Sirlin's Principles and how they apply to Smash

[Veel]

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

Perhaps the same could be said of all of Smashboards?

 

[Pierce7d]

Sigh

It has gotten to the point where such foolishness is being thrown around, that I am compelled to post. I'll try to keep it brief.

1) ROFL, ADHD could still easily win a tournament with a liberal ruleset (btw, what do you call MLG D.C. if not liberal?)

2) When taking into account we are playing a game with a tremendous amount of settings, it is not unreasonable to suggest that we tailor the game to our liking.

3) The best way to play any given game is the way that the majority of competitors favor IMO. In the end, competition is about finding how you stack up against everyone else. If the majority of players decide that stage adaptability is not a major skill they want to test, then it is definitely their prerogative to remove large portions of this element from their game. The game has more than enough depth to still foster large amounts of healthy competition.

4a) It could be reasonably argued, though I will not argue it now, that increasing emphasis on stage adaptability distracts players from focusing on other skills. Because of this, it's an assumption, and not factual, that adding stage diversity "increases competitiveness." It CHANGES the nature of competition, and the game, but there is little way to measure whether or not it is an addition.

4b) If these "other skills" (aside from stage adaptability) are the skills that players prefer to test, then it makes a lot of sense to remove stage adaptability as a factor as much as possible, or to a large degree.

5) In my personal opinion, I think it's silly to think that adopting a conservative mindset makes you better at the game. However, I do think there is a positive correlation between an increase in skill at this game, and preference of stages. Consider that most liberals consider the game to be player vs. player vs. stage. As one increases higher levels of skill, it is possible that they would be more eager to focus on the dynamic challenge that their opponent presents them with, as opposed to the static challenge the stage presents them with. Additionally, most players perceive the more dynamic stages to be granting one opponent an advantage.

6) In my opinion, stage adaptability is an insignificant skill. If you can defeat me on Norfair, and I can defeat you on all conservative stages, I would not consider you a better player than me, and neither would most players. I would go about as far as to confessing that you're better on Norfair.

7) Typically, being well versed in the other core skills that it takes to be good at Brawl carries over to every stage. This is not true for the Mario Bros. Stage, which is why it's banned.

8a) It makes terrific sense for the players of a game to create the rules and conditions under which they play, so long as they can all come to a fairly reasonable consensus. It would not make sense for an oligarchy top players to create the rules, which is one reason the BBR does not consist only of these players. You have the right to determine which title you compete for. Most players have no interest in being masters of overcoming stage hazards, and would rather focus on skills that directly correlate to defeating their opponent.

8b) It doesn't really matter WHO creates the rules, as long as all competitors are aware of the rules of the game, and all competitors have the same options available to them. They will then be able to train in the skills necessary to compete, and strive to become the best. If you have a large amount of competitors willing to do this, then IMO this is what creates a sound ruleset.

8c) Because the skill set you will need to win changes if you change the rules of the game, Sirlin is primarily against games who's rules, conditions, and settings constantly change. I myself would like to eventually see a unified ruleset for this reason.

 

[Blacknight99923]

But BPC Why would I sacrifice potential growth by practicing on these stages though...

if no one is practicing on them why are they legal?

for the sake of being legal?
that's just opinionated.


Sure you might be practicing on these stages
Raziek is practicing on these stages
SuSa hasn't been practicing because he hasn't had brawl.
Jack keiser (I tried this time but I'm not editing my post if I am wrong)

and the most successful of any of you is that I know of when competing in a powerful region is SuSa, who isn't actually practicing however he just got back from an 11 month break so you can just ignore him in this arguement.


When every other region played MLG on the ohio ruleset OHIO STILL DIDN'T WIN!

In fact I don't believe they got top 8 at ANY MLG.

IT is UNLIKELY the region is INHERENTLY filled with bad players.

you can be as right as you desire on these forums but RESULTS suggest repeatedly that regions that have CONSERVATIVE stage rules are MORE successful.

Because when it comes down to it TOURNAMENTS or similar matches like MONEY MATCHES are in reality the BEST practice and training you can GET.


edit Pierce wins

 

[Pierce7d]

The Midwest is weaker as a region just because it's population density isn't as powerful. This means less practice with top players. NJ has always had the luxary of having super powerful players in the region. M2k was here for years, and then even when he was gone, there was the rise of ADHD. Anti, Nairo, Atomsk, and Ksizzle all learned from M2k (and Teh_Spammerer when he was active). Even after he left, Ally frequently came here to play, and this area was so concentrated with power, Ally grew to become the best player for a while. It's population density means the chance of a prodigy is greater. This is why NJ/NY is just so strong.

As far as I know, Midwest lacks this kind of player. It has some good players, but no prodigal players, which means no one to elevate the skill of the borderline players like myself.

This is why SoCal is also so powerful. Being on the coast, in a populated area, just makes you strong.

I don't know what happened in Florida. Perhaps it's more populated than I think, or maybe that Sunshine just really makes you awesome.

 

[Blacknight99923]

Perhaps it's more populated than I think, or maybe that Sunshine just really makes you awesome.

this is actually the reason behind socal's success.


I don't however believe Florida is that densely populated.

and neither is Texas (arguably due to Texas sheer size)


at the same time I see midwest regionals that bring out 100 + people along with MW being the only MLG event to actually get over 200 entrants. When I see these numbers I feel the community is often times more important than the area.

Its possible that the MW has a ****load of people that only pay money to go to the large events however, I have no clue regarding how large or frequent their locals are.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Oh boy. This will take a while.

Sigh

It has gotten to the point where such foolishness is being thrown around, that I am compelled to post. I'll try to keep it brief.

1) ROFL, ADHD could still easily win a tournament with a liberal ruleset (btw, what do you call MLG D.C. if not liberal?)

I know.

2) When taking into account we are playing a game with a tremendous amount of settings, it is not unreasonable to suggest that we tailor the game to our liking.

It is unreasonable when we're the god**** COMPETITIVE COMMUNITY.

Think about that for a moment. We are trying to be competitive. Our ruleset should **** well reflect that! Right? RIGHT?

3) The best way to play any given game is the way that the majority of competitors favor IMO. In the end, competition is about finding how you stack up against everyone else. If the majority of players decide that stage adaptability is not a major skill they want to test, then it is definitely their prerogative to remove large portions of this element from their game. The game has more than enough depth to still foster large amounts of healthy competition.

This is ridiculous and you should know it. Why not let the majority of the competitors decide that spacing, zoning, and mindgames shouldn't matter, and play each match out as that Minigame that TKO designed for tiebreakers? Seriously, what the hell? Completely ignoring a skill required of the game and a major character attribute is ********. It severely lowers the competitive depth, completely changes the game, and in general is an unacceptable change for any community even ATTEMPTING to call themselves competitive!

4a) It could be reasonably argued, though I will not argue it now, that increasing emphasis on stage adaptability distracts players from focusing on other skills. Because of this, it's an assumption, and not factual, that adding stage diversity "increases competitiveness." It CHANGES the nature of competition, and the game, but there is little way to measure whether or not it is an addition.

