Legality SMASH BOXX

[dxlta]

Howdy! I'm sure you're tired of hearing about this damn box, and how it could become a reality if $10k is donated in the next 10 days, but here is an idea that I came up with for determining the legality of the boxx: leave it up to the opponent. Why? Instead of some TO completely banning it, we could leave it up to the opposite player as to whether or not they should be able to use it or not, and this means that they cannot solely practice on a boxx, they need to know how to use a regular controller as well, in case the opponent says no. Now, this could cause problems, ie people bribing others just to PLAY with the boxx. This is just my suggestion, and was wondering if anybody else in the community had any other suggestions!

Also, though the account is new, I am not a new player. I forgot the password to my old SmashBoards account and had to make this one, though I'm sure nobody cares.

 

[iAmMatt]

I think this is extremely broken because some people can't use a gamecube controller. The ergonomics of the gamecube controller are so bad that it actually hurts some players to hold it. Forcing someone to use a gamecube controller is like forcing a sf player to use a ps4 controller instead of a stick, or forcing a guitar hero player to use a wii remote. It just isn't right. Some controllers are developed for specific games, while the controller that comes with the console is meant to play all games. That's why controllers such as fighting sticks and guitars are developed, to make playing the game more comfortable and immersive.

 

[Dolla Pills]

Well something like that I would imagine tends to create pressure on the opponent if they don't want the other player to use a box controller, plus they may even face community backlash for denying someone cause stuff like that tends to happen. Plus, I can't imagine a lesser player would feel comfortable telling a pro that they can't use their box. You might argue that in these instances the player should just grow a spine but that's kinda bs because those things definitely affect most people, if not everyone.

 

[Stride]

That idea is ridiculous. Either the controller is deemed fair and therefore everyone should be able to use it, or it's deemed unfair and no-one should be able to use it.
The fact that you're suggesting that SmashBox/B0XX players deserve an arbitrary penalty for their choice of controller means you think the controller is unfair, so why allow it at all?

You can't expect a player who wants to use an alternative controller to practice on multiple controller types and switch between them repeatedly mid-tournament based purely on their opponent's whims, even if it didn't takes huge amount of practice to get the muscle memory down for either type of controller, or if the different controllers didn't have their own advantages and disadvantages (which are also matchup-dependent to an extent), so this is effectively a ban on the alternative controllers anyway. It also creates situations where a player can arbitrarily make their opponent switch to a GameCube controller when they've been using an alternative controller in their last set just to throw them off, regardless of their opinion on the controller itself (though that shouldn't be a factor either; again, the ruleset decides what controllers are legal, not whatever opponent you're playing). It's no different from forcing players who play certain characters to switch to a different one if their opponent says so.

The title is correct for neither of the options available right now; there's the SmashBox and the B0XX.

 

[-ACE-]

Yeah... Too many people would deny their opponent simply to gain an edge if they knew they always practiced on the boxx. Gentlemen's clause just can't work because of this, although I can see there are good intentions behind it.

Imo the gamecube controller is the most ergonomic controller ever constructed. The amount of people that experience pain simply from holding the controller is virtually negligible.

Tapping buttons for multiple SDI inputs, as opposed to slamming the stick and being extremely fast and accurate in doing so, is a huge advantage. SDI is more important in today's meta than ever before. Accuracy with the stick is, IMHO, the most important skill in melee. If you aren't accurate with the stick, you aren't a good player. With the smash boxx, this skill is virtually no longer tested for in tournament.

I believe the smash boxx is a good thing for players in a position like Hax, who via doctor recommendation cannot use the standard controller. However i think it would be better for the community if another controller was designed that is more ergonomic for a players hands and wrists, without placing certain buttons significantly closer to one another (which would provide an inherent advantage). I would not see this new controller as a problem from a legal standpoint, as the difference would be comparable to the difference between a standard gamecube controller and a Mad Catz controller (which essentially no one has a problem with).

The problem with my view is that from a practical standpoint, it is nonsensical to enforce a rule requiring proof of a doctor's recommendation, not to mention a doctor's recommendation would be easy as **** to obtain simply by telling them that you are experiencing pain with one controller and not with another. It's almost like Adderall, since in theory, only those with a prescription should be allowed to use it, however many people who have a prescription for the drug in reality don't need it (it is one of the most over-prescribed drugs in America). It is for this reason that I feel when it comes to Adderall, a "don't ask, don't tell" policy is best.

