Standardized Ruleset Development Idea

[LiteralGrill]

I guess but I feel that this just doesn't seem optimal as of the moment. Maybe if their were more legal stages I could see it work. But I would still prefer just doing that for the first round, have all legal stages as starters for the first round then people in that round do strikes till one is left and that ius the stage done for the first round, then they do the counter picking. I don't really considered it unfair when doing a cp since that is kinda like the idea of cping, to get an advantadge over your opponent who won the previous round, ya know. But that might just be me. lol

Oh, the median is only really needed for the first match, that match IS the most important and we want to ensure it is as fair as possible.

The reasons you'd want some out are if for some reason one character is WAY too good on them. (People would say MK on Rainbow Cruise and Norfair for example) so they couldn't have both, but not have that taken away from characters who don't "break the stage". It's not fair to take the stage away fro characters good there just because one causes the problem. (In theory, that just means the character is awesome and a stage shouldn't be banned because it helps/hurts a character, but that's a whole other subject that isn't easy to talk about.)

 

[mimgrim]

Oh, the median is only really needed for the first match, that match IS the most important and we want to ensure it is as fair as possible.

The reasons you'd want some out are if for some reason one character is WAY too good on them. (People would say MK on Rainbow Cruise and Norfair for example) so they couldn't have both, but not have that taken away from characters who don't "break the stage". It's not fair to take the stage away fro characters good there just because one causes the problem. (In theory, that just means the character is awesome and a stage shouldn't be banned because it helps/hurts a character, but that's a whole other subject that isn't easy to talk about.)

Well MK seems to be the character that has an insane advantadge on certain stages, which is one of the reasons why they are banned as MK defines the meta game basically. But take my region for example, RC is allowed as a CP but MK is not allowed to play on RC. So if a character really has the big of an advantadge on a certain stage wouldn't just be better to not let that character play on that stage? I dunno, I'm still fairly new to the competitive scene so maybe I dunno what I am talking about. :C

 

[LiteralGrill]

Well MK seems to be the character that has an insane advantadge on certain stages, which is one of the reasons why they are banned as MK defines the meta game basically. But take my region for example, RC is allowed as a CP but MK is not allowed to play on RC. So if a character really has the big of an advantadge on a certain stage wouldn't just be better to not let that character play on that stage? I dunno, I'm still fairly new to the competitive scene so maybe I dunno what I am talking about. :C

Hey, don't feel bad about being new, we all were at some point.

I haven't seen that rule with RC in a long time, it is one way to deal with it yes Used to be fairly common I think. MK does cause a lot of problems, and I guess everyone has their own way to deal with them.

 

[Ghostbone]

Now, tell me how the game was meant to be played on almost only static stages, and only designed around recovery. This chart would like to have a word with you. This game has ways to test you on MANY skills. If you personally prefer to put focus on the recovery mechanic it is your choice, but the game focused on BOTH.

Pretty much you're wrong.
The game's balanced around static stages where recovery is an important element of gameplay. This is evident as top level play on other stages degenerates to easily abusable strategies. Just as items and smash balls aren't balanced (even if they weren't random, they wouldn't be balanced for competitive play)
Just because other stages exist doesn't mean they're conducive for a fulfilling competitive environment.

No I don't have any hard evidence, but if we could organise a poll asking players what stages they feel the game is balanced around and best suited for competitive play, it's ones like Battlefield, Pokemon Stadium, Smashville.

Next, be careful about the words "don't want to". The way you are putting it sounds like it's because they don't like to, and banning something out of dislike alone (ban Ike! His fsmash is to good!) IS a scrub move no matter how you look at it. Now a ruleset designed with a point of stages interfering with the match as little as possible to bring us closer to a PvP game instead of a PvPvS game, that is acceptable. You'd be achieving that goal.

Slippery slope argument. I've never seen a move banned (though dimensional cape is limited and sometimes d3's d-throw is limited), despite your claims that banning stages is just as scrubby a move. And I doubt it will ever happen out of dislike.
Ultimately there are other reasons to ban stages, but when it comes down to it, preferences are what determine a ruleset.

As an example in South Australia, we have an annual 256 man Brawl tournament at an Anime convention, which up until this year was FFA with items on up to like top 16 (single elim) where it became 1v1. This isn't at all suited for competitive play, but it's the player's preference, so that's what the ruleset was. (oh and time restrictions have to be taken into account. Ideally we'd want like, every round Bo7 round robin, but that's not feasible)

I must also mention I find it curious when people want such a small list and then it minimizes over the years go on to complain the game gets stale, or they see less character variety. It's because you lowered the skill ceiling and arbitrarily nerfed some characters and buffed others. If you do want a smaller stage list, you need to drop starter/cp because it was designed around having more stages to choose from so it could work properly.

As the game ages, less and less characters can be considered truly viable. That has nothing to do with stagelists, it happens in every competitive fighting game.
And look at SKTAR2, no MK in top 4, with a small stage list. That's more character variety than we've seen in ages.

I can understand the whole, idealist/minimalist ruleset that some people might want. But in practice it's just not feasible.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Pretty much you're wrong.
The game's balanced around static stages where recovery is an important element of gameplay. This is evident as top level play on other stages degenerates to easily abusable strategies. Just as items and smash balls aren't balanced (even if they weren't random, they wouldn't be balanced for competitive play)
Just because other stages exist doesn't mean they're conducive for a fulfilling competitive environment.

No I don't have any hard evidence, but if we could organise a poll asking players what stages they feel the game is balanced around and best suited for competitive play, it's ones like Battlefield, Pokemon Stadium, Smashville.

Well, I did say some rule crafting involves subjectivity, you have me there. But a poll of players is a terrible way to go about this, people vote for what is best FOR THEM not was is truly best. Besides, having such flat and static stages buff characters where this is a large advantage to them, and helps characters that can't adapt to stages with more action, while nerfing those that can. What would you say to the fact that by making such a list, you are arbitrarily buffing and nefing characters?

However, the game is NOT balanced around static stages. Sakurai has only even SOMEWHAT mentioned it is in ANY way sorta balanced like that, and only that he starts balancing on a stage LIKE FD then moves onto other more dynamic stages to test as well. (Mentioned this during a smash 4 interview.) So, Sakurai has said himself BOTH are important, and he trumps anything we say even if he's not making the game for competitive players.

Now, some stages do degenerate to easily abuse-able strategies, (Temple anyone?) But definitely not all of the stages most people have banned now do. Pop me some examples on the other stages, maybe more along the fringe level of legality and not totally out there (like Temple or 75M) and maybe we can discuss them.

Also, I can't honestly say I 100% know where I stand on items, I get some of the arguments for the ban them side, but I've seen ISP run VERY smoothly with no issues as well. And the fact that we banned them in Brawl trying to use Melee as a cover of "banned for randomness" when this was not the case as to why they were banned in Melee. It's something I have to consider in the next smash as to what I think when we see how items work.

Slippery slope argument. I've never seen a move banned (though dimensional cape is limited and sometimes d3's d-throw is limited), despite your claims that banning stages is just as scrubby a move. And I doubt it will ever happen out of dislike.
Ultimately there are other reasons to ban stages, but when it comes down to it, preferences are what determine a ruleset.

As an example in South Australia, we have an annual 256 man Brawl tournament at an Anime convention, which up until this year was FFA with items on up to like top 16 (single elim) where it became 1v1. This isn't at all suited for competitive play, but it's the player's preference, so that's what the ruleset was.

Oh, I didn't mean banning a move, I meant more trying to ban something purely out of dislike. Yes it does happen, and yes there is some subjectivity in rulesets, but banning something ONLY for dislike if you subscribe to Sirlin's process of thought would be Scrubby.

And yes, some preference does come into play. It shouldn't, but it does. One of the reasons why even most liberal smashers wont legalize Mario bros even though people went to huge lengths to prove it was competitive. (I could link you to it if you'd like, but it is a LONG read.) They realized no one even among them would play with it legal, and thus it was banned. This kind of thinking should be avoided whenever possible though.

Something like "No one would show up." Just isn't true, (MLG anyone?) We've had large stagelists in the past, some may even have stages you would now think are horrible yet they worked perfectly and drew little complaints. The what happened behind a lot of stages being banned really was a nasty process, someone posted a good bit about it I could link you too if you wanted though again it's a long read.

As the game ages, less and less characters can be considered truly viable. That has nothing to do with stagelists, it happens in every competitive fighting game.
And look at SKTAR2, no MK in top 4, with a small stage list. That's more character variety than we've seen in ages.

It does happen somewhat in other fighters, but as you slowly eliminate stages you start to heavily favor certain types of characters over others, and this reduces the viability of portions of the cast. The arbitrary buffing and nerfing I mentioned earlier.

It's a tough line, both sides actually do have advantages and disadvantages. If you find which side feels better to you support it, just know what the outcomes may be of your support.

 

[Ghostbone]

Well, I did say some rule crafting involves subjectivity, you have me there. But a poll of players is a terrible way to go about this, people vote for what is best FOR THEM not was is truly best. Besides, having such flat and static stages buff characters where this is a large advantage to them, and helps characters that can't adapt to stages with more action, while nerfing those that can. What would you say to the fact that by making such a list, you are arbitrarily buffing and nefing characters?

