Sirlin's Principles and how they apply to Smash

[theunabletable]

This is relatively short because there simply isn’t a whole lot to say.

Playing to Win was written as a guide to help people learn to be the best. I mean, hell, here’s the first four lines of the guide: “Playing to Win


Becoming the Champion

by David Sirlin
Dedicated to winners and those who strive to win.”
Dedicated to winners and those who strive to win?

I think most people would agree that his philosophy was made to be the most optimal way to learn to play to win. And it probably is… in games like Street Fighter. I mean how many Street Fighter pros disagree with Sirlin’s principles? I don’t know of/haven’t heard of any. Now how many SSBB/M pros disagree with Sirlin’s philosophy (or atleast in the way people in tactical like to apply it to smash)? Right off the top of my head there’s M2K, ADHD, Larry, Rich Brown, the Japanese, and TKD. And those are just the people that I can think of within 2 seconds of thought.

I’d say that they’re pretty good players. Best in the world and all of that. So why is it that they disagree with Sirlin’s philosophy?

Actually, tbh, I wouldn’t say that they do disagree with Sirlin. I mean their views are closer to, say, Street Fighter stagelists than liberal players are, and what was Sirlin’s competitive game of choice? Street Fighter as far as I know.

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?

If his method of playing to win is NOT the optimal method for learning how to become the best, and how to become the most adept at winning, then doesn’t that ruin the entire point behind his philosophies? Shouldn’t, in regards to Smash, the most optimal and efficient playing to win philosophy be the best?

Or am I wrong and we should just stunt the growth of our metagame to uphold the opinions of a street fighter player who doesn’t play smash?

I might be wrong, but it is certainly interesting to note that every super-liberal that I’ve played/seen play is bad, and all of the best players in the world hold conservative views. I mean wouldn’t that indicate that the conservative mindset is the best for, well, becoming the best? Sure, correlation=/=causation, but when those same players say that their way is the best, and give reasoning for it (which is often disregarded because it contradicts the widely accepted, and seemingly inferior method (by inferior I mean inferior FOR SMASH. Not for any other game, just for Super Smash Bros. Brawl for the Nintendo Wii Entertainment System)), AND they prove it by beating everyone EVEN WITH liberal rulesets, wouldn’t that seem to indicate that they’re doing it right, and their way is the most optimal way?

Maybe I'm missing the point of Sirlin's guide to playing to win, but based on everything in it, and how it's portrayed, it really seems to be a guide on the optimal way to play to win in competitive games, and if it's inferior to the players who are BEST at the game's method of playing to win, then wouldn't that throw his principles into question about how well they apply to a game in which a different mindset wins more?

Discuss, please.

 

[Jonas]

Believe it or not, ADHD is playing to win. M2K is also very much playing to win (for crissakes, winning is his INCOME). They aren't a bunch of scrubs who cry "CHEAP" when Falco spams lasers, DDD chaingrabs, Snake grenade camps or Meta Knight... is Meta Knight. They don't hold themselves back because of some weird delusion of "respect" or "fun", and they certainly don't expect other players to do so. That's why they aren't bad at the game.

As for stages, "playing to win" doesn't necessarily mean including every stage in the game, not banning any of them until the tournament scene has deteriorated into a single unbeatable strategy. Of course, banning criteria will always be subject of debate, but it's not surprising that you don't automatically become a better player just because you vouch for a more liberal stage list.

 

[theunabletable]

Believe it or not, ADHD is playing to win. M2K is also very much playing to win (for crissakes, winning is his INCOME). They aren't a bunch of scrubs who cry "CHEAP" when Falco spams lasers, DDD chaingrabs, Snake grenade camps or Meta Knight... is Meta Knight. They don't hold themselves back because of some weird delusion of "respect" or "fun", and they certainly don't expect other players to do so. That's why they aren't bad at the game.

Yeah, I agree. And they have what seems to be the right, and most optimal mentality about stages.