The difference is, while no one can tell you're using Adderall (unless you're either abnormally extremely quiet or talkative and it's 8pm and you haven't eaten all day and you exclaim that you still aren't hungry, lmao), everyone can obviously see you're using the smash boxx. We, as a community, have to ask ourselves a number of questions, which include but are not limited to the following:

"Do we want to significantly change the physical/technical skillset that we have always tested for in tournament?"

"Do we want to make (virtually) super-human SDI a much more common occurence in the meta-game?"

"Since the smash boxx is so far against the standard, are we willing to open the door for any and all types of controllers to be used in melee?"

Legality is a slippery slope, especially when their is no organization or elected committee to oversee or determine what is suitable and sensible regarding tournament play, from both a competitive standpoint, and for what is best for the future of the game and our community. If you allow an inch, a mile will soon be taken. This is another reason why I do not like significantly deviating from the standard (another reason being that it has been in place for 15 years).

As you open the door for any and all controllers, you also open the door for new intentions. Many people want to see the smash boxx become legal so that players who experience pain using the standard controller can compete. This is a sensible, honorable, and selfless view. However, by introducing such a change, we will also be opening the door for people to use new controllers specifically designed to make multiple aspects of the game easier in order for the competitor to gain a competitive advantage in tournament. Then, whether anyone likes to admit it or not, we will have begun to have one's ability to obtain a good controller be a "skill" we test for in tournament. Players who cannot obtain one of these controllers for whatever reason will be starting off with an inherent competitive disadvantage. The days of buying a gamecube and a gamecube controller and being able to enter a tournament on an even playing field with all other competitors will be over.

Many people do not have the foresight to anticipate the consequences and ramifications of making a change like this. I urge everyone to think about this extremely thoroughly before developing your stance. Keep in mind that I have only began to brush upon the consequences of making this change.

This is not the only option. This should NOT be a "yay or nay" discussion. We must concisely identify the problem (primarily hand pain), and as a community, brainstorm for solutions that yield minimal negative consequences.

 

[iAmMatt]

who via doctor recommendation cannot use the standard controller

Perhaps the boxx should be assigned as a prescription controller

EDIT: I was joking

 

[-ACE-]

Perhaps the boxx should be assigned as a prescription controller

You'd get the prescription in a heartbeat, doctors will instantly recommend you use the controller that doesn't hurt you. Pain is subjective... tell them it's a 10/10 and you'll get percocet. Tell them it's 3/10 and they'll say get some ibuprofen. When it comes to pills they use their experience and 6th sense to determine your honestly due to the potential for drug abuse. With a controller they have nothing to lose, and would see no reason for you to lie, they'd just write you the script. And it would seem crazy to ask to see a player's script lol.

Edit: should have known you were joking, but just in case i always try to entertain anyone's thoughts as sincere lol.

 

[TheSilentAmp]

Just as a side note.

In the entire history of fighting games, the winner of a match has never been decided by the controller they use. There are benefits and tradeoffs to every controller, and it will always come down to what your personal preference is.

Nobody is arguing that SDI and the perfect wavedash/shield drop angles won't make these techs easier. But if you're expecting this means that players who were going 0-2 before will suddenly win more, you're out of your mind.

Let's look to another community as an example: The FGC. It was debated for quite a long time which is the best controller to use for optimal performance. Fight sticks allow you to be infinitely more precise, and the Hitbox allowed for even more precision and consistent tech skill. And yet all of these are allowed, and none of these make a player win. What makes a player win is how good they are at the game. If there was a player that was getting 1st or 2nd at a tournament with a Hitbox, and he was equally as comfortable on a pad controller, he'd still get 1st or 2nd. Similarly, the Jim at your local who goes 0-2 every time is still going to go 0-2 even with the Smashbox. To claim otherwise is doing so in the face of overwhelming evidence to support the opposite of your claim.

 

[-ACE-]

In the entire history of fighting games, the winner of a match has never been decided by the controller they use.