It's a necessary consequence of making the game playable.
Turning of smashballs nerfs sonic, turning off any item nerfs D3 (he can throw them with side-b, and when any item is on he can throw exploding capsules), turning off food changes smashville and yoshi's island (food's attached to balloon and fly guys iirc) and also buffs diddy kong (since normally peanuts drop food for the opponent to eat).

However, the game is NOT balanced around static stages. Sakurai has only even SOMEWHAT mentioned it is in ANY way sorta balanced like that, and only that he starts balancing on a stage LIKE FD then moves onto other more dynamic stages to test as well. (Mentioned this during a smash 4 interview.) So, Sakurai has said himself BOTH are important, and he trumps anything we say even if he's not making the game for competitive players.

Eh, what he says and what the game's actually like are different then. Dynamic stages tend to put certain characters in unavoidable disadvantaged positions. Which is an unfair advantage for one player, and not something a competitive game could have. (Imagine Battlefield, except every 20 seconds the heavier character is warped to the top platform, put in an easily abused position, that's completely unfair)

Now, some stages do degenerate to easily abuse-able strategies, (Temple anyone?) But definitely not all of the stages most people have banned now do. Pop me some examples on the other stages, maybe more along the fringe level of legality and not totally out there (like Temple or 75M) and maybe we can discuss them.

Norfair degenerates to running away the entire time and camping inside lava (it's not that hard when you learn to do it)
Rainbow cruise degenerates to MK planking through the ship part then sharking you the entire rest of the stage
Pirate Ship has a massive focus on camping the water (good luck approaching G&W or MK sitting near the side of the screen...)
Walk-off stages are just dominated by characters with bad recoveries that are supposed to make them balanced (Olimar, Snake, Diddy, maybe Squirtle if he wasn't limited by PT's stupid mechanics)

Also, I can't honestly say I 100% know where I stand on items, I get some of the arguments for the ban them side, but I've seen ISP run VERY smoothly with no issues as well. And the fact that we banned them in Brawl trying to use Melee as a cover of "banned for randomness" when this was not the case as to why they were banned in Melee. It's something I have to consider in the next smash as to what I think when we see how items work.

Randomness is just bad, we can turn items off, so there's no reason not to.
They were finally universally banned in melee because exploding capsules could spawn right in front of you in the middle of a move (think Marth F-smash), but in general items are just uncompetitive and people have realised that.

And yes, some preference does come into play. It shouldn't, but it does. One of the reasons why even most liberal smashers wont legalize Mario bros even though people went to huge lengths to prove it was competitive. (I could link you to it if you'd like, but it is a LONG read.) They realized no one even among them would play with it legal, and thus it was banned. This kind of thinking should be avoided whenever possible though.

Hehe, I'm friends with the person who argued for Mario Bros legality, it was pretty much just an experiment to see how far we could push liberal ideology. (if we could prove that Mario Bros should be legal under the same logic that supports stages like Rainbow Cruise or Brinstar, it shows how silly that line of thought it).
We ended up finding heaps of cool stuff about the stage, but that's not relevant to this discussion.

Something like "No one would show up." Just isn't true, (MLG anyone?) We've had large stagelists in the past, some may even have stages you would now think are horrible yet they worked perfectly and drew little complaints. The what happened behind a lot of stages being banned really was a nasty process, someone posted a good bit about it I could link you too if you wanted though again it's a long read.

MLG had some of the largest prize pools smash has ever seen, and it's ****ing MLG, people would go regardless of the ruleset. (they were even playing on laggy TVs)

It does happen somewhat in other fighters, but as you slowly eliminate stages you start to heavily favor certain types of characters over others, and this reduces the viability of portions of the cast. The arbitrary buffing and nerfing I mentioned earlier.

It's a tough line, both sides actually do have advantages and disadvantages. If you find which side feels better to you support it, just know what the outcomes may be of your support.

Eh, if we had stages like Brinstar/RC legal, MK would just be stupidly dominant in this metagame.
MK is a factor we have to consider when discussing stage legality, and it's likely smash 4 will have a similarly dominant character on many counterpicks (for reference, Melee Fox is the reason most Counterpicks were banned in Melee, his ability to run away on RC and Poke Floats, Waveshine people off walk-offs, and abuse wall infinites and camping on Corneria, were all far too strong and the big reason they were all banned. Brawl had MK abusing most CPs, so it's likely next smash will have another character that limits the stagelist drastically).
Ultimately most of those stages have other problems too, which they should be at least considered for banning for.
But saying that character viability would increase with them legal is just incorrect.

 

[BaPr]

In this one kirby stage, Battleship Halberd, it was banned because of "sharking" (maybe not the only reason), so why is a stage like Battlefield not banned? Can't you go under someone an attack them? I am not familiar with the competitive side of Brawl, so I really don't know why it isn't banned.

 

[mimgrim]

In this one kirby stage, Battleship Halberd, it was banned because of "sharking" (maybe not the only reason), so why is a stage like Battlefield not banned? Can't you go under someone an attack them? I am not familiar with the competitive side of Brawl, so I really don't know why it isn't banned.

Nononono. I don't even think Halberd was ever banned, and even if it was I am pretty sure it isn't now. Anywas sharking is what certain character can do under a stage tha allows to recover on any part of the stage, like with halberd's moving platform part a character can recover anywhere onto that platform because they can jump through from the bottom same with Delfino. Battlefield, while a MK can fly under the stage, doesn't have this because you can't jump through the actual stage.

 

[Ghostbone]

In this one kirby stage, Battleship Halberd, it was banned because of "sharking" (maybe not the only reason), so why is a stage like Battlefield not banned? Can't you go under someone an attack them? I am not familiar with the competitive side of Brawl, so I really don't know why it isn't banned.

....
Because you can't hit someone from below the stage on Battlefield (I don't think you understand what sharking is, the most obvious example is MK gliding below the stage and up-airing someone from below the stage, where they can't do anything in retaliation)

Halberd isn't only banned for that, it's also banned because the claw and laser are stupid.

 

[LiteralGrill]

It's a necessary consequence of making the game playable.
Turning of smashballs nerfs sonic, turning off any item nerfs D3 (he can throw them with side-b, and when any item is on he can throw exploding capsules), turning off food changes smashville and yoshi's island (food's attached to balloon and fly guys iirc) and also buffs diddy kong (since normally peanuts drop food for the opponent to eat).

I think you mean: It's a necessary consequence of making the game playble THE WAY WE WANT IT TO BE. Believe me, the is still playable with a larger lists, various regions have proven this for years. And we should try and avoid changing the game as much as we can, so if we can avoid arbitrary buffing and nerfing we should. Ban as little as possible and only ban if gamebreaking, things you learn from Sirlin.

Eh, what he says and what the game's actually like are different then. Dynamic stages tend to put certain characters in unavoidable disadvantaged positions. Which is an unfair advantage for one player, and not something a competitive game could have. (Imagine Battlefield, except every 20 seconds the heavier character is warped to the top platform, put in an easily abused position, that's completely unfair)

Norfair degenerates to running away the entire time and camping inside lava (it's not that hard when you learn to do it)
Rainbow cruise degenerates to MK planking through the ship part then sharking you the entire rest of the stage
Pirate Ship has a massive focus on camping the water (good luck approaching G&W or MK sitting near the side of the screen...)
Walk-off stages are just dominated by characters with bad recoveries that are supposed to make them balanced (Olimar, Snake, Diddy, maybe Squirtle if he wasn't limited by PT's stupid mechanics)

I shall use a rather mean, but fair analogy.

We have a race between two kids, one is in shape, the other is so fat he can barely move. We do not place weights on the healthy kid so that they can have a "fair" race.

Also, it never puts a player at a disadvantage at all, ever. The play CAN change characters whenever they want, if a character isn't good on a stage or a bunch of stages, it's a BAD CHARACTER. If they choose to play a character at a disadvantage, they know they are, it's that player's fault. Now, an "insta win" for a character stage, is more debatable.

It's also hard to say to the guy who balanced the game that he didn't balance it the way he balanced it. In fact, I'd say it's impossible

Randomness is just bad, we can turn items off, so there's no reason not to.
They were finally universally banned in melee because exploding capsules could spawn right in front of you in the middle of a move (think Marth F-smash), but in general items are just uncompetitive and people have realised that.

I know why they were banned in Melee, but one of the major reason they were banned is Brawl was they were banned in Melee. Many people did forget why they were banned there. And you'd better talk to ISP players, they seem to find items enhance the game, bring better balance, destroy certain campy strategies, and provide competitive play. Again, I don't think I'll personally be fighting for items, it's almost an unwinnable battle, but I wont knock on people who use them for sure.

Hehe, I'm friends with the person who argued for Mario Bros legality, it was pretty much just an experiment to see how far we could push liberal ideology. (if we could prove that Mario Bros should be legal under the same logic that supports stages like Rainbow Cruise or Brinstar, it shows how silly that line of thought it).
We ended up finding heaps of cool stuff about the stage, but that's not relevant to this discussion.

Glad to know someone actually knows what I'm talking about when I mention that thread... It was a glorious learning experience.

MLG had some of the largest prize pools smash has ever seen, and it's ****ing MLG, people would go regardless of the ruleset. (they were even playing on laggy TVs)

A lot of regions used the MLG ruleset during MLG though outside of the circuit and it still worked well there. Though even I admit some MLG stages REALLY shouldn't have been there.