As for stages, "playing to win" doesn't necessarily mean including every stage in the game until the tournament scene has deteriorated into a single unbeatable strategy. Of course, banning criteria will always be subject of debate, but it's not surprising that you don't automatically become a better player just because you vouch for a more liberal stage list.

Yeah.

All I'm trying to point out is that a strict Sirlinistic view doesn't seem to work for Smash, as that view was based on being the best way to play to win, and from watching and listening to TKD/ADHD/M2K, Sirlin's opinions on the best way to play to win don't seem to apply as much to smash as TKD's do, and therefore some of his philosophies don't apply.

 

[Pierce7d]

So what is the point of the OP? Having more conservative views makes you better? Is that the message you're trying to portray?

 

[etecoon]

I don't think that was really what he was getting at, but to be honest I'm not sure what he WAS trying to say

but I'm going to be the first and say that I think there is a correlation. I don't think it's an accident that more top players are conservative on stage opinions while half of the "lets legalize every stage!" all stars don't attend tournies.

 

[Kinetic]

Yeah I have no clue what this thread means. Sirlin wasn't meant to be analyzed so seriously I don't think. He's basically saying, "Don't *****, just play" in the end of things. I think M2K/ADHD/Everyone else all do that to some extent.

 

[Nidtendofreak]

tl;dr version:

Something something something Sirlin, something something conservative stage list ftw, with nothing really connecting the two.

 

[Lord Chair]

I don't understand how such a wall of text does not have a clear subject.

It feels like such a massive waste of effort on both the writer's and the reader's part.

 

[Luxor]

Someday I'm going to write a whole book as commentary on Sirlin from all the debates I've seen on this and other forums over the years.

 

[theunabletable]

Sorry it was written really late at night, so I probably wasn't as clear as I could have been.

I was saying that Sirlin's Playing to Win and his philosophies were made off of the assumption that his method of playing to win is the optimal way to play to win (his philosophies include not banning things unless they absolutely HAVE to be banned). If you can learn to win faster by banning gimmicky things that aren't necessarily broken in smash (evidenced by the fact that every single top player seems to have conservative views, and that a conservative smash is even more similar to the game that Sirlin primarily based his book on).

Why would we uphold philosophies (like ONLY ban something if it's completely broken) if the things that they are banned upon don't apply to this game, and it holds our metagame back? I mean doesn't that defeat the purpose of Playing to Win? If Sirlin's ideals and methods on optimally playing to win (again such as only banning something if it's completely broken) has far worse practical results than, say, the TKD mindset (where he does ban things somewhat subjectively, but this subjectivity seems to result in more skill throughout all rulesets), then why would we base our ruleset on it?

Why would we make our metagame worse because of using an inferior playing to win mentality and philosophy?

 

[Ripple]

because once you start banning things off of subjective thoughts such as " even though this stage hasn't been proven to gay, I think it is and I will ban it" then you will effectively cause the community the divide itself multiple times. no one would agree on how to play, where to play and the like. every tournament would have a different standard ( and even though this is what we have now based upon region, that's partly because of the BBR, we shouldn't).

using " only ban what's necessary" creates more objectivity. you can measure what's broken it you start with subjective criteria such as being X amount of characters or lose.

you're stating we should have

stage 1 subjective criteria

2/3 of the cast are rendered unviable to cause a ban on this

to...

stage 2 subjective

1/3 of the cast re rendered unviable, and even though we agreed on 2/3 I'm going to ban it

when sirlin is stating.

stage 1

subjective criteria

ban something that cause 2/3 of the characters to be useless.

to...

stage 2 objective

1/3 of the cast is rendered useless. oh well, not 2/3. no ban

 

[Nidtendofreak]

What do you consider a "top player"? Top player in each region? Top 32 at MLG? Have you actually gone around and polled them?

People who want a liberal stage list want more diversity. Oddly enough, MLG had a liberal stage list, and *gasp* we actually had a variety at every single MLG and it wasn't just MK/Snake/Diddy/Falcos in the top 16. We even had two Sonics place high!