Actually... no, this has pretty much been proven wrong. More stages does not remove the other skills needed, although it may change their form slightly. The stages that do take away more than they give back are *gasp* banned by anyone who is smart.

4b) If these "other skills" (aside from stage adaptability) are the skills that players prefer to test, then it makes a lot of sense to remove stage adaptability as a factor as much as possible, or to a large degree.

No, no it doesn't. Seriously, not to be cliche'd, but GO ****ING PLAY STREET FIGHTER. Leave my favorite game, a game which is ridiculously unique, alone-stop trying to completely transform what it is.

5) In my personal opinion, I think it's silly to think that adopting a conservative mindset makes you better at the game. However, I do think there is a positive correlation between an increase in skill at this game, and preference of stages. Consider that most liberals consider the game to be player vs. player vs. stage. As one increases higher levels of skill, it is possible that they would be more eager to focus on the dynamic challenge that their opponent presents them with, as opposed to the static challenge the stage presents them with. Additionally, most players perceive the more dynamic stages to be granting one opponent an advantage.

1. Correlation is irrelevant even if it does point to causation
2. This perception is, for the most part, bull****.

6) In my opinion, stage adaptability is an insignificant skill. If you can defeat me on Norfair, and I can defeat you on all conservative stages, I would not consider you a better player than me, and neither would most players. I would go about as far as to confessing that you're better on Norfair.

Now what if I can beat you (in a ditto, or any matchup where the stage advantages are spread pretty evenly) on Norfair, Green Greens, Rainbow Cruise, Brinstar, Luigi's Mansion, Jungle Japes, and Distant Planet, but can't beat you on so-called neutrals? What then?
Stage adaptability may be easier than dealing with your opponent, but even then... so what? You have to deal with your opponent no matter what, and adding stages to the mix throws in a whole new element.

7) Typically, being well versed in the other core skills that it takes to be good at Brawl carries over to every stage. This is not true for the Mario Bros. Stage, which is why it's banned.

/agree? My problem is with the idiots who try to apply this to, say, RAINBOW CRUISE. (They're out there. Like Yikarur, or most of the rest of Germany)

8a) It makes terrific sense for the players of a game to create the rules and conditions under which they play, so long as they can all come to a fairly reasonable consensus. It would not make sense for an oligarchy top players to create the rules, which is one reason the BBR does not consist only of these players. You have the right to determine which title you compete for. Most players have no interest in being masters of overcoming stage hazards, and would rather focus on skills that directly correlate to defeating their opponent.

First of all: in a competitive community, there is virtually no reason not to go with the most skill-intensive, competitively deep ruleset. Therefore letting the players create the rules is ridiculous if what they want disagrees with the best competitive ruleset.

8b) It doesn't really matter WHO creates the rules, as long as all competitors are aware of the rules of the game, and all competitors have the same options available to them. They will then be able to train in the skills necessary to compete, and strive to become the best. If you have a large amount of competitors willing to do this, then IMO this is what creates a sound ruleset.

Getting people to play the **** game is a start. But allowing a very large, very well-established competitive community to act like gigantic idiots, ignore massive parts of the game, and lower the competitive depth of the game is ********.

8c) Because the skill set you will need to win changes if you change the rules of the game, Sirlin is primarily against games who's rules, conditions, and settings constantly change. I myself would like to eventually see a unified ruleset for this reason.

Well, you want a unified ruleset? Run on down to the ruleset stage (seriously, who the **** moved that god**** thread) forum and you'll see an actual grasp at the OBJECTIVELY BEST RULESET.

But BPC Why would I sacrifice potential growth by practicing on these stages though...

Because they're part of the game that you need to know, just like anything else?

if no one is practicing on them why are they legal?

for the sake of being legal?
that's just opinionated.

Maaaaayyyybe I'm misinterpreting you, but isn't your argument, "you get the most overall growth on these stages, you should never practice on the other ones for that reason, and because nobody should then know those stages, they should be banned."

...Wut? That's bull****. I'm sorry. It's up to you to know the god**** stages, or pay the price. It's like with obscure matchups. How many times are you gonna come up against ZSS in a large tournament? Not often. You shouldn't really practice against ZSS; it's such a fringe character and what you learn there won't help you in most matchups. Therefore, because nobody knows how to fight against ZSS, ban her. Seriously, the whole "these stages are the best training grounds and should therefore be the only stages" argument is MASSIVELY FLAWED, and you should stop using it. Now.

Sure you might be practicing on these stages
Raziek is practicing on these stages
SuSa hasn't been practicing because he hasn't had brawl.
Jack keiser (I tried this time but I'm not editing my post if I am wrong)

and the most successful of any of you is that I know of when competing in a powerful region is SuSa, who isn't actually practicing however he just got back from an 11 month break so you can just ignore him in this arguement.

...Um... We aren't practicing our basics on them. We're learning how the stages work so that if we come up against them, we don't get our ***** handed to us by a person who does know how they work. Just like bizarre matchups like Yoshi or ZSS.

The entire rest of your post comes down to this fallacious argument, arguments to authority, and arguments to results. In short: get off the ****ty logic train.

 

[clowsui]

The Midwest is weaker as a region just because it's population density isn't as powerful. This means less practice with top players. NJ has always had the luxary of having super powerful players in the region. M2k was here for years, and then even when he was gone, there was the rise of ADHD. Anti, Nairo, Atomsk, and Ksizzle all learned from M2k (and Teh_Spammerer when he was active). Even after he left, Ally frequently came here to play, and this area was so concentrated with power, Ally grew to become the best player for a while. It's population density means the chance of a prodigy is greater. This is why NJ/NY is just so strong.

1. Pierce, you're right. That being said, when are you coming back to MWE?
2. A different issue is just Ohio being noobs and not helping each other + the region enough. We don't travel to other regions of the MW often when we have the highest concentration of skill in one state save maybe KS/IL, which means our region is less powerful as a result.

Its possible that the MW has a ****load of people that only pay money to go to the large events however, I have no clue regarding how large or frequent their locals are.

Locals range from 30-50 people on average. Lowest sized locals are around 24 people.

@BPC even your idea of "the most competitive" is simply an opinion. you can objectively define skill, this is true. but to say that competition, within this community, is a matter of testing the most skills possible (which include PvP and PvS skills) is an opinion. if that isn't competition, what is? i'm not entirely sure what the answer is to that question.

don't even go about calling me a scrub either, i've run + been open to several liberal rulesets and i'm not really planning on changing any time soon

 

[Blacknight99923]

...Um... We aren't practicing our basics on them. We're learning how the stages work so that if we come up against them, we don't get our ***** handed to us by a person who does know how they work. Just like bizarre matchups like Yoshi or ZSS.

The entire rest of your post comes down to this fallacious argument, arguments to authority, and arguments to results. In short: get off the ****ty logic train.

You clearly do not understand brawl if you do not understand how important tournament experience is and what it is.

So like Table who goes to tournaments once every few months or maybe once a month lives out in the middle of no where and gets almost no human practice beats Raziek in tournament.

Raziek is ranked 3rd in Novia Scottia and as far as I know attends tournaments relatively consistently.


in short a ranked player lost to a random who can't even play wifi, has almost no access to the competitive scene but when he does he makes as much use of it as he can.

