game.

edit and this isn't directed specifically at PBC more like a general statement

 

[Jack Kieser]

@

and my point is you can be right all you want about competitive theory on paper....but I'm still walking home with money in my pocket and your filling pots. While I personally am not of this caliber of player most of the people I know of walking home with $ are.


Again you can be right all you want I am actually profiting off of my beliefs.

Yeah, THAT'S the mindset that creates a healthy community. You do realize that if you act that way long enough, all of those "pot fillers" will just leave, right? And that they'll take all that money with them. And then, they'll be the ones who understand competitive game philosophy AND have all the money, while you're left with nothing... right?

 

[theunabletable]

Unabletable, TKD is a player, and therefore is BIASED. I have no doubt that he knows quite a bit about Brawl execution. He knows more about pushing buttons than me. But, because he's a player, he is a biased source of information when it comes to debating the merits of one rulset change over another, because at the end of the day, he'll like whichever ruleset change that makes the game easier for him to win.

Yep, TKD is biased and picks his ruleset based on what gives him the chance to win. His ground time rule doesn't hurt his Fox and his camp game at all. He's definitely biased and shouldn't be used as a source of information on the metagame.

My bad.

You have to know every part of the game because even if it's unlikely that it'll show up, if it does you're kinda ****ed. This leads to players needing to know more, and therefore more competitive depth and a better competitive game. I mean, hell, I could use the same kind of argument you guys are using here to try to get Yoshi banned. Or ICs. Or any other rarely-used fringe character that functions completely differently from all others.

Yep. People who are used to conservative rulesets are gonna lose due to stage inexperience. ADHD'll never win a tournament that has a liberal ruleset.

 

[Luxor]

Until the competitive environment changes to be more liberal, anyway.

Spoiler

lol like that'll ever happen

... This was at Blackknight until I got double ninja'd again.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Hey, unabletable, did you read this part of my post AT ALL?

(BTW, TKD, I'm not meaning to force all of this on you. I'd have said the same thing about any top player unable could have brought up; I'm just using you because he is. I mean none of this personally, nor do I mean to imply you aren't a good dude; I haven't even met you yet. So... sorry about that.)

Yeah, try again.

 

[theunabletable]

So which is it? Is TKD biased and always going to pick the ruleset that makes it easier for him to win, like you indicated in your post, or is he not? Which side are you taking?

 

[Blacknight99923]

Yeah, THAT'S the mindset that creates a healthy community. You do realize that if you act that way long enough, all of those "pot fillers" will just leave, right? And that they'll take all that money with them. And then, they'll be the ones who understand competitive game philosophy AND have all the money, while you're left with nothing... right?

for reference here is what I said
@ PBC

and my point is you can be right all you want about competitive theory on paper....but I'm still walking home with money in my pocket and your filling pots. While I personally am not of this caliber of player most of the people I know of walking home with $ are.


Again you can be right all you want I am actually profiting off of my beliefs of how I play the game.

edit and this isn't directed specifically at PBC more like a general statement



what I am saying in the above is

you can practice playing the game your way
and I can practice it the way I do

but results show the way I do it will lead me to more tournament success then yours


the grim reality is I am a SoCal random I am inevitably filling pots until I win more. I am going to follow the TRIED AND TRUE path that is leads to more success.

your ideologies mean nothing compared to actually gaining or losing material value.

(the following is not me upset or of the like, its simply the underlying reason and point of why PBCish theory is not the best one to follow regarding smash)
THAT IS WHY SIRLIN DOES NOT APPLY TO BRAWL. YOU WILL NOT BE SUCCESSFUL IF YOU INSIST ON RELYING ON GIMMICKS OR COUNTERPICKING PORT TOWN. YOU WILL BE MORE SUCCESSFUL IF YOU WORK YOUR *** OF PRACTICING THINGS THAT ARE CONSISTENT AND APPLY TO EVERY ASPECT OF THE GAME. WHEN I ENTER A TOURNAMENT THE IDEA IS TO WIN IT. AT THE END OF THE DAY ADHD WINS NATIONALS AND IS WHAT YOU CALL A SCRUB. WELL YOU KNOW WHAT I'D RATHER BE A SCRUB WITH 2500$ IN MY HAND THAN POLITICALLY CORRECT WITH NOTHING TO SHOW FOR IT

 

[Veel]

Sure, correlation =/= causation, but you're really going to say it doesn't mean anything when every player who does very well at nationals (afaik) seems to have a conservative view?

That's not what I'm getting at in this point. I'm saying the particular situation almost completely undercuts your argument. If you have a 250 people w/ a conservative rule set and then 1 guy without it, average is that one dude isn't gonna be one of the top anyways. There are just so few Liberals that you cannot discern if its their philosophy holding them back or if they just are naturally not top players. If it was a 50% split in liberals and conservatives thorughout the world and still only top players were conservative that would be a very strong argument. Your argument isn't inherently bad... the conditions just do not exist for it to meaningfully apply.