This statement is completely irrelevant, as it is impossible to prove that the controller is the reason the winner got that last perfect wd oos which netted them that grab that started the death combo on the last stock, or that the ease of SDI with the smash boxx is what allowed that puff player to SDI out of 5 fox uthrow uairs on the last stock and eventually win, or something of the like. The results are not quantifiable, but it doesn't mean they don't exist. It's undeniable that the advantages provided by certain controllers and controller modifications aid in players' ability to both survive and take stocks; both which aid in winning games. And the above examples are only of last stock situations where the aid in determining the outcome of a match is more obvious to see. The many advantages you gain before the last stock all matter as well, and can single handedly change the outcome of a match or set, as melee is like the butterfly effect, in that the outcome of one exchange can have a significant impact on the rest of the match or even the set. Achieving a much higher level of consistency in successfully performing several kinds of importants techs is something that helps players throughout the entire set; it is just something that cannot be measured (anyone could easily say "oh, I wouldn't have missed that perfect wavedash, notch or no notch" or "I would've SDI'd out of that fox uair with a standard controller also", and there is no way to prove them right or wrong).

There are benefits and tradeoffs to every controller, and it will always come down to what your personal preference is.

It's not that simple. Imagine a controller that had certain buttons much closer to one another which allowed certain techs to be performed more easily. There is a tradeoff, as the chances of accidentally hitting 2 buttons simultaneously would increase, but it really can't be argued that moving the Y button closer to the B button wouldn't make multi-shining easier (I am not saying the ability to multi-shine consistently wins games, this is just an example), in the same way that it can't be argued that putting the jump buttons 3 inches farther away from the B button wouldn't make multi-shining more difficult. Despite the obvious tradeoff that will always result from any change, some changes provide an obvious inherent advantage on a practical level.

Nobody is arguing that SDI and the perfect wavedash/shield drop angles will make these techs easier.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. However I am not opposed to shield drop notches, as the idea behind creating them is sensible (as it restores an ability that the controller should have had in the first place).

But if you're expecting this means that players who were going 0-2 before will suddenly win more, you're out of your mind.

This is irrelevant, as the introduction of a new controller or controller modification doesn't need to guarantee a win to be considered inappropriate for competitve play given the circumstances.

I have already demonstrated how comparing melee to the FGC is beginning to compare apples to oranges. The process of determining whether or not something is appropriate for competitive play should be much more complex than "does it magically make the player win more or place higher?"

There are already numerous mods and controllers that are banned, none of which guarantee that a player will win more often than he would without using said controller or controller mod.

I have seen these points mentioned before by several other players, and I think they do a good job of highlighting why we need to put more thought into this issue as a community.

 

[TheSilentAmp]

This statement is completely irrelevant, as it is impossible to prove that the controller is the reason the winner got that last perfect wd oos which netted them that grab that started the death combo on the last stock, or that the ease of SDI with the smash boxx is what allowed that puff player to SDI out of 5 fox uthrow uairs on the last stock and eventually win, or something of the like. The results are not quantifiable, but it doesn't mean they don't exist. It's undeniable that the advantages provided by certain controllers and controller modifications aid in players ability to both survive and take stocks; both which aid in winning games. And the above examples are only of last stock situations where the aid in determining the outcome of a match is more obvious to see. The many advantages you gain before the last stock all matter as well, and can single handedly change the outcome of a match or set, as melee is like the butterfly effect, in that the outcome of one exchange can have a significant impact on the rest of the match or even the set. Achieving a much higher level of consistency in successful performing several kinds of importants techs is something that helps players throughout the entire set; it is just something that cannot be measured (anyone could easily say "oh, I wouldn't have missed that perfect wavedash, notch or no notch" or "I would've SDI'd out of that fox uair with a standard controller also", and there is no way to prove them right or wrong).



It's not that simple. Imagine a controller that had certain buttons much closer to one another which allowed certain techs to be performed more easily. There is a tradeoff, as the chances of accidentally hitting 2 buttons simultaneously would increase, but it really can't be argued that moving the Y button closer to the B button wouldn't make multi-shining easier (I am not saying the ability to multi-shine consistently wins games, this is just an example), in the same way that it can't be argued that putting the jump buttons 3 inches farther away from the B button wouldn't make multi-shining more difficult. Despite the obvious tradeoff that will always result from any change, some changes provide an obvious inherent advantage on a practical level.



Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. However I am not opposed to shield drop notches, as the idea behind creating them is sensible (as it restores an ability that the controller should have had in the first place).



This is irrelevant, as the introduction of a new controller or controller modification doesn't need to guarantee a win to be considered inappropriate for competitve play given the circumstances.