Socal being more densely populated doesn't really help table much if he's not capable of attending frequently or playing people freqently. I am actually inclined to believe that when he DOES enter tournaments he is getting BETTER practice in tournament because socal tournaments offer a SUPERIOR environment to get better in when he ACTUALLY DOES COME DOWN.

edit clowsui those tournaments are larger than Socals. Are there locals hosted on a weekly basis?

 

[Pierce7d]

It is unreasonable when we're the god**** COMPETITIVE COMMUNITY.

Think about that for a moment. We are trying to be competitive. Our ruleset should **** well reflect that! Right? RIGHT?

If you are so blind as to think that the popular conservative ruleset is not competitive, then you are a fool.

This is ridiculous and you should know it. Why not let the majority of the competitors decide that spacing, zoning, and mindgames shouldn't matter, and play each match out as that Minigame that TKO designed for tiebreakers? Seriously, what the hell? Completely ignoring a skill required of the game and a major character attribute is ********. It severely lowers the competitive depth, completely changes the game, and in general is an unacceptable change for any community even ATTEMPTING to call themselves competitive!

In case you didn't notice, the majority of competitors have decided that these things (spacing, zoning, mindgames) do matter. They have also for the most part decided that stage adaptability does not matter. Clearly, if you can adjust the game in a way that removes the need for this, and most people do not want to play that way, it's a viable option.

If the majority of competitors were for some reason to decide that the core elements of the game did not matter, then I presume they would in fact play a different game. Most people, including myself and even most casual players I've met, prefer NOT to play on most of the stages, in favor of simpler, less "distracting" ones.

It is subjective to determine whether competitive depth has been lowered. I DO think it's lowered, but I'm not going to get into that, because it's not my point.

Actually... no, this has pretty much been proven wrong. More stages does not remove the other skills needed, although it may change their form slightly. The stages that do take away more than they give back are *gasp* banned by anyone who is smart.

This most certainly has not been proven wrong, and I can think of many instances where this is true. However, I have no desire to educate you in this particular regard. It is not my point at this time.

No, no it doesn't. Seriously, not to be cliche'd, but GO ****ING PLAY STREET FIGHTER. Leave my favorite game, a game which is ridiculously unique, alone-stop trying to completely transform what it is.

I prefer the mechanics and characters of Smash. I can transform a game into any game I want it to be, and so long as other people are willing to test their skill in this game with me, and we can agree upon rules, then we have healthy competition. The game is deep enough for our satisfaction, and emphasizes skills we wish to test, while ignoring skills we don't care to develop.

I have a much sounder argument saying that you are the one trying to change the game, considering that my version is more popular. Additionally, Sakurai ENCOURAGES us to take the tools the game provides, and create the game we want. This is what we have done.

I am not at all discouraging you from playing with whatever stages you please to have on. It is you who is trying to convince me to play with more stages.

Basically, the argument is boiling out like this.

Pierce: I like to play this way. It's competitive sound, has adequate depth, and most people enjoy this way as well. I've ignored elements that have features I don't like to make a competitive and enjoyable game.

BPC: NO! You should play this way. This evidence and that evidence shows that this way is better, and they way you want to play doesn't matter. You're all scrubs. Who cares if you've all collectively decided you like your own way. Math and Sirlin say my way is better, and if you don't agree, or can't see that, you're ********.

This obvious lack of open-mindedness is why I was reluctant to enter this discussion.

1. Correlation is irrelevant even if it does point to causation
2. This perception is, for the most part, bull****.

Basically, I pointed out the correlation just for discussions sake with the OP. I don't really care about it one way or another, and I previously stated that it's blasphemous to think that holding conservative views will make you better.

Now what if I can beat you (in a ditto, or any matchup where the stage advantages are spread pretty evenly) on Norfair, Green Greens, Rainbow Cruise, Brinstar, Luigi's Mansion, Jungle Japes, and Distant Planet, but can't beat you on so-called neutrals? What then?
Stage adaptability may be easier than dealing with your opponent, but even then... so what? You have to deal with your opponent no matter what, and adding stages to the mix throws in a whole new element.

Because I do not want to deal with learning particular techniques on particular stages (that I find to be either particularly over-powering, character limiting, or generally shallow), I opt not to play on those stages. If you enjoy mastery in those arenas, more power to you. You can continue to play that way, and even compete that way. You just won't see me entering many tournaments with those settings, because that is not how I want to test my steel.

/agree? My problem is with the idiots who try to apply this to, say, RAINBOW CRUISE. (They're out there. Like Yikarur, or most of the rest of Germany)

Rainbow Cruise does reduce the skill set I like to test, while introducing other skills as important. It's not a bad way to play though, just different. I simply do not prefer to play this way, but I don't find it to be so much of a stretch that I cannot compromise, and I will enter a tournament with this stage on, though I'd prefer it off.

First of all: in a competitive community, there is virtually no reason not to go with the most skill-intensive, competitively deep ruleset. Therefore letting the players create the rules is ridiculous if what they want disagrees with the best competitive ruleset.

1) Having an enjoyable game is nearly as important as having a deep game. Games are naturally more competitive if more talented people want to play them, because an opposing human mind is probably the greatest opponent that we will ever face. Therefore, popular games are by default, more competitive. If only two people played Brawl, it would not be very competitive, and the metagame would be very shallow.

2) You declare your ruleset objectively the best on false premises, based under the assumption that stage adaptability, which has been proven to detract from other core skills on varying levels depending on the stage, is important to test, regardless of that distraction. Many people, including myself, disagree. Despite this, you continue to spout out this mantra as fact.

Stage adaptability is definitely a valid skill. Typically, in situations where we are forced to demonstrate large amounts of stage adaptability, we are often limited from focusing on other core skills. I have thousands of hours of gameplay under my belt, and I say this with extreme confidence. This is not a better or worse way to play for all, that is at the discretion of the player.

Getting people to play the **** game is a start. But allowing a very large, very well-established competitive community to act like gigantic idiots, ignore massive parts of the game, and lower the competitive depth of the game is ********.

So, we shouldn't play the game the way we want to, and because we're not, we're ********?

I could argue that the stage Mario Bros. is a part of the game, competitively deep, and possibly more balanced than most stages. Pit is pretty good there, but not unstoppably good, and you can become better at it. There is no planking, and the stage test many skills that are not typically relevant to popular stages. There are no wall infinites, and despite many walk-offs, you would be a fool to get grabbed, or comboed off the side. Many, many characters are viable. They all have different tools they bring to the table, and while some are better than others, the universal tools needed for success are provided by the stage. This gives everyone a relatively even playing field.

Despite these things, the stage limits the need for the core skills we like to test. Off that reason alone, and for no other reason that is competitively sound, it is banned. Basically, the only reason this stage is banned is because we have decided "we do not want to play this way." The stage is neither proven to be broken or anti-competitive. However, we as players have a right to decide what and how we want to play.

Well, you want a unified ruleset? Run on down to the ruleset stage (seriously, who the **** moved that god**** thread) forum and you'll see an actual grasp at the OBJECTIVELY BEST RULESET.