So you're saying it's better to stunt our metagame just for the sake of symantics?

I was going to argue that what is valuable to the community isn't to be the best players possible on an absolute basis but to keep the community alive and well with people attending tournaments (which competitive depth help to accomplish.) However I don't think this is really a valuable point; you said yourself that this would only be local conservative rule sets, so I will recant and concede this point and just leave you to the rest of my first post.

I'll reply to the rest of your post, Veel, when I have more time. It's a good post, haha.

Thank you, and take your time, I'm just happy if people just take the time to reply to my posts at all (also you seem to have your hands full.)

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

ITT: scrubs think their views on the game are better than others'

but don't realize that their game sucks either way.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Yep. People who are used to conservative rulesets are gonna lose due to stage inexperience. ADHD'll never win a tournament that has a liberal ruleset.

They can. You claim they don't/shouldn't, but as said, you can't really win this one. Either it doesn't make a difference either way and therefore they should be allowed because of addition of extra skills, OR the skills required on them are extensive enough to make a difference.

And again, compare not knowing a stage to not knowing a matchup. Why can we not use your logic to ban fairly large portions of the Low/mid tier, as pointed out in my last post?

for reference here is what I said
@ PBC

and my point is you can be right all you want about competitive theory on paper....but I'm still walking home with money in my pocket and your filling pots. While I personally am not of this caliber of player most of the people I know of walking home with $ are.


Again you can be right all you want I am actually profiting off of my beliefs of how I play the game.

edit and this isn't directed specifically at PBC more like a general statement

LOL
So wait lemme get this straight. You're better than me at brawl. Therefore... Uh... I shouldn't bother trying to show people how they're wrong when it comes to creating rulesets here?
It's a completely unrelated ad hominem, and as Jack said, it's VERY biased. It shows that you don't care about what's actually right, but only about what works for you. I mean, we accuse many top players (in fact, most people who oppose us without arguing) of this. But you're the first who just honestly comes out and says it. Therefore, it's pretty obvious that we should not take your opinion on this without **** GOOD BACKING.

what I am saying in the above is

you can practice playing the game your way
and I can practice it the way I do

but results show the way I do it will lead me to more tournament success then yours


the grim reality is I am a SoCal random I am inevitably filling pots until I win more. I am going to follow the TRIED AND TRUE path that is leads to more success.

I KNOW that, as far as pure PvP training goes, that going with FD/SV/BF is the way to go. I'm not disputing this. I'm refuting the claim that follows that, that implies that therefore, playing on other stages is unnecessary.

your ideologies mean nothing compared to actually gaining or losing material value.

(the following is not me upset or of the like, its simply the underlying reason and point of why PBCish theory is not the best one to follow regarding smash)
THAT IS WHY SIRLIN DOES NOT APPLY TO BRAWL. YOU WILL NOT BE SUCCESSFUL IF YOU INSIST ON RELYING ON GIMMICKS OR COUNTERPICKING PORT TOWN. YOU WILL BE MORE SUCCESSFUL IF YOU WORK YOUR *** OF PRACTICING THINGS THAT ARE CONSISTENT AND APPLY TO EVERY ASPECT OF THE GAME. WHEN I ENTER A TOURNAMENT THE IDEA IS TO WIN IT. AT THE END OF THE DAY ADHD WINS NATIONALS AND IS WHAT YOU CALL A SCRUB. WELL YOU KNOW WHAT I'D RATHER BE A SCRUB WITH 2500$ IN MY HAND THAN POLITICALLY CORRECT WITH NOTHING TO SHOW FOR IT

There's a lot wrong with this post. First of all, do you even know what we're talking about when we reference Sirlin? To claim that sirlin doesn't apply to brawl because you should really only train on 2-3 stages shows that you not only don't understand Sirlin, but you don't understand our argument. OF COURSE PLAY TO WIN APPLIES TO BRAWL. You're just completely reinterpreting it into something new. And furthermore, why can't I rely on my counterpick to give me an advantage? That's kinda the entire point of it! I know I can't let it carry me the whole set, but that's neither a part of our argument nor a part of play to win. And I call you and ADHD scrubs because you aren't playing the **** game, you're using the ruleset to neuter it and turn it into a game that severely emphasizes the parts of the game you have mastered effectively, and IGNORE EVERYTHING ELSE.

This is not an argument against stages OR Sirlin's principles. This is you stocking your fingers in your ears and saying "LALALALALA I'M NOT LISTENING LALALALALA"!

Oh, and is it really so hard to get the order of 3 LETTERS RIGHT? I mean, it's one thing if you get something like "kieser" wrong; that means you're really bad and lazy at spelling. But mistyping a 3-letter ANAGRAM???

 

[Lord Chair]

How can you guys allow such a vague and multi-interpretable post to actually produce such intrigue and senseless discussion.