Eh, if we had stages like Brinstar/RC legal, MK would just be stupidly dominant in this metagame.
MK is a factor we have to consider when discussing stage legality, and it's likely smash 4 will have a similarly dominant character on many counterpicks (for reference, Melee Fox is the reason most Counterpicks were banned in Melee, his ability to run away on RC and Poke Floats, Waveshine people off walk-offs, and abuse wall infinites and camping on Corneria, were all far too strong and the big reason they were all banned. Brawl had MK abusing most CPs, so it's likely next smash will have another character that limits the stagelist drastically).
Ultimately most of those stages have other problems too, which they should be at least considered for banning for.
But saying that character viability would increase with them legal is just incorrect.

Go back up to my analogy from before. If a character is the best in the game, they'll STILL BE THE BEST when you knock out all of these stages. Why hurt all the other adaptable characters just to try and unsuccessfully nerf one? Why try to nerf a character at all, if they are the best they are the best, and if they really are a problem, it's not the stage's fault, it's the character.

And there used to be characters that were higher tiered back in the day. Some of the lowering was because we did find they weren't as strong, but even more happened when the stagelist got even smaller. I don't see this as a coincidence.

Halberd

Halberd

Some regions it it banned, some it is still legal. To me, it still should be legal but that is my own opinion as to how I feel stagelists should be styled. Also, MK isn't the only character that can shark or use the stage is that way, why do people always forget the others? it's a great CP for them at times.

....
Because you can't hit someone from below the stage on Battlefield (I don't think you understand what sharking is, the most obvious example is MK gliding below the stage and up-airing someone from below the stage, where they can't do anything in retaliation)

Halberd isn't only banned for that, it's also banned because the claw and laser are stupid.

Oh come on, if it really is only banned for the claw and laser "being stupid" it's a bad excuse. Two hazards so easy to avoid my wife who barely knows smash doesn't get hit by them don't destroy gameplay. Give me some match footage showing them completely destroying a match however, and I'll reconsider.

 

[T0MMY]

This is tough as many people label themselves that way. It's better than casual or something similar at least.

Not my experience, the saying has been around only a couple years and is far from being used mainstream. It's going to eventually die due to the ambiguous meaning, so no big deal if it takes longer rather than sooner.

And I might want to explain myself a bit better, I don't want anyone to say they are wrong, I'm saying though from each others perspectives the other is "is wrong" as they want to play their way. They aren't actually wrong, it just might seem that way to some people.

Fair enough.
Not trying to pin this down or anything, I just mentioned how I don't like saying anyone is wrong even if they themselves think they are. There are just some arguments stronger than others; naturally a stronger argument displaces a weaker one.

The things I would like to have admit would be we DO use subjective guidelines at times. You'd be surprised how few would admit this and say they are completely objective at all times.

Oh, not surprised by it at all... I think what is more tragic is when someone spouts out their opinion of just how objective they are while at the same time demonizing everyone elses' opinion as subjective. Flags always go up when I see that sort of stuff X^D

I remember a haunting post about BRoom stage list votes for having them legal or not when a member flat out said many members knew nothing of certain stages and only voted because their region didn't have it. That's bad to do in a position of power.

This is one of many reasons why I disagree with having dictators try to run the Smash community as a whole. Any claim to a seat of "power" or "authority" is a warning to me not to listen to them - those who work to benefit the community do not make such claims to authority, as the position is a silent servitude.

I think we must look past the very beginning slightly.

I don't think so, as that could make it look like we are ignoring the obvious fact pointed out about the real mechanics of the game keeping stages locked.

Maybe a better phrasing might be "The game never expressly says you cannot play on a stage that exists within the game." It may need them unlocked, but after that I says nothing.

Ok, that is a stronger stance to take.
However, then we run into a common logical error, that we are making assumptions based on what the game does NOT say one can do. Following this logic, the game never expressively says one can choose an opponent's character, therefore I can choose your character for you. Is this not a slippery slope?

I knew tough luck would be the answer, I just had hoped it wouldn't be. If the answer must be tough luck which honestly is hard to argue against, at least we can get both sides to do so amicably.

No reason why it can't be done so amicably.
(Anyone saying someone is "stupid" is just expressing an opinion, and as is apparent, opinion has no swaying power in an argument, so no need to worry about ad hominems).

I didn't mean to imply that you had that opinion now, just the fact that you did dismiss it. While I am curious as to why you find it to be a terrible stage (tell me if you would, maybe in PMs so we can keep on topic here)

I still dismiss PS2, just in better light.
And no need to take the opinion any farther, neither here or PM, as my opinion of the stage is mine to be kept or expressed however I will, but it has no place in an argument.

Not using "we" would be a good suggestion and easy enough to manage. I'd need a suggestion to what would be better then native state as I don't have a better word to describe it in my head as of now.

I believe David Sirlin touched on this topic, but his point was actually along the lines of what to ban. Ultimately I think I'd find myself addressing in-game rules vs out-of-game rules, but specifically the AREA of which one can manipulate rules for tournament play. This area turns out to be the "Metarules" of the game - Meta meaning "after, behind, changed, altered, higher, beyond" from Greek.

When competitive players hear "metarules" they almost instinctively understand what that could be referring to - the rules outside of the game. Now a distinction is made to keep the "native" state of the game intact and look to only change the these out-of-game rules.
Please see my dissertation in the ssbwiki entry on competitive philosophy regarding this.

And I'm guessing game-breaking is one of those subjective things we can't avoid.

No, game-breaking in its strictest sense is defined. The colloquial "broken", however, should not be confused with what is in violation of a competition.

I spose for 6 it would be to remain as objective as possible.

Seems to be reasonable.

Subjectivity leads to a lot of opinion being a deciding factor on things. If we can avoid it, we should as we all hold a bias for our agenda.

I believe you may have stated that subjectivity is unavoidable.
For me, I can see how this is not a detriment to a standard in competitive play, but one that can have much worth. This is where the Conceptual Arena comes in.

For 7, more along the lines of: if you say no random factors should be in AT ALL that means NONE, Smashville even.

This is why I avoid absolutes.
A ruleset that adheres to competitive philosophy would both allow for Smashville and have items turned OFF. All without being trapped in an absolutist conundrum.

And number 3, there will always be someone who wants 75m or something similar legal. Or you may hit a rare case like Mario Bros. where it can be competitive, but making it legal causes problems. So writing out detailed explanations even for "obvious" stages is still worthwhile.

It follows that any stage could have someone who wants to play on it. But does ONE person get to determine the rules used?
Obviously not or else we are in conflict: Every stage could both be used and unused at once - this is illogical.
What really is the conflict here? The players not agreeing.
This is why I presented the rules I use: Players agree to stage.
If that cannot be done (never happened yet), a random stage is selected.[/quote]

....
Because you can't hit someone from below the stage on Battlefield (I don't think you understand what sharking is, the most obvious example is MK gliding below the stage and up-airing someone from below the stage, where they can't do anything in retaliation)

Halberd isn't only banned for that, it's also banned because the claw and laser are stupid.

No, the ability to "shark" is NOT criteria enough for a stage to be banned in competition. With that reasoning all stages would be banned due to "planking" which is probably even more of an issue.
Adhering to a "playing to win" competitive philosophy we find that we must learn how to defeat our opponents' tactics, not be scrubs and ban them from doing it.

However, the claw & laser are indeed stupid.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Might wanna edit your post, it looks seriously wacky at the end, no biggy though, smashboards has been acting up lately.

Now back on track:

Not my experience, the saying has been around only a couple years and is far from being used mainstream. It's going to eventually die due to the ambiguous meaning, so no big deal if it takes longer rather than sooner.

What might be a better term then?

This is one of many reasons why I disagree with having dictators try to run the Smash community as a whole. Any claim to a seat of "power" or "authority" is a warning to me not to listen to them - those who work to benefit the community do not make such claims to authority, as the position is a silent servitude.

A bit more tough, it seems like having a backroom is inevitable, and some people are saying the remains of the Brawl backroom should take the Sm4sh backroom to start, no new process of picking new people who have shown some good thoughts from the beginning. What could be done to stop this? The only thing I could think of it almost like a government system where you have to be voted in by EVERYONE in an election and defend your seat every year or something. Even then this could easily be abused. I don't know if I have a solid answer on this.

I don't think so, as that could make it look like we are ignoring the obvious fact pointed out about the real mechanics of the game keeping stages locked.

Ok, that is a stronger stance to take.
However, then we run into a common logical error, that we are making assumptions based on what the game does NOT say one can do. Following this logic, the game never expressively says one can choose an opponent's character, therefore I can choose your character for you. Is this not a slippery slope?

Hmm... it is a slippery slope. This one is proving difficult. For me personally, you may have to unlock stages but the game doesn't say you can NEVER play on them, just not immediately as you have to earn them. Tough one here. Any ideas on how to word it better?

No reason why it can't be done so amicably.
(Anyone saying someone is "stupid" is just expressing an opinion, and as is apparent, opinion has no swaying power in an argument, so no need to worry about ad hominems).

Yeah, it's things like this that are terrible, yet at times widely accepted. This needs to stop. I mean look at that thread, it's kinda a disaster. Even worse, no one has adressed the wonderful post from the other side at all, most posting is "He's right!" with no evidence. I wish smashers could be trained to stop think and conversing like this and have some civility and inteligence to present things in a good way.