I find that my chances of created a unified ruleset are GREATLY increased if I pick a popular ruleset as opposed to what you considering the "Objectively Best." While I applaud the attempt at choosing stages objectively, in the end, there are far too many subjective factors for me to try my hand in that field.

The desire for a unified rule-set is why I compromise on stages like RC and Brinstar, when I'm actually ultra-conservative atm.

 

[Juushichi]

In Ohio? Hm... I know that there are local smashfests that happen generally on the regular (NEOH - Cleveland and etc), Columbus, Cincy and OU (Ohio U) all play with each other in a general standpoint, but I know where I'm at there are generally multiple local fests. Clowsui is correct, though... Ohio as a state is really, really bad about traveling in-state (certain areas), OOS and OOR, but the higher-level players typically do get out and go to other areas nearby with some sort of frequency.

If you could name a "prodigy" player in the MW, at least the Eastern part... it would have to be Shugo. I can't really speak for the West, though at Dallas, I guess some of the results speak for themselves. We're trying to improve though, lol.

 

[Pierce7d]

Clowsui, I will actually be coming down for my Winter Break for several weeks if all goes well. My best friend lives in a suburb of Cleveland, and I'm going to be spending several weeks with her, from right after Christmas to mid-January.

 

[Ripple]

3) The best way to play any given game is the way that the majority of competitors favor IMO. In the end, competition is about finding how you stack up against everyone else. If the majority of players decide that stage adaptability is not a major skill they want to test, then it is definitely their prerogative to remove large portions of this element from their game. The game has more than enough depth to still foster large amounts of healthy competition.

Wow pierce. just wow. catering to the majority is a terrible view point in practice. utilitarianism is very poor logic in any case involving competition.

again, brawl is a PLATFORM FIGHTER, you can not and WILL NOT turn this game into a traditional fighter.

4a) It could be reasonably argued, though I will not argue it now, that increasing emphasis on stage adaptability distracts players from focusing on other skills. Because of this, it's an assumption, and not factual, that adding stage diversity "increases competitiveness." It CHANGES the nature of competition, and the game, but there is little way to measure whether or not it is an addition.

and you are CHANGING the form of competition by taking AWAY stages. there is ALWAYS stage adaptability. you can't take that away. you are once again trying to convert brawl into a traditional fighter.

4b) If these "other skills" (aside from stage adaptability) are the skills that players prefer to test, then it makes a lot of sense to remove stage adaptability as a factor as much as possible, or to a large degree.

\

most of the community prefers NOT to focus their entire game off of the ability to fight MK. should we remove him? yes we should according to this because it caters to the majority

and again YOU CAN"T REMOVE STAGE ADAPTABILITY!!!! EVEN FD HAS AN EXTREME AMOUNT OF THINGS TO ADAPT TO

6) In my opinion, stage adaptability is an insignificant skill. If you can defeat me on Norfair, and I can defeat you on all conservative stages, I would not consider you a better player than me, and neither would most players. I would go about as far as to confessing that you're better on Norfair.

and if you lose the neutral?

8c) Because the skill set you will need to win changes if you change the rules of the game, Sirlin is primarily against games who's rules, conditions, and settings constantly change. I myself would like to eventually see a unified ruleset for this reason.

as would I but the **** recommendation from the BBR itself prevents that

 

[Juushichi]

Clowsui, I will actually be coming down for my Winter Break for several weeks if all goes well. My best friend lives in a suburb of Cleveland, and I'm going to be spending several weeks with her, from right after Christmas to mid-January.

Well, Pierce. You've got an opportunity to hit up a rather large tournament that some EC people (and Reflex?) are going to right around the early part of January. SiiS (School is in Session) 4 is in Cincinnati, first weekend of the new year. It had 100+ competitors come over for SiiS3, so it might be the something you're looking for.

Otherwise Blue Rouge, Shugo, KB and some other good players are right around the area.

 

[Pierce7d]

Wow pierce. just wow. catering to the majority is a terrible view point in practice. utilitarianism is very poor logic in any case involving competition.

If I were catering to what I personally think would be the best ruleset, I would only have 3 or 5 stages on and that's it.

I would not cater to the majority if I felt their ruleset was not healthy and competitive. The only reasons I can find to change the stages is simply PREFERENCE. I can and have argued both for and against stages very effectively, and

Spoiler

OH SNAP

am part of the reason why some of the more questionable stages being used are on right now.

again, brawl is a PLATFORM FIGHTER, you can not and WILL NOT turn this game into a traditional fighter.

I can do whatever I **** please, and play the game any way I like. That being said, if your definition of "Traditional Fighter" is "Limited Stage interaction" then certainly, I can and will do that. In fact, I already have. Brawl is many, many things, and Sakurai encourages the players to play the way they want. If many people are willing to play the way I want to play, I see very, very little reason to play a different way, especially when my preference of play is backed with sound competitive logic.

and you are CHANGING the form of competition by taking AWAY stages. there is ALWAYS stage adaptability. you can't take that away. you are once again trying to convert brawl into a traditional fighter.

You misinterpreted me. I simply meant that having a static ruleset would mean that we are no longer changing the form of competition.

I am not currently engaged in any active movements to reduce the number of legal stages in other people's rulesets. I am merely responding to false claims that my opinion and preference of play is invalid for very silly and opinionated reasons. While I want everyone to play the game the way they enjoy playing it, I can see clear advantages in having a unified ruleset.

However, that's not really my point, and I'm sorry I brought it up.

most of the community prefers NOT to focus their entire game off of the ability to fight MK. should we remove him? yes we should according to this because it caters to the majority

[Collapse= This part isn't really relevant to the discussion, so I've collapsed it.]And now you're thinking with an open mind. I'm anti-ban btw. One cannot actually determine whether the game is "better" or "worse" with MK as a factor. However, MK was there by default, so we left him. If you're still playing with MK on, and you don't like it, complain to your TO. I have not, and will not ever call someone a scrub for being pro-ban. I enjoy MK in my game, so I will continue to support his usage. Keep in mind I have been pro-ban before, and I can find numerous reasons to keep in and to ban him, and am adept at arguing both sides.

At the moment, I'm anti-ban because I don't find MK to be unbeatable outside of planking and IDC. Additionally, plenty of people have invested a large amount of time into the character, and I don't think it's fair to negate this work. These are the primary reasons I'm anti-ban. However, that's pretty irrelevant to this whole discussion.[/collapse]

and again YOU CAN"T REMOVE STAGE ADAPTABILITY!!!! EVEN FD HAS AN EXTREME AMOUNT OF THINGS TO ADAPT TO

I was waiting for this pointless argument. Clearly, FD has far less things I need to adapt to, that I don't consider distracting from play. If I didn't, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Yes, FD has unique characteristics as a stage. No, I don't consider FD to heavily deter from my ideal playing field. I also like Battlefield.

and if you lose the neutral?

If you beat me on a "neutral stage" then you are probably a better player. Since I don't really care to test my own ability to adapt to stages, preferring to focus more on other skills, I play in a format which allows me to NOT have to worry about this.

Mind you, our CP system is pretty dumb anyway, but that's for another time.

as would I but the **** recommendation from the BBR itself prevents that

I'm working on this.