I have already demonstrated how comparing melee to the FGC is beginning to compare apples to oranges. The process of determining whether or not something is appropriate for competitive play should be much more complex than "does it magically make the player win more or place higher?"

There are already numerous mods and controllers that are banned, none of which guarantee that a player will win more often than he would without using said controller or controller mod.

I have seen these points mentioned before by several other players, and I think they do a good job of highlighting why we need to put more thought into this issue as a community.

Thank you for reminding me to change my typo. I meant to say "Nobody is arguing such and such WON'T make these techs easier. Whoops, kinda shifts that whole argument.

The rest of my argument still stands though. Your argument is essentially boiling down to "Well, these aren't actually all that similar (even though that wasn't the point, and even then you're still kinda wrong)".

Is there anything bannable about the Smashbox itself. Does it use macros? If your answer is: Yes, a modifier is not a macro. If the answer is: No. Then why have it banned? What is the point if you know nobody is gonna win without it? All you're doing by keeping this ultra-conservative mindset is keeping out players who would like a more comfortable controller for them.

And before you mention the whole slippery slope argument, remember. Enough is enough when one button press stops being one action (AKA macros).

 

[Dolla Pills]

Well it doesn't use macros but there is analog to digital conversion and on the b0xx version there is both that and an analog stick, so the same input is mapped multiple times. Furthermore, the smashbox allows things that the GameCube controller does not, such as practically inhuman SDI, full 1.0 stick input values, the ability to shield drop in one frame without preparing for it, pivot up tilt, and so on. Now, the smashbox does have some drawbacks, but allowing the smashbox will open the gate of very complex GameCube controller modding which would be inaccessible to most players yet completely meta changing at the top level when given enough time. All this for a controller that may or may not be more ergonomic seems quite unreasonable

Examples of things you could do with some GameCube controller mods:
- perfect angle buttons for wavedash and firefox
- shield drop button
- full dash buttons which are superior to a controller's dash and add trivially easy pivoting
- buttons for easy mashable SDI
- down tilt/ up tilt buttons so pivot tilting becomes free
- a pedal that you can hit with your feet to make sure you are always crouch cancelling / ASDI'ing down
- a button to enable / disable tap jump
And so on. These aren't macros, but do we really want to introduce controllers that would cost hundreds of dollars that could do this? If anything that's just going to increase the entry barrier because now people who want to be competitive at high/top levels will feel the need to buy one, which is not to mention the cost of maintenance or updated models

 

[-ACE-]

The rest of my argument still stands though.

No offense, but I didn't think you made much of an argument. I explained in detail how most of what you said is inarguably irrelevant. There is nothing wrong with your opinion, mind you. You just need to stay away from statements similar to "a controller has never decided the outcome of a match" or "it doesn't matter what advantages it provides as there is always a tradeoff" or "it won't magically make you win". There are better ways to support your opinion. I haven't made any claims aside from pointing out some of the consequences of introducing such a change to controller legality, and saying the community needs to work together to find a solution that yields the least negative consequences regarding competitive play and the future of melee and our community.

Your argument is essentially boiling down to "Well, these aren't actually all that similar (even though that wasn't the point, and even then you're still kinda wrong)".

I'm sorry, I don't get what you're saying. My bad.

All you're doing by keeping this ultra-conservative mindset is keeping out players who would like a more comfortable controller for them

Do you really think I'm doing that? Has the 15 year standard (an extremely ergonomic controller) really been that mean to so many people? Is supporting shield drop notches, non-Nintendo controllers (like Mad Catz), and most case mods "ultra-conservative"? It is important to realize just how far this change goes against the standard.

And before you mention the whole slippery slope argument, remember. Enough is enough when one button press stops being one action (AKA macros)

The slippery slope is a fact of determining legality. It's not an argument. I am merely shedding light on its existence because it doesn't seem like many people can foresee the consequences of introducing this type of change.

You're asserting that line as fact, when it is just your opinion. There is no universal agreement that only macros are ban worthy.

 

[-ACE-]

Interesting video.

https://youtu.be/wAfLlDFp-Cg

Part 2 will be Hax's argument on legality. If i don't agree with him, I will state my opinions here soon after the video's release.

 

[Onoh]

Bear with me now I'm a pleb.