I still dismiss PS2, just in better light.
And no need to take the opinion any farther, neither here or PM, as my opinion of the stage is mine to be kept or expressed however I will, but it has no place in an argument.

Fair enough.

I believe David Sirlin touched on this topic, but his point was actually along the lines of what to ban. Ultimately I think I'd find myself addressing in-game rules vs out-of-game rules, but specifically the AREA of which one can manipulate rules for tournament play. This area turns out to be the "Metarules" of the game - Meta meaning "after, behind, changed, altered, higher, beyond" from Greek.

When competitive players hear "metarules" they almost instinctively understand what that could be referring to - the rules outside of the game. Now a distinction is made to keep the "native" state of the game intact and look to only change the these out-of-game rules.
Please see my dissertation in the ssbwiki entry on competitive philosophy regarding this.

So possibly reword it to: Have no metarules?

No, game-breaking in its strictest sense is defined. The colloquial "broken", however, should not be confused with what is in violation of a competition.

Couldn't agree more.

If we can work together to figure out a few wording difficulties that I mentioned, we may really have something to work with here: the idea of the thread coming to fruition is pretty awesome honestly.

 

[T0MMY]

What might be a better term then?

A better term will only serve to create a better conflict.
No matter how well sides are described, they serve only to draw a conceptual line for people to stand behind. When people take sides, they will defend their side. This is the left/right paradigm seen(?) in society so prevalently today, it lays subconsciously dormant and expresses itself in such instances of rules for future Smash Bros. games. To sever the left/right concepts would render a victorious non-conflict.
My suggestion is that you and I focus on defining what it is we want, set forth in describing it impeccably, and allowing it to stand in shining example for those who agree with high standards of competition to gain from it what is needed.

A bit more tough, it seems like having a backroom is inevitable, and some people are saying the remains of the Brawl backroom should take the Sm4sh backroom to start, no new process of picking new people who have shown some good thoughts from the beginning. What could be done to stop this?

In my field of science it is known that a stronger model will replace a weaker one. If the Backroom is inevitably going to be filled with dubious personalities who set forth on all the wrong ventures then there is nothing to worry about… because it is going to be wrong! Let them plant the seeds to a sickly tree and see who wants to eat that fruit. Provide a healthy tree whose roots are situated in reason and logic and let the hungry see the fruit is good.

The only thing I could think of it almost like a government system where you have to be voted in by EVERYONE in an election and defend your seat every year or something. Even then this could easily be abused. I don't know if I have a solid answer on this.

And we very well see how effective the government is in this, don't we? Haha.
Having studied into politics, law, and government workings the past few years I would not want to go that route. There were some enlightened scholars who found their way into politics and I would borrow their wisdom in some instances. At which point I'd argue for an educated anarcho-capitalist type tournament business. Anarchy allows for self-governance (we do what we choose to do because we are free to do so established by natural rights) and a laissez-faire capitalistic market lets the attendees decide which events to support based on satisfaction and no mandates from a centralized political group like the "backroom".

Hmm… it is a slippery slope. This one is proving difficult. For me personally, you may have to unlock stages but the game doesn't say you can NEVER play on them, just not immediately as you have to earn them. Tough one here. Any ideas on how to word it better?

Again, if you are making a claim on what is not told, that is where you find the slope becomes slippery. The game does not say a lot of things, it is not evidence of absence, just simply absence of evidence, a common logical error and this is why it proves to be difficult. True things are simple by nature, not difficult.
A truism is the game allows all stages to be toggled ON and OFF by the players. It is a metarule which of these stages will be toggled ON/OFF. The subjectivity of this is entirely the TO's decision, influenced by the players. The players are the ones squabbling over which to be used, so I say "Agree to a Stage". No further steps have been needed so far.

Yeah, it's things like this that are terrible, yet at times widely accepted. This needs to stop. I mean look at that thread, it's kinda a disaster. Even worse, no one has adressed the wonderful post from the other side at all, most posting is "He's right!" with no evidence.

The post is entirely opinion, it is there just to slap everyone in the face with a machismo flair. So it looks like it was done exactly how the author intended. However, it cannot stand up in argument, it has no legs. It being opinion means it is left behind, gimped easier than Link without a jump.

I wish smashers could be trained to stop think and conversing like this and have some civility and inteligence to present things in a good way.

The bad news is that's probably not going to happen.
The good news is that it is not necessary. Only about 20% make a difference.

So possibly reword it to: Have no metarules?

Even though that is a possibility, I seemed to have got us mixed up. Metarules will be there for a tournament, it is the metarules that really make a tournament (e.g. "double-elimination bracket" is a metarule). Instead of saying the "the game is played in a native state", we could instead state: "The Metarules are aligned with the Competitive Standard."
Granted, it may not seem like much as we have one rather undefined phrase replaced with another, but the intuitive understanding of "Metarules" and "Competitive Standard" communicates something much stronger. The real job is defining a standard of competition to stand behind (hence why I've been working on the underlying philosophy of competition).

If we can work together to figure out a few wording difficulties that I mentioned, we may really have something to work with here: the idea of the thread coming to fruition is pretty awesome honestly.

I can lend a hand with how to determine goals, define necessary terms, and explicitly state a standard, but I also have my "agenda" as you have stated you have yours, as does everyone.

 

[LiteralGrill]

A better term will only serve to create a better conflict.
No matter how well sides are described, they serve only to draw a conceptual line for people to stand behind. When people take sides, they will defend their side. This is the left/right paradigm seen(?) in society so prevalently today, it lays subconsciously dormant and expresses itself in such instances of rules for future Smash Bros. games. To sever the left/right concepts would render a victorious non-conflict.
My suggestion is that you and I focus on defining what it is we want, set forth in describing it impeccably, and allowing it to stand in shining example for those who agree with high standards of competition to gain from it what is needed.

I meant more what would you call someone who is a more "liberal" player, but yes: I agree we need to set up an example, manage to do what the thread was meant for, and back it up. It could be amazing.

In my field of science it is known that a stronger model will replace a weaker one. If the Backroom is inevitably going to be filled with dubious personalities who set forth on all the wrong ventures then there is nothing to worry about… because it is going to be wrong! Let them plant the seeds to a sickly tree and see who wants to eat that fruit. Provide a healthy tree whose roots are situated in reason and logic and let the hungry see the fruit is good.

Sounds good to me, and makes plenty of sense.

And we very well see how effective the government is in this, don't we? Haha.
Having studied into politics, law, and government workings the past few years I would not want to go that route. There were some enlightened scholars who found their way into politics and I would borrow their wisdom in some instances. At which point I'd argue for an educated anarcho-capitalist type tournament business. Anarchy allows for self-governance (we do what we choose to do because we are free to do so established by natural rights) and a laissez-faire capitalistic market lets the attendees decide which events to support based on satisfaction and no mandates from a centralized political group like the "backroom".

Hmm.... This may be difficult though. There's one problem even with running it like this, Nationals. That thread I mentioned had a phenomenal post by Amazing Ampharos explaining how many stages were banned at times, and it is a nasty process. Click the link again and take a look at what he said, how do you combat that?

Again, if you are making a claim on what is not told, that is where you find the slope becomes slippery. The game does not say a lot of things, it is not evidence of absence, just simply absence of evidence, a common logical error and this is why it proves to be difficult. True things are simple by nature, not difficult.
A truism is the game allows all stages to be toggled ON and OFF by the players. It is a metarule which of these stages will be toggled ON/OFF. The subjectivity of this is entirely the TO's decision, influenced by the players. The players are the ones squabbling over which to be used, so I say "Agree to a Stage". No further steps have been needed so far.

Hmm, I got a feeling that it's just too vague for most people. And we are trying to figure out how to form such a stagelist. Would you agree to the "innocent until proven guilty" concept? If so, how could it be conveyed properly?

The post is entirely opinion, it is there just to slap everyone in the face with a machismo flair. So it looks like it was done exactly how the author intended. However, it cannot stand up in argument, it has no legs. It being opinion means it is left behind, gimped easier than Link without a jump.

I know that for sure, it's too bad a bunch of people do 100% think that way and will only call someone stupid if they say anything else.

The bad news is that's probably not going to happen.
The good news is that it is not necessary. Only about 20% make a difference.

Scary, but good thought.

Even though that is a possibility, I seemed to have got us mixed up. Metarules will be there for a tournament, it is the metarules that really make a tournament (e.g. "double-elimination bracket" is a metarule). Instead of saying the "the game is played in a native state", we could instead state: "The Metarules are aligned with the Competitive Standard."
Granted, it may not seem like much as we have one rather undefined phrase replaced with another, but the intuitive understanding of "Metarules" and "Competitive Standard" communicates something much stronger. The real job is defining a standard of competition to stand behind (hence why I've been working on the underlying philosophy of competition).

That's still tough, someone will try to poke holes in the standard maybe, and there is the issue of both philosophies be it less stages or more stages they will say they are the competitive one. What then?

I can lend a hand with how to determine goals, define necessary terms, and explicitly state a standard, but I also have my "agenda" as you have stated you have yours, as does everyone.

Yes, but so far we are doing our best to avoid our biases and agendas I would say. We can at least do out best to come up with something better then my mini manifesto, and present it to people to see what they think.

 

[Ghostbone]

I think you mean: It's a necessary consequence of making the game playble THE WAY WE WANT IT TO BE. Believe me, the is still playable with a larger lists, various regions have proven this for years. And we should try and avoid changing the game as much as we can, so if we can avoid arbitrary buffing and nerfing we should. Ban as little as possible and only ban if gamebreaking, things you learn from Sirlin.