 

[clowsui]

Clowsui, I will actually be coming down for my Winter Break for several weeks if all goes well. My best friend lives in a suburb of Cleveland, and I'm going to be spending several weeks with her, from right after Christmas to mid-January.

Same chick as last time? Nice nice...there's a lot of players in Ohio who need training Better see you at SiiS4!

Also, I think Pierce's position is actually closest to the one I'm advocating. I don't have a problem w/ subjectivity so long as it's informed subjectivity and not just "do w/e the **** I want cause I say so" subjectivity.

@Soren

30-50 mans happen weekly or biweekly.

 

[Luxor]

I wish Blackknight would actually read the things anyone is saying instead of running his mouth like a fool.

If you're out there, Blackknight:
-Tournaments are on conservative stages.
-YES, practicing on conservative stages will make you do better in tournaments, which typically have conservative rulesets.
-What we're saying is that "Liberal Brawl" is a deeper game than "Conservative Brawl," not that practicing "Liberal Brawl" will make you better at spacing, etc., which are more emphasized in a conservative stagelist.

So if you want to be a good player, practice conservative. All our side is saying is that having a larger stagelist leads to a deeper game, which requires skills at spacing, mindgames, and skills at stage manipulation, making it harder and therefore MORE skill-based.

And @ people asking why there are no good liberal players, it's because there are only like five liberals total compared with thousands of conservatives. The deck is stacked against us.

 

[Life]

BTW:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXrX5AOxDaU

Japan isn't specifically good at Brawl. They're good at EVERYTHING.

I might hop the bandwagon and write my own ruleset, wouldn't be that good but eh.

 

[rPSIvysaur]

I'm moving this to Ruleset & Data.

 

[DaomarIsBear]

And @ people asking why there are no good liberal players, it's because there are only like five liberals total compared with thousands of conservatives. The deck is stacked against us.

Care to refute this, Ripple?

 

[Blacknight99923]

I wish Blackknight would actually read the things anyone is saying instead of running his mouth like a fool.

If you're out there, Blackknight:
-Tournaments are on conservative stages.
-YES, practicing on conservative stages will make you do better in tournaments, which typically have conservative rulesets.
-What we're saying is that "Liberal Brawl" is a deeper game than "Conservative Brawl," not that practicing "Liberal Brawl" will make you better at spacing, etc., which are more emphasized in a conservative stagelist.

So if you want to be a good player, practice conservative. All our side is saying is that having a larger stagelist leads to a deeper game, which requires skills at spacing, mindgames, and skills at stage manipulation, making it harder and therefore MORE skill-based.

And @ people asking why there are no good liberal players, it's because there are only like five liberals total compared with thousands of conservatives. The deck is stacked against us.

I do not see how it makes brawl more "skill based" if I can be killed by a random hazard with no set path on picto chat.

Same with norfair when a random hazard forces me to approach my opponent off luck. I might know ANY paticular hazard may happen at a certain time but what if I am camping on one of the far left or right platforms (which is arguable the safest regarding the floor lava potential) and the lava comes to THE SIDE THAT I AM ON I am forced to ABDICATE MY POSITIONING AND APPROACH MY OPPONENT WHO NOW LIKELY HAS SUPERIOR OPTIONS TO MINE.

those do not promote skill they promote LUCK.


I am NOT going to put those stages in my tournament because THEY DO NOT SUPPORT 100% skill of knowledge of the stage and one that has the potential to screw me over by something I nor my opponent has any control over.

idk about you but it seems smarter to me to rely 100% on skill than any luck what so ever.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Someone remind me to refute Pierce's post tomorrow with an IM or something. Don't wanna forget this and just not get back to it because that post is actually pretty interesting. Bedtime for bozo.

 

[ksizl4life]

Pierce Nairo didn't learn from M2K so chill with that. Only thing I learned from M2K is how to Nair off the ledge with invincibility frames and how to ditto. I used my own style on other characters.

 

[Jack Kieser]

I do not see how it makes brawl more "skill based" if I can be killed by a random hazard with no set path on picto chat.

Same with norfair when a random hazard forces me to approach my opponent off luck. I might know ANY paticular hazard may happen at a certain time but what if I am camping on one of the far left or right platforms (which is arguable the safest regarding the floor lava potential) and the lava comes to THE SIDE THAT I AM ON I am forced to ABDICATE MY POSITIONING AND APPROACH MY OPPONENT WHO NOW LIKELY HAS SUPERIOR OPTIONS TO MINE.

those do not promote skill they promote LUCK.

LOL @ you thinking Norfair isn't skill-based because of the LAVA. You do realize that people have picked the stage apart and learned that EVERY SINGLE lava hazard gives you between 3-5 full seconds of warning before they become active MINIMUM, right? If you get "surprised" by Norfair's hazards, you're just not paying attention, and in a game that requires you to pay attention, that means you deserve the hit.

Also, let it be noted that Norfair is not a stage built for static camping, and if you do your research, you'd know that BEFORE playing the stage. If you want to camp on Norfair, you HAVE to move around, you HAVE to camp dynamically, just like on (guess where) Rainbow Cruise. So, you complaining that the stage isn't letting you camp in one spot for 7 minutes is irrelevant, because you shouldn't be playing that way on Norfair. In essence...

It's not the stage's responsibility to uphold the playstyle YOU want it to; it's YOUR JOB to make your playstyle cater to the stage. If you can't, it doesn't mean the game is bad... it means YOU AREN'T ADAPTABLE ENOUGH FOR BRAWL. So, go bawwwww more somewhere else.

I am NOT going to put those stages in my tournament because THEY DO NOT SUPPORT 100% skill of knowledge of the stage and one that has the potential to screw me over by something I nor my opponent has any control over.

Then, don't play Brawl at all, because it's full of random. Again, "(X element of Brawl) has random factors associated with in! Bawwwwww!!1" is NOT a good reason to ban something, at least not in Brawl. It has to be SO random that it skews match results to a significant degree... which Norfair's lava does not do. In fact, NO legal stage does that.

Again, bawwww more, but do it somewhere else, because Brawl obviously isn't your game.

idk about you but it seems smarter to me to rely 100% on skill than any luck what so ever.

You can never rely 100% on skill. Controllers get dust in them and they jam or break. The game loads assets at different speeds, which screws over transforming characters. Sometimes, the venue is too hot or too cold to allow your muscles to work optimally. There will ALWAYS be some degree of interference; your ability, as a player, to stay consistent in the face of inconsistent scenarios is one of the hallmarks of a good athelete, and Brawl exemplifies this IN-GAME, as well as out-of-game. Don't like it? Then play another game, and stop trying to force a game that will NEVER BE WHAT YOU WANT IT TO to try and be what you want it to. It won't work.

Oh, and this is directed at all of the "everyone has a valid opinion, why should we be competitively deep" people. Your argument is not valid because we are dealing with hundreds of thousands of dollars of OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY.

I want you to let that sink in for a moment, because I don't think you people really think about that fact. We are gambling, essentially, with other people's cash. We are ETHICALLY RESPONSIBLE for our actions. We are trying to call ourselves "professionals", and pay ourselves for playing a game as athletes. That means we need to ACT LIKE IT.