Ability to use stages correctly is a skill: a skill that is impossible to remove from Brawl. It will always be there, unless you want to be even more limited than Japan because hey: Sonic and DK can do some crazy stuff on Yoshi's Island: Brawl. And right now, the actual results from large tournaments suggests that liberal stage lists are the way to go, regardless of what you're trying to suggest. I still don't really see how Sirlin fits in here, you're basically just saying "from my vague impression, not founded by actually asking the said people in the group, top level players like conservative stage lists".

 

[Life]

You have yet to explain exactly WHY Sirlin's ideas don't work for Smash.

Also, skill at what? Skill at throwing Diddy's bananas on FD?

Also, when did Smash become a traditional fighter?

Also, when did ad hominem prove, well, anything?

Also, since when did beating everybody prove your rules are the best? By your logic M2K writes the rules which means Diddy Kong tops the tier list?

Also, since when were liberal rulesets the "accepted" opinion as you claim it to be? It is far from so. Want proof? Compare Nova Scotia (most liberal ruleset I'm aware of, every CP stage is legal and they're testing banned/custom stages, although MK is banned there so...) to basically the rest of the world. If anything, you should be claiming "majority rule" logic. (Which is still semi-fallacious, there's minimal correlation between "good" and "popular" although I won't say there is none)

 

[theunabletable]

because once you start banning things off of subjective thoughts such as " even though this stage hasn't been proven to gay, I think it is and I will ban it" then you will effectively cause the community the divide itself multiple times. no one would agree on how to play, where to play and the like. every tournament would have a different standard ( and even though this is what we have now based upon region, that's partly because of the BBR, we shouldn't).

Or what about "I think that the players in our metagame will improve more, and faster, if we ban this stage, due to not needing to worry about gimmicks"

using " only ban what's necessary" creates more objectivity. you can measure what's broken it you start with subjective criteria such as being X amount of characters or lose.

What does objectivity matter when the players in our metagame are WORSE because of our attempts to be objective? Hell have nationals that use an objective ruleset that contains more stages. But being better, and getting more practice at, the PvP aspect of the game seems to be the optimal way to learn to be the best.

you're stating we should have

stage 1 subjective criteria

2/3 of the cast are rendered unviable to cause a ban on this

to...

stage 2 subjective

1/3 of the cast re rendered unviable, and even though we agreed on 2/3 I'm going to ban it

when sirlin is stating.

stage 1

subjective criteria

ban something that cause 2/3 of the characters to be useless.

to...

stage 2 objective

1/3 of the cast is rendered useless. oh well, not 2/3. no ban

Why is Sirlin's view the best way to go? It was made in a book about the optimal way to play to win, if his method of playing to win is wrong, doesn't that throw into question all of his philosophies on banning in regards to this game? Especially when the players who seem to have the best mentality disagree on what's the best way to advance the metagame?

What do you consider a "top player"? Top player in each region? Top 32 at MLG? Have you actually gone around and polled them?

The players who are definitely the best in the world. ADHD, M2K, TKD, Larry, Rich Brown, Ally I think, the Japanese.

Are you telling me that their method of playing to win and getting better at the game as a whole is incorrect? And why the **** do we have to make this an argument about symantics and who the top players are? You know who I'm talking about, don't make me waste the time listing them.

List some players at the level of the afforementioned ones who for sure think that ADHD, M2K's, TKDs, Larrys, etc mentality on banning is wrong.

People who want a liberal stage list want more diversity. Oddly enough, MLG had a liberal stage list, and *gasp* we actually had a variety at every single MLG and it wasn't just MK/Snake/Diddy/Falcos in the top 16. We even had two Sonics place high!

Apex was pretty diverse, IIRC.