Sirlin's philosophy is one way of making a ruleset.
It's not the only way, it's not the right way, you'd do well to learn that

I shall use a rather mean, but fair analogy.

We have a race between two kids, one is in shape, the other is so fat he can barely move. We do not place weights on the healthy kid so that they can have a "fair" race.

Yea let's legalise temple because everyone besides sonic is just slow. Why should we nerf sonic by banning temple.

Also, it never puts a player at a disadvantage at all, ever. The play CAN change characters whenever they want, if a character isn't good on a stage or a bunch of stages, it's a BAD CHARACTER. If they choose to play a character at a disadvantage, they know they are, it's that player's fault. Now, an "insta win" for a character stage, is more debatable.

Yea everyone should just pick sonic or MK on temple, everyone else is just bad.
Degenerate strategies be damned, we want the game balanced exactly as it comes out of the box right?

It's also hard to say to the guy who balanced the game that he didn't balance it the way he balanced it. In fact, I'd say it's impossible

Implying game designers are perfect.
Brawl is the buggiest game in the series, ranging from stuff like RCO lag, to the teching window, to Ganon's forward-air not autocancelling. Sakurai didn't really do a good job of balancing the game.

I know why they were banned in Melee, but one of the major reason they were banned is Brawl was they were banned in Melee. Many people did forget why they were banned there. And you'd better talk to ISP players, they seem to find items enhance the game, bring better balance, destroy certain campy strategies, and provide competitive play. Again, I don't think I'll personally be fighting for items, it's almost an unwinnable battle, but I wont knock on people who use them for sure.

Does it matter that people forgot the exact reason items were universally banned in melee (they were banned in most places for a while soon after the game's release), when there are many other reasons they should have been banned as well?

Random items are a horrible mechanics for a competitive game.

A lot of regions used the MLG ruleset during MLG though outside of the circuit and it still worked well there. Though even I admit some MLG stages REALLY shouldn't have been there.

They used it because they wanted to practice for it.

Go back up to my analogy from before. If a character is the best in the game, they'll STILL BE THE BEST when you knock out all of these stages. Why hurt all the other adaptable characters just to try and unsuccessfully nerf one? Why try to nerf a character at all, if they are the best they are the best, and if they really are a problem, it's not the stage's fault, it's the character.

There's a difference between being the best in the game game by a bit, and being SFII:Turbo Akuma level best.
It's not just trying to nerf MK, it's banning stages that he dominates on by a very large margin.

And there used to be characters that were higher tiered back in the day. Some of the lowering was because we did find they weren't as strong, but even more happened when the stagelist got even smaller. I don't see this as a coincidence.

....Some characters have to move down when other characters move up.
People find that Diddy's stronger, they find that DK's terrible, that's just what has to happen.
It's not so much that characters dropped because their best stages were banned, that they dropped because they had generally bad matchups with MK and some other top tiers on most stages. Sure G&W got worse because Rainbow Cruise was banned, but we shouldn't cater to G&W when MK is dominating everyone else on that stage, and still dominating G&W on every stage. Just as we didn't keep Pictochat legal just because it's Sonic's best stage, we don't keep Rainbow Cruise legal even though it's G&W's best stage, that would be unfairly catering to certain characters.

Oh come on, if it really is only banned for the claw and laser "being stupid" it's a bad excuse. Two hazards so easy to avoid my wife who barely knows smash doesn't get hit by them don't destroy gameplay. Give me some match footage showing them completely destroying a match however, and I'll reconsider.

Every single hazard in the game is easily avoidable, without an opponent.
When hazards randomly target you putting you in an unavoidable disadvantaged position, it's a problem
The laser generally doesn't do much, but when you get unlucky and it covers the entire ledge with its massive hitbox, your recovery is screwed for no reason other than you got unlucky.

As for Halberd being ********
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5PARC9kBT0&t=7m22s
Claw randomly targets Olimar while he's in the middle of a move punishing MK's landing, and kills him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y65uAfscyG4&t=16m42s
Claw randomly targets me, forcing me to shield on the platform, leading to free easy shield pressure and a kill for my opponent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pyb7BwVZP68&t=15m38s
Claw randomly targets bowser, if he air-dodges he'd die, if he up-bs to avoid it Marth gets a free punish (tippered f-smash would kill at that %)

 

[LiteralGrill]

Sirlin's philosophy is one way of making a ruleset.
It's not the only way, it's not the right way, you'd do well to learn that

Nit being the only way is true, but explain why "do not ban until game braking" and "ban as little is possible" is not the right way.

Yea let's legalise temple because everyone besides sonic is just slow. Why should we nerf sonic by banning temple.

Yea everyone should just pick sonic or MK on temple, everyone else is just bad.
Degenerate strategies be damned, we want the game balanced exactly as it comes out of the box right?

Yes, gameplay degenerates Temple, we ban it for circle camping, not Sonuc2gud, for circle camping. There is a difference.

Implying game designers are perfect.
Brawl is the buggiest game in the series, ranging from stuff like RCO lag, to the teching window, to Ganon's forward-air not autocancelling. Sakurai didn't really do a good job of balancing the game.

Never said he was perfect, but saying he didn't do what he did is impossible. His balance may not have been perfect but it's never been that way in any fighter, and I don't think any other fighter tries to nerf characters because they dominate, why do we?

Does it matter that people forgot the exact reason items were universally banned in melee (they were banned in most places for a while soon after the game's release), when there are many other reasons they should have been banned as well?

Random items are a horrible mechanics for a competitive game.

Arguing based on a fallacy of tradition vs arguing based on evidence makes a HUGE different yes.

They used it because they wanted to practice for it.

Did the entire meta break down during that time? If not, why did they stop but only for personal preference? I've admitted subjectivity happens when making rulesets, if it was a preference thing well... I think it's a bad reason but wont get into it.

There's a difference between being the best in the game game by a bit, and being SFII:Turbo Akuma level best.
It's not just trying to nerf MK, it's banning stages that he dominates on by a very large margin.

If he's as good as Akuma why didn't he get the same treatment? Why destroy the game and mess with all the other characters to keep the one in? I can't think of another fighter that has ever done this.

....Some characters have to move down when other characters move up.
People find that Diddy's stronger, they find that DK's terrible, that's just what has to happen.
It's not so much that characters dropped because their best stages were banned, that they dropped because they had generally bad matchups with MK and some other top tiers on most stages. Sure G&W got worse because Rainbow Cruise was banned, but we shouldn't cater to G&W when MK is dominating everyone else on that stage, and still dominating G&W on every stage. Just as we didn't keep Pictochat legal just because it's Sonic's best stage, we don't keep Rainbow Cruise legal even though it's G&W's best stage, that would be unfairly catering to certain characters.

See above, and why are we doing the catering in the first place at all?

Every single hazard in the game is easily avoidable, without an opponent.
When hazards randomly target you putting you in an unavoidable disadvantaged position, it's a problem
The laser generally doesn't do much, but when you get unlucky and it covers the entire ledge with its massive hitbox, your recovery is screwed for no reason other than you got unlucky.

As for Halberd being ********
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5PARC9kBT0&t=7m22s
Claw randomly targets Olimar while he's in the middle of a move punishing MK's landing, and kills him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y65uAfscyG4&t=16m42s
Claw randomly targets me, forcing me to shield on the platform, leading to free easy shield pressure and a kill for my opponent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pyb7BwVZP68&t=15m38s
Claw randomly targets bowser, if he air-dodges he'd die, if he up-bs to avoid it Marth gets a free punish (tippered f-smash would kill at that %)

Match 1: The claw had clearly paused and was obviously about to strike, Olimar should have been careful and considered keeping safe vs punishing. He took the risk of punishing and laid in the bed he fixed for himself.

Match 2: Kinda the same, the claw shos it was getting ready to attack but instead of attempting to arrange yourself in a more strategic way you shielded.

Match 3: The Marth seeing the claw was active pressured the Bowser would be put into an unfavorable position, and was successful.

Hazards that can reasonably be predicted, adapted to, and even used for advantages raises the skill cap.

 

[Ghostbone]

Nit being the only way is true, but explain why "do not ban until game braking" and "ban as little is possible" is not the right way.

...Explain why it is the right way? It's your preference. And it's impossible to rigidly define game breaking (the closest is MK's IDC)
Temple isn't technically game breaking, you both pick sonic and your opponent will eventually trip or you just have better tech skill and catch up.

Yes, gameplay degenerates Temple, we ban it for circle camping, not Sonuc2gud, for circle camping. There is a difference.

No there really isn't a difference
We ban it because of Sonic (and MK's) circle camping. Circle camping doesn't exist without characters to abuse it.

Never said he was perfect, but saying he didn't do what he did is impossible. His balance may not have been perfect but it's never been that way in any fighter, and I don't think any other fighter tries to nerf characters because they dominate, why do we?

No other fighter has stages.
Some stages can heavily polarise matchups and detract from the game, no reason to keep them if that's the case.

And there's a slight nuance you're missing. We didn't go "Oh MK's too strong, better ban his best stages", we went "Oh MK's too strong on these stages, let's ban them"

Did the entire meta break down during that time? If not, why did they stop but only for personal preference? I've admitted subjectivity happens when making rulesets, if it was a preference thing well... I think it's a bad reason but wont get into it.