If you want to play a game that's fun times for all, and one that matches the way you want to play, and (MOST IMPORTANTLY) you want to FORCE OTHER PEOPLE to play your way, then don't involve money in your tournaments, because that's not how professional athletes act. You want to be a part of MLG? You want to be a part of a community that pulls over $300,000 DOLLARS IN PRIZE MONEY every year? Do you want to call yourself pros, or part of a community that HAS pros?

The it is your ethical responsibility to make this game as competitively deep, unbiased, and objective as possible. Anything else is unsportsmanlike, uncompetitive, and most importantly, unethical.

So, stop all of this "everyone has a valid opinion" BS. Sometimes, in certain cases, all opinions can be valid. This is not one of them.

 

[Blacknight99923]

nm this won't get anywhere. The comment before that I have written could have been rude.

I sincerely wish you good luck in your tournaments but I do not believe your assessment on how to play the game is correct, and I believe it will lead you to a poor success. Time will tell.


Regarding other peoples money.

Why aren't they in this thread then?

Part of that money could belong to me a tournament player, if they will take no stand in it I will.

I as a player have the right to debate and discuss and present rules for my community.

I also have my own beliefs that random=/= competitive norfair has specific random elements and is not competitive.

yes its true I might be influenced in a tournament outside of factors beyond my control, but its also my responsibility to limit those factors and I will to the greatest degree that I can.


Also MLG will not drop brawl because of a stage list unless its shown a stage list is not sufficiently competitive, and I'm willing to bet that they are more willing to NOT support a stage list with more random variables.

 

[SuSa]

Jack, please go read my new thread in Stage Discussion.... while I won't deny that playing on Norfair isn't skill I think I've found a way to objectively state why certain stages should be banned.

Also GET ON AIM

 

[ShadowLink84]

If I were catering to what I personally think would be the best ruleset, I would only have 3 or 5 stages on and that's it.

I'll be blunt, a stage of 3 or 5 stages is craptacular at best.

I would not cater to the majority if I felt their ruleset was not healthy and competitive. The only reasons I can find to change the stages is simply PREFERENCE. I can and have argued both for and against stages very effectively, and

Spoiler

OH SNAP

am part of the reason why some of the more questionable stages being used are on right now.

Correct, you are indeed part of the reason which begs to ask why didn't you abide by your own personal idea?
That was a general question not actual criticism, since i imagine it would contradict your ideas would it not?

In this case, it isn't that the ruleset is not competitive, shame on anyone who attempts to say other wise, but that, it just does not have the depth that it could have currently. Keep in mind I am in the AN region, and the stagelist is very conservative.

I can do whatever I **** please, and play the game any way I like. That being said, if your definition of "Traditional Fighter" is "Limited Stage interaction" then certainly, I can and will do that. In fact, I already have. Brawl is many, many things, and Sakurai encourages the players to play the way they want. If many people are willing to play the way I want to play, I see very, very little reason to play a different way, especially when my preference of play is backed with sound competitive logic.

Why bring up the developers intent? Its meaningless within the context of the arguments.

Brawl is indeed many things, but traditional fighter it is not, and one should never, ever remove elements within the game unless they show themselves to be a hindrance to what is deemed competitive.
To do so not only changes the game to a greater degree than necessary, but also removes depth from competitive gameplay.

Unlike traditional fighters, Brawl characters are much more mobile and the behavior of their moves are much more different than other fighters in other games. The stages themselves become that much influential because of the behavior of those movesets, so to try and remove stages to make them less interactive is very wrong due to the nature of the game itself.

Parts of the game should only be removed in the event they become a hindrance to the competitive aspect of the game, not because of preference.

Furthermore, competitive logic does NOT back up your personal preference, because competitively speaking, we should not remove elements of the game unless they are proven to be anti-competitive. Removing them before proving them as anti-competitive is in itself, anti-competitive is it not?

You misinterpreted me. I simply meant that having a static ruleset would mean that we are no longer changing the form of competition.

I am not currently engaged in any active movements to reduce the number of legal stages in other people's rulesets. I am merely responding to false claims that my opinion and preference of play is invalid for very silly and opinionated reasons. While I want everyone to play the game the way they enjoy playing it, I can see clear advantages in having a unified ruleset.

However, that's not really my point, and I'm sorry I brought it up.

Of course!
A unified ruleset is very important actually because it helps maintain cohesion within the community. If the community in itself can agree to a single ruleset and apply it, then that means that while change may not occur often, that it will not cause as much strife.

I truly think that much of the problem stems from the fact that while regions often agree with most parts of the rules, they still argue over several parts of it. Really, I have seen people bash MW for having a liberal stagelist and seen people bash AN for their conservative stagelist.

Thats another discussion entirely though.

I was waiting for this pointless argument. Clearly, FD has far less things I need to adapt to, that I don't consider distracting from play. If I didn't, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Yes, FD has unique characteristics as a stage. No, I don't consider FD to heavily deter from my ideal playing field. I also like Battlefield.

See, I don't think its necessarily an issue of removing interaction, but rather the degree.
Pierce says it right here, he finds FD acceptable despite the interaction it presents which is MINOR.

Now my question is this Pierce, you mentioned earlier that ideally, you would have made a 3 stage/5stage list.
May I ask then what is the very limit that you believe the stage may interact with the player?

If you beat me on a "neutral stage" then you are probably a better player. Since I don't really care to test my own ability to adapt to stages, preferring to focus more on other skills, I play in a format which allows me to NOT have to worry about this.

Mind you, our CP system is pretty dumb anyway, but that's for another time.

I disagree, I believe it would only prove that he was the better player on a "neutral" stage, not necessarily that he was a better player overall.

It really falls down to the context under which you are going to view who is the better player.
In my personal opinion, I believe it is the player who is capable of performing well in both cases, both when the stage is more interactive, and when the stage is the least interactive possible.

 

[Pierce7d]

Pierce Nairo didn't learn from M2K so chill with that. Only thing I learned from M2K is how to Nair off the ledge with invincibility frames and how to ditto. I used my own style on other characters.

*sigh*

Obviously Nairo didn't learn directly from M2k, because Nairo didn't stop playing until WELL AFTER M2k had left the region. He obviously learned mostly from you and Cable, and his own pure dedication that he puts into the game.

MY POINT, which I thought was quite obvious, is that since this is a populated region, it is more likely to be saturated with talent. More people = greater chance of strong players, and dense population = more knowledge shared.

I'll be blunt, a stage of 3 or 5 stages is craptacular at best.

That's fine for you to think so. Most of the time I play friendlies, I play with 4-6 stages on. Occasionally I'll turn on standard EC counter-pick stages, especially if I'm preparing for tourney. I've enjoyed this game a lot more since I stopped entering (though I've started again for some reason) and I've also continued to improve rapidly.

Correct, you are indeed part of the reason which begs to ask why didn't you abide by your own personal idea?
That was a general question not actual criticism, since i imagine it would contradict your ideas would it not?

My mind has changed from then to now.

In this case, it isn't that the ruleset is not competitive, shame on anyone who attempts to say other wise, but that, it just does not have the depth that it could have currently. Keep in mind I am in the AN region, and the stagelist is very conservative.