I just have a few questions:

I don't quite fully understand ALL of the digital/analog argument. Yes, the b0xx or Smashbox allows for actions that can never be performed on a Gamecube controller or actions that take extreme practice. There's even actual in-game differences such as dash speed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uumlWSUqPk: Leffen's video). What I don't understand is why other fighting games are able to allow both digital and analog controls. The Street Fighter games on PS allow for both pad and stick usage in tournaments. I have not played SF for long periods of time, but through watching tournaments it is obvious that sticks are much more popular. So, one like myself can infer that there are benefits in playing with that specific controller. So, if this is possible in SF, why can't it be possible in Melee? I haven't done a great amount of research on this so there might be an obvious answer.

Another question is why can't something like these controllers become the new "standard"? This change would be huge in the scene and would also be terrifying to some if this does turn out to be better than the Gamecube controller function wise. The GCC has been used for going on 16 years in the game's history so this would be a huge shift for veterans. But, if you love the game, why not by the best possible equipment in order to play better?

Also, I completely understand that controller mods can be unwanted in the community. If there is something completely game-breaking, I am against that. Right now, the b0xx and Smashbox don't seem to do anything insane unless something went over my head. If controllers like these do become legal, there will have to be guidelines in order for them to fit with the rules.

Bottom line, I feel this is a strange and enticing argument that will not be settled for a while. Still, with looking at how SF handles its controller legality, it's strange that I haven't seen this referenced as much as I thought it would or people stating how Smash is just too different to have the same thought process as SF (which could be entirely correct).

I'm not as smart as some people on here so I hope someone can enlighten me.

 

[-ACE-]

The FGC simply doesn't have the long time standard we do.

I'm not opposed to all analog/digital conversions. I actually really wish the GC stick was analog up until the stick made contact with the gate, and then became digital. This way, backdashes would be guaranteed but there still would be a speed requirement. It's BS to slam the stick backwards hard AF and not get a backdash. It's also BS to tap a button at any moment and get the backdash for free as well.

I don't think it should become the standard because:

superhuman SDI- making it much easier to hit various sequences of multiple SDI inputs, and introducing the ability to SDI twice in the same direction for a ton of moves, as well as 3 or even 4 times for multi-hitbox moves, making numerous combos escapable at any spacing, which creates more risk than reward for aggression and having an aggressive punish game, which will eventually deter it.

Superhuman mashing out of grab. Forget the days of practicing spiraling the stick and swyping your thumb laterally in an attempt to get 1 directional input and 1 button input per frame as much as possible. Now just take both hands and almost brainlessly spam buttons and you will mash out of grab much faster than ever before.

Eliminating the most important skill in melee: accuracy with the control stick. Angles are guaranteed by the press of a button, difficult technical maneuvers become stupidly easier, and the speed requirement for using the stick is eliminated as well. Perfect pivots, perfect backdashes, perfect wavedashes, perfect recovery angles, etc etc. We will be DRASTICALLY changing the skillset we test for in tournament, as well as dumbing down the technical aspect of a game that countless people fell in love with for that very reason.

The slippery slope of legality isn't an argument, it's a fact. This will open the door for tons of new controllers as well as new intentions for making them. The people who make them know new players are stoked over innovation, and especially anything that will give them a competitive advantage for tournament (not to mention they know they can make a ton of money, an entirely different shady aspect to the whole ordeal). When a new tech comes to the forefront and becomes popular, for an old school player it's just one more thing to master, but for new players, although the metagame is at their fingertips and they already have it MUCH, MUCH easier than people who started 10 years ago, they are getting everything thrown at them at once and it is a lot to learn. It can be overwhelming. So they want to take any shortcuts they can. Practicing isn't as fun as winning. It's almost like taking diet pills instead of exercising and eating right imo. People will soon be pushing the limit as far as they possibly can to make the game easier to play. It's not anti-meta to think players should conquer similar obstacles to reach a certain level of skill. This is going far past being a solution for hand pain and it's an extremely grimey trend imo.

Lots of people say "well it isn't game-breaking" or "it doesn't magically make you win" or "no controller has ever determined the outcome of a match" or "it's a tradeoff". These statements are all 100% irrelevant. Honestly more people should ask themselves why they feel there is basically a universal standard that macros should be banned. You'll find the same reasons apply to several other mods. I don't see how so many people honestly feel that if it doesn't guarantee a win, it's ok. I mean think about that statement. They might not actually feel that way but this is exactly what they say. They should just be honest with themselves. They should just say they like the mod, they would rather make the game easier than practice hard, and they don't care about how much the game changes.... not defend it with ridiculous statements and flawed logic.