If he's as good as Akuma why didn't he get the same treatment? Why destroy the game and mess with all the other characters to keep the one in? I can't think of another fighter that has ever done this.

Name another fighter with stages or even slightly similar mechanics to smash.

MK dominates on heaps of stages so they get banned. You can go "oh just ban MK", but that's silly when the stages he dominates on are inherently less tuned for competitive play anyway. (unavoidably putting people in disadvantaged positions for example). And banning a character is a far bigger step and removes so much more from the game than banning a stage.

Match 1: The claw had clearly paused and was obviously about to strike, Olimar should have been careful and considered keeping safe vs punishing. He took the risk of punishing and laid in the bed he fixed for himself.

Match 2: Kinda the same, the claw shos it was getting ready to attack but instead of attempting to arrange yourself in a more strategic way you shielded.

Match 3: The Marth seeing the claw was active pressured the Bowser would be put into an unfavorable position, and was successful.

Hazards that can reasonably be predicted, adapted to, and even used for advantages raises the skill cap.

Sigh
If you can look at those vids and see how random hazards favour one player over another and heavily influence matches, and say that's ok, I can't really convince you otherwise just by writing. That's just something you have to go to tournaments and experience to realise (either by being in the game yourself or watching a hype game going down the wire determined by randomness) how bull**** it is (it's like when someone trips into Ice Climber's grab on their last stock, it's just terrible, if we could turn off random tripping we would, even though technically it's another scenario that adds some slight depth to the game, just as Halberd adds depth by virtue of being a different stage, doesn't mean we should have to deal with the randomness).
It's the same exact reason items are banned. Sure they add depth, they also add randomness which inherently favours the losing player by making results inconsistent.

Honestly Halberd is one of the worst stages that ever remained legal, it's just not as immediately obvious as with Pictochat or WarioWare.

 

[LiteralGrill]

...Explain why it is the right way? It's your preference.

Preference only rulesets are BAD. You may have a preference, but you must back them up with facts as to why that preference is good to use. What are the pros and cons of your preferences? Argue so that I could see why you are in favor of it rather then just saying it is better. I did some of that in my last post.

No other fighter has stages.
Some stages can heavily polarise matchups and detract from the game, no reason to keep them if that's the case.

And there's a slight nuance you're missing. We didn't go "Oh MK's too strong, better ban his best stages", we went "Oh MK's too strong on these stages, let's ban them"

MK dominates on heaps of stages so they get banned. You can go "oh just ban MK", but that's silly when the stages he dominates on are inherently less tuned for competitive play anyway. (unavoidably putting people in disadvantaged positions for example). And banning a character is a far bigger step and removes so much more from the game than banning a stage.

I'll skip over the fact that stages are in ALL fighting games, as I realize that isn't your actual point and you are asking about stages that influence the match.

To start, Injustice may be a candidate. The stages you choose in the game ARE very important. Hazards on/off in PSASBR was a constant debate during its heyday and was only "solved" when the game kinda died off and only a select few were left.

But, this is the kicker: There are plenty of games with matchups between characters that are close to 100-0. Smash is a game where the stage itself counts as a character at times. (PvPvS is 100% unavoidable no matter how you try in Smash.) So, if there are stages that provide bad matchups? The real answer should be tough luck! If people don't like it, why are they playing this game? if I don't like infinites I'm not about to go play Marvel, why is the concept different just for smash? If you are put into a bad decision because of your choice of character, shouldn't you deal with it like in every other fighter?

It's weird that Smash generally wants to be treated as equal with other fighters at times, yet goes out of its way not to be.

Sigh
If you can look at those vids and see how random hazards favour one player over another and heavily influence matches, and say that's ok, I can't really convince you otherwise just by writing. That's just something you have to go to tournaments and experience to realise (either by being in the game yourself or watching a hype game going down the wire determined by randomness) how bull**** it is (it's like when someone trips into Ice Climber's grab on their last stock, it's just terrible, if we could turn off random tripping we would, even though technically it's another scenario that adds some slight depth to the game, just as Halberd adds depth by virtue of being a different stage, doesn't mean we should have to deal with the randomness).
It's the same exact reason items are banned. Sure they add depth, they also add randomness which inherently favours the losing player by making results inconsistent.

Honestly Halberd is one of the worst stages that ever remained legal, it's just not as immediately obvious as with Pictochat or WarioWare.

I cannot answer this until you answer this question: do you think Yoshi's Island (Brawl), Smashville, and Lylat Cruise should be legal?

 

[Ghostbone]

I cannot answer this until you answer this question: do you think Yoshi's Island (Brawl), Smashville, and Lylat Cruise should be legal?

Smashville is barely random (lol starting position of platform, inb4 ness gimping himself on balloon, nobody cares and that's a ridiculously position to try to recover in)

Yoshi's Island improves ones position but doesn't put someone in a bad position. Sure it saves people, who are then still in a prime spot to be gimped.

Lylat Cruise's tilt is predictable, there's a thread on it.

Furthermore, they're all localised phenomenon's, occurring in specific areas of the stage, Halberd's weapons follow you across the entire stage creating ridiculously bad unavoidable scenarios.


In regards to your bad matchup point, it's the same as with temple and sonic, you could say we should all just adapt and pick sonic, but overall that detracts from the game, just as stages that heavily polarise matchups detract from the overall depth of the game.

You could try and present a slippery slope where we start limiting moves to balance and "improve" the game, which would be bad, but it's never happened, there's no evidence to suggest it will occur, there's no problem.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Smashville is barely random (lol starting position of platform)

Yoshi's Island improves ones position but doesn't put someone in a bad position. Sure it saves people, who are then still in a prime spot to be edgeguarded.

Lylat Cruise's tilt is predictable, there's a thread on it.

Smashville has the magical mystical all powerful balloon... My Ness dies from it on rare occasions as I get gimped in my recovery. Ban it?

Yoshi's Island has too killed my Ness at times. I don't play Ness as often as my G&W but man oh man I hate losing a stock due to this totally random element. It COULD be reasonably worked around and thought about while I make my recovery, but as you said earlier with Halberd doing such things shouldn't have to be done.

I was hit over to the side where Lylat would be tilting up so I can't recover. Was that random, or the opponent using stage knowledge to their advantage? It would seem like what I said happened in Halberd here too...

BARELY random too, are you willing to admit to the subjectivity of this? Maybe say there may be a point where randomness is acceptable? You gotta think that through.

 

[Ghostbone]

No I don't have to think that through.

The starting position of smashville's platform doesn't put people into bad positions.
Ness is a terrible character and nobody cares.
Lylat's tilt is predictable.

 

[LiteralGrill]

No I don't have to think that through.

The starting position of smashville's platform doesn't put people into bad positions.
Ness is a terrible character and nobody cares.
Lylat's tilt is predictable.

That comment on Ness... Really? Whet the hell kind of mentality is this? And you say you should be contributing to stagelist discussion and say things like this? I do not like the use of ad hominem but look at what you just wrote! How is that at all a real argument?

And I said the BALLOON. Come on now, respond to my actual point. If you wont even converse rationally and defend your points then you have no argument to even stand on.

And I'd say the Hazards also are predictable on many stages. So, you'd agree then any stage with predictable hazards should be legal? What about those that aren't, banned? You have a lot of double standards here now too.

You COULD be forming a cohesive argument, why don't you? You even have ground to stand on, just USE IT.

 

[Ghostbone]

That comment on Ness... Really? Whet the hell kind of mentality is this? And you say you should be contributing to stagelist discussion and say things like this? I do not like the use of ad hominem but look at what you just wrote! How is that at all a real argument?

Let's say Ganon randomly blew up and died 50% of the time each time he shielded on FD.
FD would stay legal because Ganon is terrible, and FD's worth more than him.
Similarly, Ness gets approximately no usage because he's bad, so nobody cares that he can get randomly screwed over when he recovers in an already extremely vulnerable position. (and since he's never used, the amount of times that the balloon ever gimps someone is extremely low, compared to Halberd being able to mess anyone up every match, multiple times)

And I said the BALLOON. Come on now, respond to my actual point. If you wont even converse rationally and defend your points then you have no argument to even stand on.

I apologise, the balloon also never puts players into disadvantaged positions.

And I'd say the Hazards also are predictable on many stages. So, you'd agree then any stage with predictable hazards should be legal? What about those that aren't, banned? You have a lot of double standards here now too.

Not really
My standard is that if the stage puts someone in a disadvantaged position without interaction from their opponent it should be banned.
Brinstar does that, Rainbow Cruise does that, Halberd does that, Norfair does that, Yoshi's doesn't do that, Lylat doesn't do that, Smashville doesn't do that.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Let's say Ganon randomly blew up and died 50% of the time each time he shielded on FD.
FD would stay legal because Ganon is terrible, and FD's worth more than him.
Similarly, Ness gets approximately no usage because he's bad, so nobody cares that he can get randomly screwed over when he recovers in an already extremely vulnerable position. (and since he's never used, the amount of times that the balloon ever gimps someone is extremely low, compared to Halberd being able to mess anyone up every match, multiple times)

Stop. Seriously, stop. A character being bad gives you NO right to 100% ignore them. Especially with your talk of catering earlier. I bet Ness and Ganon mains DEFINITELY care. So what if there aren't as many of them? This mentality and you question my wondering about character variety earlier? The fallacies you present are numerous!