Ability to use stages correctly is a skill: a skill that is impossible to remove from Brawl. It will always be there, unless you want to be even more limited than Japan because hey: Sonic and DK can do some crazy stuff on Yoshi's Island: Brawl. And right now, the actual results from large tournaments suggests that liberal stage lists are the way to go, regardless of what you're trying to suggest. I still don't really see how Sirlin fits in here, you're basically just saying "from my vague impression, not founded by actually asking the said people in the group, top level players like conservative stage lists".

The Japanese are limited? I'm not even going to bother. I'd say that we're more limited than the Japanese.

You have yet to explain exactly WHY Sirlin's ideas don't work for Smash.

Because they seem to be inferior to player's like TKD's ideas.

Also, skill at what? Skill at throwing Diddy's bananas on FD?

Skill at the basics. They seem to apply more to the rest of the game than anything else.

Also, when did Smash become a traditional fighter?

.

Also, when did ad hominem prove, well, anything?

What ad hominem arguments have I made?

Also, since when did beating everybody prove your rules are the best? By your logic M2K writes the rules which means Diddy Kong tops the tier list?

Whose play-to-win mentality is better in your opinion, M2K's/TKD's/Larry's/RichBrown's, or Ripple's/BPC's/Raziek's? Which one gets superior results? Which top players are as outspoken about the ideals that Ripple/BPC/Raziek try and uphold?

Also, since when were liberal rulesets the "accepted" opinion as you claim it to be?

Ehh you are right, in the real world it's not as accepted. But here on tactical (or w/e it's called now), anyone who talks about a conservative opinion instantly gets flamed by like 3 different liberal players.

Want proof? Compare Nova Scotia (most liberal ruleset I'm aware of, every CP stage is legal and they're testing banned/custom stages, although MK is banned there so...) to basically the rest of the world. If anything, you should be claiming "majority rule" logic. (Which is still semi-fallacious, there's minimal correlation between "good" and "popular" although I won't say there is none)

Yeah, compare the skill level of players from Nova Scotia and other liberal places to the skill level of, for instance, NY/NJ, SoCal, Tijuana, Japan, etc.

 

[ADHD]

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.

 

[Nidtendofreak]

The players who are definitely the best in the world. ADHD, M2K, TKD, Larry, Rich Brown, Ally I think, the Japanese.

Are you telling me that their method of playing to win and getting better at the game as a whole is incorrect? And why the **** do we have to make this an argument about symantics and who the top players are? You know who I'm talking about, don't make me waste the time listing them.

List some players at the level of the afforementioned ones who for sure think that ADHD, M2K's, TKDs, Larrys, etc mentality on banning is wrong.

1) Japan is irrelevant. Different mindset, different rules: you aren't comparing apples to apples. We are in NA and Europe: use NA and Europe examples.

2) And it does matter who you consider to be top players. For example, Xyro is an amazing player, but you don't see him place high because while he's amazing, he's using Samus. I'm positive he likes a more liberal stage list than the one you are leaning towards.

Apex was pretty diverse, IIRC.

For a conservative stage list sure. Not as much as the MLG tournaments though. That's also one tournament vs five tournaments.

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.

Most of use do play competitively, thank you very much. I've played at regional tournaments, Razeik and Ripple were at MLG Dallas, both me and Razeik plan on being at WHOBO3, ect. You're nick picking one guy really. I could nick pick at M2K and say that top level players are trash at theorycrafting and understanding actual match up ratios.

Yeah, compare the skill level of players from Nova Scotia and other liberal places to the skill level of, for instance, NY/NJ, SoCal, Tijuana, Japan, etc.

Nice job avoiding Texas. We like stages like Pictochat and a Texan won MLG Dallas.

And this really be in stage discussion: that's all that this is about.

 

[Sliq]

Did someone mention sirloin steak? Now all the Sonic mains are gonna flood the topic...