It is very, very hard for me to cosign you analysis that removing stages decreases depth. While this may appear true at face value, I could make compelling arguments for or otherwise.

I will once again repeat that I feel that the characters in this game are relatively balanced, but relatively limited in terms of the dynamics of the stages. I've said in the past, and will repeat that if the average character had the potential of the average character in Brawl Minus, then I would easily advocate more stages.

Why bring up the developers intent? Its meaningless within the context of the arguments.

Only to point out that while claims that more stages is inherently better because they are there and increase depth is not powerful when you consider that the option to customize play is there.

Circle camping is not unstoppable for every character. It invalidates a large portion of the cast, but has not been proven to leave less than 4 characters with no option to reclaim a lead. Yet, we still ban it, because it's not how we want to play. We choose what arenas we want to compete in, and what skills we want to test.

Why do we ban stages with walls and walk offs? I've made extremely powerful arguments that these stages don't even break the game. But they're banned because it's simply not how people want to play.

I've taken this concept, and extended it to remove other elements I don't want to see in my competition. Not because I'm bad at them, that's silly, and I'm actually quite skilled on most of the stages in the game. Merely because I don't feel they add good things to my game in exchange for what they remove. You are blinding yourself if you do not see the things that a dynamic stage removes.

Brawl is indeed many things, but traditional fighter it is not, and one should never, ever remove elements within the game unless they show themselves to be a hindrance to what is deemed competitive.
To do so not only changes the game to a greater degree than necessary, but also removes depth from competitive gameplay.

I do not feel this is true. I feel my game is just as competitive if not more so than yours.

Unlike traditional fighters, Brawl characters are much more mobile and the behavior of their moves are much more different than other fighters in other games. The stages themselves become that much influential because of the behavior of those movesets, so to try and remove stages to make them less interactive is very wrong due to the nature of the game itself.

Parts of the game should only be removed in the event they become a hindrance to the competitive aspect of the game, not because of preference.

Not only do I disagree, but I feel that some stages do hinder competition in some aspects. They bolster some forms of competition, and detract from others. I've decided I prefer the skills that are on more static stages. I grant myself the ability to make this decision, because try as you might, it's a very subjective thing to decide that stage adaptability is more important.

Furthermore, competitive logic does NOT back up your personal preference, because competitively speaking, we should not remove elements of the game unless they are proven to be anti-competitive. Removing them before proving them as anti-competitive is in itself, anti-competitive is it not?

I believe I've answered this earlier in the post. I'll say it plainly.

You say to me, adding more stage adaptability is more competitive despite the reduced focus on core skills used to compete on static stage. I say to you, "Prove it." Of course, you cannot. You can give me relatively convincing evidence and decent reasons, but in the end, it is not really a measurable thing. Thus, I have a choice. Do I want to play this way or that? Both are competitive. I've chosen my way.

Another way I can put it is like this: You say FD/BF/SV/YI/PS1 are stages I must adapt to. I say, "well, I consider the skills required to adapt to those stages more important and potentially more competitive than those required on Rainbow Cruise/Brinstar/Picto/PS2, etc. I cannot prove this, but you cannot prove it false. Hence, I now make my selection of which way I prefer to play.

Of course!
A unified ruleset is very important actually because it helps maintain cohesion within the community. If the community in itself can agree to a single ruleset and apply it, then that means that while change may not occur often, that it will not cause as much strife.

I truly think that much of the problem stems from the fact that while regions often agree with most parts of the rules, they still argue over several parts of it. Really, I have seen people bash MW for having a liberal stagelist and seen people bash AN for their conservative stagelist.

Thats another discussion entirely though.

Agreed

See, I don't think its necessarily an issue of removing interaction, but rather the degree.
Pierce says it right here, he finds FD acceptable despite the interaction it presents which is MINOR.

Now my question is this Pierce, you mentioned earlier that ideally, you would have made a 3 stage/5stage list.
May I ask then what is the very limit that you believe the stage may interact with the player?

If these things were measurable, then I'm sure we wouldn't be having this discussion. The best way to measure is by the stages themselves, because they exist as their own unit. I feel the optimal amount of interaction is between FD and PS1. I feel Lylat, Yoshi's, Battlefield, and Smashville fall within this spectrum. Sometimes I'm iffy on Yoshi's, Lylat, and PS1, and SOMETIMES I'm even iffy on Smashville these days.

I also don't think semi-permeable floors are healthy for the game. Just on a core level, I feel like the game's quality and competitiveness decreases when this feature is added.

I disagree, I believe it would only prove that he was the better player on a "neutral" stage, not necessarily that he was a better player overall.

Due to the many, many ways we could create a competitive game with the tools provided with in Brawl, I'll agree with this easily. However, it's nearly impossible to determine what makes a player, "better overall." Ironically, this is often easy to see anyway.

It really falls down to the context under which you are going to view who is the better player.
In my personal opinion, I believe it is the player who is capable of performing well in both cases, both when the stage is more interactive, and when the stage is the least interactive possible.

And I truly do respect that opinion. Sometimes I share it, sometimes I don't. It's a hard call.

 

[CR4SH]

ADHD? (my bad if this wasn't you bro) argued that war was a false analogy and did not apply

Leave it to adhd to say something that dumb.

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

It's not about making specific analogies. The art of war has been used for as long as I can remember, and almost certainly much longer, as a guide on how to compete at every level. It applies vertically as well as horizontally. That's why it's a masterpiece.

The trick isn't to read what other people write about it (on the contrary!). The value of the text is in its ambiguity and it's truth. To expand on tzu is to cheapen tzu.

Sirlin is a good read. However it should not be the foundation of your understanding, nor the center of your philosophy, on competition. **** sirlin, read tzu.

 

[SuSa]

It's not about making specific analogies. The art of war has been used for as long as I can remember, and almost certainly much longer, as a guide on how to compete at every level. It applies vertically as well as horizontally. That's why it's a masterpiece.

The trick isn't to read what other people write about it (on the contrary!). The value of the text is in its ambiguity and it's truth. To expand on tzu is to cheapen tzu.

Sirlin is a good read. However it should not be the foundation of your understanding, nor the center of your philosophy, on competition. **** sirlin, read tzu.

I left the original text and told people to read it and see how it applies to Smash. Replace words if need be.

Art of War is a ****ing masterpiece.

 

[ADHD]

Leave it to adhd to say something that dumb.



It's not about making specific analogies. The art of war has been used for as long as I can remember, and almost certainly much longer, as a guide on how to compete at every level. It applies vertically as well as horizontally. That's why it's a masterpiece.

The trick isn't to read what other people write about it (on the contrary!). The value of the text is in its ambiguity and it's truth. To expand on tzu is to cheapen tzu.

Sirlin is a good read. However it should not be the foundation of your understanding, nor the center of your philosophy, on competition. **** sirlin, read tzu.

Die in a fire. This is the second time you've flamed me for no reason. I hate randoms.

 

[Orion*]

Non-liberals will claim their skill is irrelevant. It is, to a CERTAIN extent.