This is NOT a real argument. If this is the ground you stand on, which is none at all, I no longer am willing nor able to debate you. Give me real evidence, data, and reason or we're done.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

Yoshi's Island improves ones position but doesn't put someone in a bad position. Sure it saves people, who are then still in a prime spot to be gimped.

I would like to see what you think about something.

Let's consider Yoshi's Island has a certain chance of saving someone, specifically one in some number X. Where we would normally choose Yoshi's Island, instead we pick a neutral stage, guess a number, and roll for it on an X sided die. Staying hypothetical, the winners of the roll gets a negative % gain or an extra stock. If the results from winning a roll and being saved by the stage are indistinguishable, can you meaningfully distinguish them? How do you gauge comfortableness with the idea of rolling a die for a boon?

 

[Ghostbone]

Stop. Seriously, stop. A character being bad gives you NO right to 100% ignore them. Especially with your talk of catering earlier. I bet Ness and Ganon mains DEFINITELY care. So what if there aren't as many of them? This mentality and you question my wondering about character variety earlier? The fallacies you present are numerous!

I'm not 100% ignoring them, I'm saying they're not worth the same amount as the stage, as they add less competitive depth.
Your ness example is still incredibly bad as he should always be punished by the opponent for trying to recover in the spot that would cause his up-b to hit the balloon anyway, it's a non-issue.

If Ness/Ganon mains care so much they can use their stage ban on it. There's no other example of a stage possibly randomly screwing over one character, so there's no real precedent on that, but one obscure character doesn't get to have a stage banned just because they're possibly bad on it, when stage bans exist, and when the random scenario that could screw them over should never happen.

This is NOT a real argument. If this is the ground you stand on, which is none at all, I no longer am willing nor able to debate you. Give me real evidence, data, and reason or we're done.

And you can stop making comparisons that don't work

Anyway just because you don't like the justification doesn't mean it's fallacious or not a real argument.

I would like to see what you think about something.

Let's consider Yoshi's Island has a certain chance of saving someone, specifically one in some number X. Where we would normally choose Yoshi's Island, instead we pick a neutral stage, guess a number, and roll for it on an X sided die. Staying hypothetical, the winners of the roll gets a negative % gain or an extra stock. If the results from winning a roll and being saved by the stage are indistinguishable, can you meaningfully distinguish them? How do you gauge comfortableness with the idea of rolling a die for a boon?

It's a silly analogy that doesn't occur in the game, and it's a pure advantage the opponent can do nothing about.

When someone gets saved by the Yoshi's ghost, they're still in a prime position to be gimped (close to the blast zone, and generally in lag from falling in helpless, and they're the type of character that has a bad recovery to have needed to use the ghost in the first place), their opponent can still take advantage of the situation.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

My stage list for Brawl is:
Players agree to play on a stage that is not banned.

If players cannot agree to stage, a random stage is chosen by pressing start on the stage select menu.

Note1: Stages identified as "banned" have been identified in the rule set.
Note2: Battlefield, Final Destination, and Smashville have been toggled "ON" in the rule set.

So if I'm an Ice Climbers main, it's in my best interest to never agree to a stage just for the chance of getting FD? Same deal if I'm playing against MK of G&W
etc... etc... How silly.

Your ad hominems were quoted, that is they were evidenced, and thus ended the conversation.
Your claims against me of ad hominems not only were not only evidenced but would not give you any more liberty to use such fallacy (or any fallacy) in an argument than a magic pixie smurf could.

Because you show you do not know the rules of engagement of argument there is no reason for me to engage you in such conversation - any and all questions will only be seen as a rhetorical trap until an apology is issued and an agreement to a formal argument is met.

Otherwise, you only get a gentleman's tip of the hat and a "good day, sir."

It's infuriating that you can't have a conversation like a normal human being, just fyi.

Anything t0mmy said in this discussion can be safely ignored until he justifies the competitive criteria he agrees with beyond just giving it intrinsic value and using it as a sacred cow, by the way guys.

Tournaments are going to have rulesets that people want to play with.

/thread

 

[S2rulL]

Ruleset mistakes? What's wrong with no items, Fox only, FD??? Kappa

 

[LiteralGrill]

I'm not 100% ignoring them, I'm saying they're not worth the same amount as the stage, as they add less competitive depth.
Your ness example is still incredibly bad as he should always be punished by the opponent for trying to recover in the spot that would cause his up-b to hit the balloon anyway, it's a non-issue.

If Ness/Ganon mains care so much they can use their stage ban on it. There's no other example of a stage possibly randomly screwing over one character, so there's no real precedent on that, but one obscure character doesn't get to have a stage banned just because they're possibly bad on it, when stage bans exist, and when the random scenario that could screw them over should never happen.

If Rainbow Cruise is so hard for you against MK, just ban it! Halberd got you down? Just ban it!

Now that your argument also supports me (thanks for that) Every character is the game adds competitive depth. An entire match up vs every character of the cast on every legal stage is higher then one match up spread on one stage.

For Ness: Mindgames baby. PK Thunder crap you can pull is amazing if you know they are coming for you at times, no random balloon should get in my way! What makes my Ness or that Ganon any less special then your MK having issues on Halberd?

Do not make me go to the Ness and Ganon boards and ask them what they think of this. I think you'll find some intense anger, as YOUR argument is unjustified.

Also, go to the smash wiki and look at why some stages are banned. Notice a lot of the reasons are based on having issues with character recovery and such. Look back at smash 64 and Ness.

And yeah, take a look at YI: it can randomly save OR kill you. 100% RANDOM. But you'd have it legal.

Your posts reek of double standards.

Anyway just because you don't like the justification doesn't mean it's fallacious or not a real argument.

No, it's just fallacious.

 

[Ghostbone]

If Rainbow Cruise is so hard for you against MK, just ban it! Halberd got you down? Just ban it!

Yea let's just be forced to use our stage ban for temple vs sonic too, completely fine.
Let's force people to ban warioware each set, if they don't want to deal with randomness.

That's what you sound like.

Now that your argument also supports me (thanks for that) Every character is the game adds competitive depth. An entire match up vs every character of the cast on every legal stage is higher then one match up spread on one stage.

Not when those characters don't get used.

For Ness: Mindgames baby. PK Thunder crap you can pull is amazing if you know they are coming for you at times, no random balloon should get in my way! What makes my Ness or that Ganon any less special then your MK having issues on Halberd?

Rofl at the "Mindgames" response.
Putting yourself in a free punishable position isn't a mindgame.

Do not make me go to the Ness and Ganon boards and ask them what they think of this. I think you'll find some intense anger, as YOUR argument is unjustified.

Honestly if you can find a single Ness main that wants Smashville banned, go for it, rofl.

If you're going to make a threat, go through with it I dare you to find a Ness main that wants Smashville banned.

If you can't find one, your argument is meaningless, and Smashville is a perfectly fine (well at least in regards to random factors) stage, I hope you realise that.
And Smashville being fine doesn't make Halberd or Pictochat fine either.

Also, go to the smash wiki and look at why some stages are banned. Notice a lot of the reasons are based on having issues with character recovery and such. Look back at smash 64 and Ness.

Quoting smash wiki, smh
The smash wiki is horrible, it's ok for some stuff (it lists all the character unlock methods iirc, which is nice to have access too), don't pay attention to anything that it lists that has to do with competitive play. All the articles are written by randoms who don't know what they're talking about (pretty sure its justification for Falco being lower than Fox on the Melee tier list is "Clones are inferior" >.>)

And yeah, take a look at YI: it can randomly save OR kill you. 100% RANDOM. But you'd have it legal.

Your posts reek of double standards.

Yes yoshi's island has some randomness.
We have to draw the line somewhere
Most sane people draw it at Yoshi's island, and questionably halberd.
Some people will push for green greens and pictochat, but realistically they're no better than WarioWare or items.

So yes Halberd isn't quite as terrible as some of the other random stages in the game, but it's still far worse than Yoshi's Island, in my opinion (and it's a completely subjective area, unless you want WarioWare legal too, you can't argue that Halberd should be legal just because there's other randomness in the game)

No, it's just fallacious.

Ok, show me why that is.
Saying it's fallacious doesn't make it fallacious, that's a fallacy in itself

 

[LiteralGrill]

Yea let's just be forced to use our stage ban for temple vs sonic too, completely fine.
Let's force people to ban warioware each set, if they don't want to deal with randomness.

That's what you sound like.

I don't want to deal with stages even though it's a vital aspect of Smash. That's what you sound like. Or better yet: "I don't care if people main certain characters, they suck and I don't care."

Not when those characters don't get used.

I think those boards would like to have another word with you. Think they might get more use if you didn't ban some of their best stages? Maybe they would get more use

Rofl at the "Mindgames" response.
Putting yourself in a free punishable position isn't a mindgame.

It's how you choose to recover from there that is the mindgame. PK Thunder can be a tricky mistress to handle, but it wont do me much good if I'm gimped RANDOMLY will it? If you think because something randomly effected the outcome of a match it should be banned, do not have double standards just because you don't care about certain characters or their mains.

Honestly if you can find a single Ness main that wants Smashville banned, go for it, rofl.

If you're going to make a threat, go through with it I dare you to find a Ness main that wants Smashville banned.