 

[Ripple]

Or what about "I think that the players in our metagame will improve more, and faster, if we ban this stage, due to not needing to worry about gimmicks"

what about " I think MK should get banned because MK is a gimmicky character that can literally win some match ups by pressing one button" players will get better because they have to worry about one less character. in fact why not ban ALL BUT ONE CHARACTER!? our players will improve in skill dramatically because they only have to know 1 matchup? lol

What does objectivity matter when the players in our metagame are WORSE because of our attempts to be objective? Hell have nationals that use an objective ruleset that contains more stages. But being better, and getting more practice at, the PvP aspect of the game seems to be the optimal way to learn to be the best.

can you prove we are worse?

Why is Sirlin's view the best way to go? It was made in a book about the optimal way to play to win, if his method of playing to win is wrong, doesn't that throw into question all of his philosophies on banning in regards to this game? Especially when the players who seem to have the best mentality disagree on what's the best way to advance the metagame?

it would....if he were wrong.

TKD has a scrub mentality. YES a scrub mentality WITH BRAWL he is trying to take out all PvS in this game. something that ONLY smash is known for. what TKD is effectively doing with his midset is turn this game into a traditional fighter. WHICH IT IS NOT. YOU CAN NOT TAKE OUT THE STAGE ELEMENT IN BRAWL.

The players who are definitely the best in the world. ADHD, M2K, TKD, Larry, Rich Brown, Ally I think, the Japanese.

don't you find it weird that all but one of them play a character that can only compete on flat ground?

Are you telling me that their method of playing to win and getting better at the game as a whole is incorrect? And why the **** do we have to make this an argument about symantics and who the top players are? You know who I'm talking about, don't make me waste the time listing them.

not entirely. but if they lose game 1, they have no hope in winning game 3 on a CP if they only practice neutrals

List some players at the level of the afforementioned ones who for sure think that ADHD, M2K's, TKDs, Larrys, etc mentality on banning is wrong.

top playes supporting a ruleset means no more than a bad player supporting a liberal stagelist.

don't even try and argue otherwise.

The Japanese are limited? I'm not even going to bother. I'd say that we're more limited than the Japanese.

they limit themselves to 3 stages. I'd say there are extremely limited

Because they seem to be inferior to player's like TKD's ideas.

"seem"

Skill at the basics. They seem to apply more to the rest of the game than anything else.

adapting to your environment to is basic skill also and no more important than spacing since they go hand in hand

Whose play-to-win mentality is better in your opinion, M2K's/TKD's/Larry's/RichBrown's, or Ripple's/BPC's/Raziek's? Which one gets superior results? Which top players are as outspoken about the ideals that Ripple/BPC/Raziek try and uphold?

mine

Ehh you are right, in the real world it's not as accepted. But here on tactical (or w/e it's called now), anyone who talks about a conservative opinion instantly gets flamed by like 3 different liberal players.

I wonder why conservatives are flamed so much?

Yeah, compare the skill level of players from Nova Scotia and other liberal places to the skill level of, for instance, NY/NJ, SoCal, Tijuana, Japan, etc.

maybe because NS has less players? maybe because NY/NJ. SoCAl have tournaments every single week and sometimes 2x a week and they have at least 4x as many players?

less players = less time to get to top level

 

[Tagxy]

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.

 

[theunabletable]

1) Japan is irrelevant. Different mindset, different rules: you aren't comparing apples to apples. We are in NA and Europe: use NA and Europe examples.

I'm saying that their mindset might be better.

2) And it does matter who you consider to be top players. For example, Xyro is an amazing player, but you don't see him place high because while he's amazing, he's using Samus. I'm positive he likes a more liberal stage list than the one you are leaning towards.

Alright so that's one liberal, very good player. Although I'm not that confident in how good he is since I never see amazing results out of him. I'd much prefer to see players who place like top 5 at nationals.

Nice job avoiding Texas. We like stages like Pictochat and a Texan won MLG Dallas.

And this really be in stage discussion: that's all that this is about.

Actually I think Pictochat is okay. I think it's a really good example of a stage that involves PvP, and requires good stage knowledge.

what about " I think MK should get banned because MK is a gimmicky character that can literally win some match ups by pressing one button" players will get better because they have to worry about one less character. in fact why not ban ALL BUT ONE CHARACTER!? our players will improve in skill dramatically because they only have to know 1 matchup? lol

Alright, prove it with results!

can you prove we are worse?