I don't like the fact that one's ability to obtain a heavily modified controller could soon be a skill tested for in tournament. Hybrid gate is already a sad reality if you ask me (aside from shield drop notches). I'd rather have a tournament test how good you are at the game. But that's just me.

 

[vegeta18]

I wanted to ask about your opinions on programmable angles? shaun mentioned that the alpha release of the smashbox will have software which allows you to program certain angles,do you think this could cause the controller to be illegal? would this be considered a macro?

 

[Spak]

What I don't understand is why other fighting games are able to allow both digital and analog controls. The Street Fighter games on PS allow for both pad and stick usage in tournaments. I have not played SF for long periods of time, but through watching tournaments it is obvious that sticks are much more popular. So, one like myself can infer that there are benefits in playing with that specific controller. So, if this is possible in SF, why can't it be possible in Melee? I haven't done a great amount of research on this so there might be an obvious answer.

I've always thought the reason that traditional fighters are allowed to competitively use both sticks and controllers is because they were made for both. The game designers made (most of) the games to be played with a stick, and then allowed controller usage on the home ports of the game for accessibility and convenience (because not everyone has a stick lying around at home. Melee, on the other hand, never had any sort of arcade release and was made with exclusively the GC controller in mind.

Introducing the stick would make choosing the standard controller an automatic disadvantage (because the stick was intentionally designed was made in a way that would make a lot of Melee tech much easier), and all experienced players would be forced to re-learn the tech skill they've been grinding for years on a completely different periferial. It'd be a huge barrier for any decently high-level player, since they'd be mechanically closer to someone who's never touched a controller before than their current skill. They'd likely feel like they wasted hundreds of hours of their lives, since the controller they've used for over a decade is now null and void.

There's strong evidence throughout the gaming world that some types of periferials are superior for some types of games (for example, a lot of multi-platform FPSs aren't cross-platform because the mouse and keyboard are far superior for those types of games, meaning putting someone with a controller in a game with someone using a mouse and keyboard would be inherently unfair). Any possible element that starts two competitors on uneven ground when they walk up to a setup should be eliminated, as that eliminates the whole purpose of the competition being a test if skill.

Lastly, making the stick standard would make our already poor casual accessibility even worse. If a stick became standard, people would have to a specialized fighting stick before even attempting to try competitive Melee, since any muscle memory they learned on controller would be null and void.

EDIT: In order to not completely de-rail the conversation, I'll address this as well:

I wanted to ask about your opinions on programmable angles?

That sounds like a ban-worthy trait to me. Like Ace said, control over the stick in Melee is huge. If one could press a button and get the perfect angle that they wanted every single time, that'd give them an edge over someone if a similar skill level using a controller (although how much of an edge it'd give would likely depend upon the level of play).

 

[vegeta18]

i just started a discord server if ppl would like to join and discuss live

https://discord.gg/YpjmcHr

 

[Skwrl]

If someone can't use a regular Gamecube controller, what is the issue with letting them use a different controller. Like it was said above, using a box doesn't automatically mean you are going to win. Think of the learning that will need to occur. All movements must once again be converted to muscle memory. This takes time and dedication.

 

[-ACE-]

If someone can't use a regular Gamecube controller, what is the issue with letting them use a different controller. Like it was said above, using a box doesn't automatically mean you are going to win. Think of the learning that will need to occur. All movements must once again be converted to muscle memory. This takes time and dedication.

Answer this.

Upon reaching the point where something needs to be done about GC controller analog inconsistencies, why was it automatically decided that ALL analog sticks are bad? Actually all sticks (including digital) period? Why did they automatically eliminate the stick? Would a smashbox with a consistently working stick not solve the problem of hand pain, controller variance, and cater to people who play other fighters? Melee was created based on a control stick. We are having one option shoved down our throats when it is only one option of many. Ever since the introduction of hybrid gate, we've effectively breeched the line of making controllers perform as they should and started thinking of ways to make melee's tech easier, as well as coming up with reasons to justify it. This happened with virtually no discussion or opposition (that had a voice anyway). Not a good trend from a competitive standpoint.