You need to actually play the game on a moderately competitive level to freakin know what you're talking about I'm sorry. This isn't some kind of confrontational dodge either, like they enjoy to claim. It's common sense.

this, infact i may sig it... seriously

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

nerd rage!~

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

1. people need to stop saying people pick rulesets easier for them to win in because thats tbh... just not true to a certain point and it just looks stupid.
2. i think better players like more conservative rules because.... well theyre just more consistent to be honest. less bull**** happens, and less random events happen, so its more skill based

 

[demonictoonlink]

Die in a fire. This is the second time you've flamed me for no reason. I hate randoms.

He's not a random! He plays LUIGI.

 

[ShadowLink84]

It is very, very hard for me to cosign you analysis that removing stages decreases depth. While this may appear true at face value, I could make compelling arguments for or otherwise.

No, I do believe the removal of some stages would add to the competitive depth of the game as well. Surely such stages such as 75M and WaroWare are very far from being competitive.
My argument is simply that removing stages for the sake of disliking them, rather than actually needing their removal hurts depth in itself. Or am I still speaking poorly?

I will once again repeat that I feel that the characters in this game are relatively balanced, but relatively limited in terms of the dynamics of the stages. I've said in the past, and will repeat that if the average character had the potential of the average character in Brawl Minus, then I would easily advocate more stages.

That is a little bit odd because if the characters were relatively balanced, they would all perform similarly when it comes to stages. As in, while Sonic may have some terrible stages, he has some stages he does well on.

not many characters are so inflexible like Diddy or Ice Climbers.

Only to point out that while claims that more stages is inherently better because they are there and increase depth is not powerful when you consider that the option to customize play is there.

In what way?
how does saying "we can change the options" change the fact that more stages would lead to more competitive depth?
Can you explain further please?

Circle camping is not unstoppable for every character. It invalidates a large portion of the cast, but has not been proven to leave less than 4 characters with no option to reclaim a lead. Yet, we still ban it, because it's not how we want to play. We choose what arenas we want to compete in, and what skills we want to test.

I disagree, how will Fox and Falco and MK ever hope to catch Sonic on Hyrule temple OUTSIDE of gaining the lead first
And vice versa?

Not everything needs to be put through a microscope to see the harmful effects.

Why do we ban stages with walls and walk offs? I've made extremely powerful arguments that these stages don't even break the game. But they're banned because it's simply not how people want to play.

Agreed.
Some sages are removed simply because people dislike them, but that only furthers my point that stages are banned without being properly tested in tournament.

I've taken this concept, and extended it to remove other elements I don't want to see in my competition. Not because I'm bad at them, that's silly, and I'm actually quite skilled on most of the stages in the game. Merely because I don't feel they add good things to my game in exchange for what they remove. You are blinding yourself if you do not see the things that a dynamic stage removes.

\
I don't disagree, but I do disagree that bringing such an argument is poor because the competitive depth of the game takes into account everything.
if one only looks at how the dynamic stage takes away from a non interactive stage, hat fails to look at the whole of the game and simply ends up becoming an argument of "I just dont like it" rather than "on the whole this stage takes away from competitive depth."

Not only do I disagree, but I feel that some stages do hinder competition in some aspects. They bolster some forms of competition, and detract from others. I've decided I prefer the skills that are on more static stages. I grant myself the ability to make this decision, because try as you might, it's a very subjective thing to decide that stage adaptability is more important.

Yes, some stages do detract from the competitive depth of the game, such as 75M and Warioware and New Pork City.
While you may prefer static stages, arguing that stage adaptability is false.
Stage adaptability is important because this game FORCES the player to interact with the stage.
Battlefield in itself can influence matchups simply because of the platform placement.
The very fact you have to be knocked off the stage in order to lose a stock in itself means the stage is a factor.
To argue that stage adaptability is a subjective argument is poor when you consider the basic mechanics of the game.

I believe I've answered this earlier in the post. I'll say it plainly.

You say to me, adding more stage adaptability is more competitive despite the reduced focus on core skills used to compete on static stage. I say to you, "Prove it." Of course, you cannot. You can give me relatively convincing evidence and decent reasons, but in the end, it is not really a measurable thing. Thus, I have a choice. Do I want to play this way or that? Both are competitive. I've chosen my way.

I disagree. in fact, I would also disagree with the notion that core skills do not include stage adaptability because of the basic skills required to establish a winner! So it is not only a necessity of the competitive aspect, buy a requirement of basic gameplay. To even try to downplay it is ludicrous and more denial.

Let alone that I disagree with your statement of "prove it". How can I prove that stage interactiveness is better when you endorse a conservative stagelist which is then constantly put into play?
That only furthers the point of "Dont ban it unless needed" because then it becomes MUCH more difficult to show it was not ban worthy in the process.

Let alone that several national tournaments, most notably MLG, showed greater character diversity when the stage list was not conservative like the AN regions, where as we see less with the AN regions as a whole. This would mean there is a possible indication that he overall skill of a palyer is better portrayed, and thus means character choice is not so much important as it is the player's capabilities.

Another way I can put it is like this: You say FD/BF/SV/YI/PS1 are stages I must adapt to. I say, "well, I consider the skills required to adapt to those stages more important and potentially more competitive than those required on Rainbow Cruise/Brinstar/Picto/PS2, etc. I cannot prove this, but you cannot prove it false. Hence, I now make my selection of which way I prefer to play.

Which we should not be doing.As soon as one says "I think these skills are more competitive" then we've already made an error. It would be much like removing MK and saying "I think this makes the game more competitive" while this may POSSIBLY be true, we still should not remove MK unless absolutely necessary. Unless it shows itself being anti-competitive, we should not stick our preferences into it.

After all, originally, we did play Smash with items until it was found that they detracted from competitive gameplay.

Competitive is competitive, one should only say "is this harmful towards what is competitive for the game? Is this hurtful towards the core aspect? Or does this merely shift it to another aspect?"

If these things were measurable, then I'm sure we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The best way to measure is by the stages themselves, because they exist as their own unit. I feel the optimal amount of interaction is between FD and PS1. I feel Lylat, Yoshi's, Battlefield, and Smashville fall within this spectrum. Sometimes I'm iffy on Yoshi's, Lylat, and PS1, and SOMETIMES I'm even iffy on Smashville these days.

I also don't think semi-permeable floors are healthy for the game. Just on a core level, I feel like the game's quality and competitiveness decreases when this feature is added.

Disagreed. A character is needed to interact with the stage, to see the level of interaction, to see how harmful the interaction is in itself.
The stages need to be analyzed in tournament, we cannot simply look at a stage by itself and say "this is anti-competitive" unless we know the effect it has on competitive gameplay.

If we leave it o only look at the stages by themselves, I would argue that the conservative stage is anti=competitive because it favors the handful of characters who excel at them, while destroying characters who may be able to event hings out by using a dynamic stage that enhances their own traits. It limits not out of necessity, but for the sake of preference.



I snipped out the parts of your quote that I agreed.

@orion: If you get hit by halberd's laser then poopoo on you. If you were knocked into it by your opponent then awesome sauce.

 

[Orion*]

nobody mentioned haldberd LOL

 

[ShadowLink84]

nobody mentioned haldberd LOL

*smacks you with a smelly fish*