Well do you want my opinion on how good you and Raziek are after playing both of you? lol

it would....if he were wrong.

TKD has a scrub mentality. YES a scrub mentality WITH BRAWL he is trying to take out all PvS in this game. something that ONLY smash is known for. what TKD is effectively doing with his midset is turn this game into a traditional fighter. WHICH IT IS NOT. YOU CAN NOT TAKE OUT THE STAGE ELEMENT IN BRAWL.

Why not? He's better than everyone, and his mentality and how he practices is part of it.

don't you find it weird that all but one of them play a character that can only compete on flat ground?

Can only compete? Aren't they the ones who have done very well at liberal tournaments? Didn't ADHD even ****ing WIN one? And Rich got second at one? And didn't TKD win even when he got CP'd to gay stages? He's won like every SoCal tournament he's been to lately.

Can only compete on flat ground my ***.

not entirely. but if they lose game 1, they have no hope in winning game 3 on a CP if they only practice neutrals

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7EbULlx9ds

top playes supporting a ruleset means no more than a bad player supporting a liberal stagelist.

don't even try and argue otherwise.

I used to think the same thing. Then I started actually playing the game and playing on stages like SV constantly and personalyl learned why they are better for learning.

they limit themselves to 3 stages. I'd say there are extremely limited

I'd say we're limited for wasting our time on stages that take away from the more important PvP aspect of the game.

"seem"

Well atleast TKD's mentality has amazing results.

adapting to your environment to is basic skill also and no more important than spacing since they go hand in hand

Actually I think diverse stages for nationals is okay. You do get to test people's PvS abilities, but learning stages is something that can be done easier by yourself. Focusing on PvP-oriented stages seems to be better for actually learning how to play the game (so maybe locals and regionals should be more PvP oriented).

mine

lol'd.

I wonder why conservatives are flamed so much?

I wonder why liberals are more commonly bad at this game.

maybe because NS has less players? maybe because NY/NJ. SoCAl have tournaments every single week and sometimes 2x a week and they have at least 4x as many players?

less players = less time to get to top level

lol'd@SoCal having tournaments every single week.

I like how you know my scene better than I do.

And if quantity of tournaments are what matters, shouldn't you have been more difficult for me to beat? I mean I rarely go to tournaments, MLG was my first in like 2 months, and my third since May. I mean as a more personal example, shouldn't the characters I played against you have been ***** by you?

All my experience is from playing level 3 computers, I'd think if quantity of player practice mattered, you'd have done better than getting two stocked on SV by my MK that was playing on autopilot with no nado.

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.

Yeah.

 

[Steel_Samurai]

I think people that favor more conservative stagelists don't debate stages as much
When you see topics about stages, its usually someone saying "We should play every stage" or something like that, I think players that are conservative about stagelists don't really worry about learning stages, and just learn how to get better at the game

 

[Veel]

For everyone to read​

This thread has its' origin within a thread posted by Budget Player Cadet:

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=290839

TL;DR BPC made a wall of text to combat people continuously trying to undercut his and other's arguments by labeling them subjective. One of the main arguments of the "Liberals" was that they had a long history of gaming philosophy behind them, see Sirlin & friends. Theunabletable made a meta-observation that Sirlin's philosophy is based around 'winning' and this rule set they are trying to push contradicts with the beliefs of people who are actually winning.

At Theunabletable​

If people in general get better and more consistent at winning by following TKD’s philosophy on playing to win in Brawl

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...

Or am I wrong and we should just stunt the growth of our metagame to uphold the opinions of a street fighter player who doesn’t play smash

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

You can ignore this-(If you do not introduce new variables into the system: different players/update the game, then there a definite final state of a metagame(or rather a final cycle) once the game has been adequately explored and played to death. So the idea of a march of a progress for the metagame eventually hits a brick wall.)

I might be wrong, but it is certainly interesting to note that every super-liberal that I’ve played/seen play is bad, and all of the best players in the world hold conservative views. I mean wouldn’t that indicate that the conservative mindset is the best for, well, becoming the best? Sure, correlation=/=causation, but when those same players say that their way is the best, and give reasoning for it (which is often disregarded because it contradicts the widely accepted, and seemingly inferior method, AND they prove it by beating everyone EVEN WITH liberal rulesets, wouldn’t that seem to indicate that they’re doing it right, and their way is the most optimal way?

What makes a good brawl player? someone who plays the game A LOT and has a good bit a natural skill. What is the make-up of a Liberal rule set crafter; how do they come up with such unusual rules? Someone who thinks about the game/rule set, and discusses it A LOT (NO LIFE LOLOLOLOL <_<.) With this in mind let me propose a possibility: great players don't waste their time theory crafting about the rule set a ton but they do have a lot practical experience and have a good amount of game knowledge; thus they will most likely craft rule sets with a common sense perspective and with a certain proclivity towards themselves. Alternatively Liberal rule set crafters think a lot about the rule set but are probably not the best players; consequently they will come up with novel rule set ideas that have a strong logical basis but may or may not be the most practical.

The point isn't that Liberal rule sets are correct (I highly disagree with BPC criteria of "takes the most skill is best" personally) but that it is illicit to assume the conservatives have crafted a rule set that breeds the best players; as you stated yourself correlation does not equal causation. (furthermore, a great deal of Sirlin writings mainly pertain to how one should play at the individual level and are brilliant, however I don't think we should necessarily accept his approach to crafting rule sets because of this.)

PS- On a side note you seem to view liberal stages as basically deciding matches and completely taking away from what you consider to be base game play. It is kind of a hard thing to argue but while the stages do make a difference the main determent of who wins on these stages is still one's 'base game play'. You are almost approaching the stages like they are a completely foreign skill altogether from base game play but they really are not; they are and will always be an inherent part of the game and while some stage obviously shouldn't be used (Temple) there are some stages that the conservative rule sets ban without reason (Pokemon Stadium 2). I don't think I've done this point justice but at least consider it, and know I suck at writing >_<.

 

[Jack Kieser]

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.

This thread is ********. Unabletable is just trying to purposefully misconstrue and mislead people into thinking that Sirlin's books are written from the perspective of a SF player. They are not. In fact, if you actually READ THE ARTICLES, they reference many different fighters, as well as games that AREN'T EVEN FIGHTING GAMES.

Unabletable, you should be ashamed of yourself. This thread should be locked, because the OP is a blatant LIE, straight up.

 

[Veel]

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

nerd rage!~

 

[Jack Kieser]

Unabletable spouting misinformed babble in other threads is one thing; it's usually in the form of a discussion, so if he's uninformed, we simply try to inform him, no harm, no foul. But, slander / liable doesn't just apply to negative remarks; they apply to ANY dishonesty when presenting factual information about a person, place, or thing.

And this OP is straight up a lie.

I haven't even READ the rest of the thread, because I shouldn't have to. Even a cursory glance at Sirlin's site could disprove the whole premise of the thread, and yet people are responding to it as thought this is a legitimate point of debate. It's not. And, it worries me that moderators with whom I've actively debated Sirlin's works haven't closed this thread yet, because I know for a FACT that they should know how much of a lie unabletable is trying to pass off as truth. It's really, really worrying me.

So, this is not simple "nerd rage"; I get this angry whenever I head Fox News spout off some equally slanderous BS on TV. I'm not angry because I'm a nerd; I'm angry because the community is being actively fed bull****, and I don't like it.

 

[Tagxy]

lol at jacks rage posts.

Also misleading that a philosophy on competitive gaming doesnt apply to a game designed to not be competitive

 

[Blacknight99923]

I am seriously disappointed at jack kaisers reaction to this........

 

[Jack Kieser]

lol at jacks rage posts.

Also misleading that a philosophy on competitive gaming doesnt apply to a game designed to not be competitive

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. Sirlin's works and writings applied to Melee, didn't they? No one would have even asserted otherwise 2 years ago. But, somehow Brawl doesn't apply? I call foul.

Again, developer's intent is in no way indicative of how a game can, should, or will be played.

Also, why can people still not spell my name right? Coming up on 3 years I've been a poster. Just a note.

 

[Luxor]

It can be played competitively just fine though, even if it is unbalanced.

And Sirlin's book is about 2 ENTIRELY separate topics: playing to win (as a player) and designing to balance (as a community/developer). This thread may be titled against the "playing to win" half, but it's not- we're not arguing "play to learn" or "play to have fun." We're arguing about Sirlin's less obvious and clear-cut and more monumental and discussed topic, game balance. I wish this thread was renamed "Designing to Win," since that's what it's about.

Also +1 respect to Jack for knowing what's going on and standing up for the truth against the mob.

 

[Life]

Or am I wrong and we should just stunt the growth of our metagame to uphold the opinions of a street fighter player who doesn’t play smash?

I might be wrong, but it is certainly interesting to note that every super-liberal that I’ve played/seen play is bad, and all of the best players in the world hold conservative views.

Maybe I'm missing the point of Sirlin's guide to playing to win, but based on everything in it, and how it's portrayed, it really seems to be a guide on the optimal way to play to win in competitive games, and if it's inferior to the players who are BEST at the game's method of playing to win

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.

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.

(Fine, that's ADHD not you. Still applies. And fine, this and the below were after my post. Doesn't matter.)

I used to think the same thing. Then I started actually playing the game and playing on stages like SV constantly and personalyl learned why they are better for learning.

I'd say we're limited for wasting our time on stages that take away from the more important PvP aspect of the game.

Well atleast TKD's mentality has amazing results.

Actually I think diverse stages for nationals is okay. You do get to test people's PvS abilities, but learning stages is something that can be done easier by yourself. Focusing on PvP-oriented stages seems to be better for actually learning how to play the game (so maybe locals and regionals should be more PvP oriented).

I wonder why liberals are more commonly bad at this game.

All the bold are ad hominem/appeal to authority in some way, shape, or form. I probably missed some.

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?

 

[Tagxy]

Melee was not designed to be competitive. Brawl was designed to not be competitive. Anyways, Im sure if the cult of serlin ever played melee () theyd find a way to complain about things there too. Let me know when serlin writes the book on how to turn a game thats built on the philosophy of utilitarianism into something competitive.

 

[Life]

Better yet, why don't we write that book ourselves? /trollface

 

[Tagxy]

Thats essentially what we have to do. Some people cant seem to understand that.

 

[Tesh]

So is Sirlin the official religion of Smashboards or something? Is he God? How exactly does citing his principles make you more right than someone else?

 

[Ripple]

Melee was not designed to be competitive. Brawl was designed to not be competitive. Anyways, Im sure if the cult of serlin ever played melee () theyd find a way to complain about things there too. Let me know when serlin writes the book on how to turn a game thats built on the philosophy of utilitarianism into something competitive.

I honestly don't know who this was directed at

 

[Luxor]

Sirlin's principles are global, you know.

@Tesh- It doesn't. Thoughtful and studied application of his ideas to the situation at hand makes you right because the ideas are basically sound.

And Sirlin is a god.

 

[Jack Kieser]

So is Sirlin the official religion of Smashboards or something? Is he God? How exactly does citing his principles make you more right than someone else?

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.

 

[CR4SH]

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

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

 

[AfroQT]

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.

THREAD MVP I WISH I HAD A TROPHY TO HAND YOU

 

[Veel]

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

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

They actually did this in the original thread but I think... ADHD? (my bad if this wasn't you bro) argued that war was a false analogy and did not apply so they focused on Sirlin.