If you can't find one, your argument is meaningless, and Smashville is a perfectly fine (well at least in regards to random factors) stage, I hope you realise that.
And Smashville being fine doesn't make Halberd or Pictochat fine either.

I meant more along the lines of letting them know that "No one cares about Ness" argument you used. Good luck dealing with that, no logical person would ever agree to such things.

(To note, I would not actually advocate for banning Smashville, it's just a worthwhile example alongside YI.)

Quoting smash wiki, smh
The smash wiki is horrible, it's ok for some stuff (it lists all the character unlock methods iirc, which is nice to have access too), don't pay attention to anything that it lists that has to do with competitive play. All the articles are written by randoms who don't know what they're talking about (pretty sure its justification for Falco being lower than Fox on the Melee tier list is "Clones are inferior" >.>)

You got a problem. The ban reasons on the wiki are the reasons people use to defend why stages are banned OFTEN. If they aren't correct, you have a LOT of arguing to do for your side because this is what the majority of people use to defend those stages being banned.

Yes yoshi's island has some randomness.
We have to draw the line somewhere
Most sane people draw it at Yoshi's island, and questionably halberd.
Some people will push for green greens and pictochat, but realistically they're no better than WarioWare or items.

So yes Halberd isn't quite as terribly as some of the other random stages in the game, but it's still far worse than Yoshi's Island, in my opinion (and it's a completely subjective area, unless you want WarioWare legal too, you can't argue that Halberd should be legal just because there's other randomness in the game)

So, you are willing to admit to subjectivity, but not the fact that the other side is not wrong if they too have some subjectivity? Be clear here. If you can do it, why can't I? What makes my reasoning wrong?

And for me, YI can save you, it can also kill you. Same for Halberd when you look closely. You match as MK had the claw "randomly" attacked your opponent it'd have been your day right? If I'm on YI and I get saved vs gimped on my last stock due to randomness, it honestly effects the outcome of the match in a very big way! Again, you hold double standards unless you want to admit we both can use subjectivity and are both right.

Ok, show me why that is.
Saying it's fallacious doesn't make it fallacious, that's a fallacy in itself

So far you have used argumentum ad populum, possibly the psychologist's fallacy, and definitely using your opinions instead of facts.

 

[Ghostbone]

I don't want to deal with stages even though it's a vital aspect of Smash. That's what you sound like. Or better yet: "I don't care if people main certain characters, they suck and I don't care."

There's some things we agree on and some things we don't.

But first let's define vital, I think a good definition is "Absolutely necessary or important; essential" (shamelessly stolen from google)

Considering Melee was at Evo 2013, generated insane amounts of hype comparable with UMvC3, with a small stagelist excluding stages such as Rainbow Cruise or Poke Floats, I'd argue purely from that, that they're not a vital aspect of smash.

Can you really say otherwise?

I think those boards would like to have another word with you. Think they might get more use if you didn't ban some of their best stages? Maybe they would get more use

And Sonic would get more use if Temple was legal
How many times do I have to repeat myself, you're clearly not listening, this is the last time.
We don't cater to characters by keeping their best stages legal when those stages lead to degenerate gameplay and heavily polarised matchups. It's not about nerfing those characters, but that's a necessary consequence.

It's how you choose to recover from there that is the mindgame. PK Thunder can be a tricky mistress to handle, but it wont do me much good if I'm gimped RANDOMLY will it? If you think because something randomly effected the outcome of a match it should be banned, do not have double standards just because you don't care about certain characters or their mains.

Getting randomly gimped in a position that would lead to your opponent gimping you naturally anyway isn't an issue, you're grasping at straws, and they don't even exist.

I meant more along the lines of letting them know that "No one cares about Ness" argument you used. Good luck dealing with that, no logical person would ever agree to such things.

(To note, I would not actually advocate for banning Smashville, it's just a worthwhile example alongside YI.)

Hey it's true, Ness getting possibly screwed over by Smashville or Yoshi's Island isn't a legitimate argument against the stages when Ness isn't a viable character and thus not relevant to the top level metagame.

Ganon mains will have resigned themselves to their terrible matchups, Ne
And no it's not a worthwhile example because as I've said, nobody actually considers Smashville a problem (due to its randomness at least)

You got a problem. The ban reasons on the wiki are the reasons people use to defend why stages are banned OFTEN. If they aren't correct, you have a LOT of arguing to do for your side because this is what the majority of people use to defend those stages being banned.

I've never, ever, seen someone point to the smash wiki as justification for having a stage banned, you're just making stuff up now.

So, you are willing to admit to subjectivity, but not the fact that the other side is not wrong if they too have some subjectivity? Be clear here. If you can do it, why can't I? What makes my reasoning wrong?

You're the one trying to claim that we shouldn't have a subjective ruleset.
Guess what, I have the majority on my side, when we listen to subjectivity, I win by default, items will be turned off and the stagelist will remain small.

And for me, YI can save you, it can also kill you. Same for Halberd when you look closely. You match as MK had the claw "randomly" attacked your opponent it'd have been your day right? If I'm on YI and I get saved vs gimped on my last stock due to randomness, it honestly effects the outcome of the match in a very big way! Again, you hold double standards unless you want to admit we both can use subjectivity and are both right.

If it attacked my opponent, it would have been just as stupid aend to the game, a victory that I didn't earn. Why do you assume that if things randomly went in my favour I'd be ok with it? That doesn't make it more competitive.

And again, yes it's true Yoshi's has some randomness. However, when it saves people, it still leaves them in a prime position to be punished/gimped, and the frequency of the ghost saving someone is far lower than pictochat screwing people over or Halberd screwing people over.
Yes it's a completely subjective line, because the completely subjective line has to be drawn somewhere, or we end up with horribly uncompetitive stages like pictochat and warioware legal.

So far you have used argumentum ad populum, possibly the psychologist's fallacy, and definitely using your opinions instead of facts.

Argument ad populum doesn't apply, when the majority's opinion is what determines rulesets, and rulesets themselves are subjective interpretations of what we need to do to the game to make it tournament viable.
It's like saying that in an election, when I say one party will get voted in because the majority supports them, you don't go "lol argument ad populum", because the population is what votes them in, rofl.
Just as the population of smash players talks to their TOs and determines the rulesets.

Opinions instead of facts? You're acting like anything you're saying is fact? Please get down from your high horse.

I don't really see how the psychologist's fallacy would apply so you'll have to explain that to me in more detail.

 

[LiteralGrill]

There's some things we agree on and some things we don't.

But first let's define vital, I think a good definition is "Absolutely necessary or important; essential" (shamelessly stolen from google)

Considering Melee was at Evo 2013, generated insane amounts of hype comparable with UMvC3, with a small stagelist excluding stages such as Rainbow Cruise or Poke Floats, I'd argue purely from that, that they're not a vital aspect of smash.

Can you really say otherwise?

A lot of hype was an insanely large amount of money raised for cancer research and a 12 year old game returning to evo, yes it is also a good game but not mentioning that is leaving a major part out of the story. But maybe a few more stages would have kept the same hype, lets have evo next year with a few more stages so we can compare.

Also, you'd be surprised what hype could happen with larger lists. When both players actually know the stage it can be incredible to watch the technical skill on the stage.

And Sonic would get more use if Temple was legal
How many times do I have to repeat myself, you're clearly not listening, this is the last time.
We don't cater to characters by keeping their best stages legal when those stages lead to degenerate gameplay and heavily polarised matchups. It's not about nerfing those characters, but that's a necessary consequence.

Okay, I'll work with this one. Give me what you believe the legal stagelist for brawl should be. My problem is probably that stages you believe degenerate play I don't. (Though I betcha we agree on Temple)

Getting randomly gimped in a position that would lead to your opponent gimping you naturally anyway isn't an issue, you're grasping at straws, and they don't even exist.

I could easily be hit in that direction by a slower character that couldn't get to me before I recovered. What then? Or even Yoshi's Island where I CAN get gimped 100% at random as many characters, then what? You can draw a subjective line, but your line has some double standards.

Hey it's true, Ness getting possibly screwed over by Smashville or Yoshi's Island isn't a legitimate argument against the stages when Ness isn't a viable character and thus not relevant to the top level metagame.

Ganon mains will have resigned themselves to their terrible matchups, Ne
And no it's not a worthwhile example because as I've said, nobody actually considers Smashville a problem (due to its randomness at least)

What if he could be viable, but your arbitrary nerfing made him so he wasn't along with other characters? And if only whatever top metagame YOU created by deciding subjectively how the rules would be is important, you can create whatever standards you want and continue to change them constantly so not matter what I would "be wrong". And I just showed YI can kill even viable characters at times, so even though you have a flawed argument I can even prove it wrong in one case.

I've never, ever, seen someone point to the smash wiki as justification for having a stage banned, you're just making stuff up now.

People do not usually go "Look at what the wiki says!" What I was attempting to imply was many people use the exact reasons listed there to argue. I had to point out the other day during as talk about PS2 that the person almost quoted the exact reasons the wiki provided. The reason the wiki has those up is because they are the most commonly believed reasons for a stage being legal. And they are not always right about certain stages.

You're the one trying to claim that we shouldn't have a subjective ruleset.
Guess what, I have the majority on my side, when we listen to subjectivity, I win by default, items will be turned off and the stagelist will remain small.

I've been saying some subjectivty IS necessary actually, but that if you wish to use the subjectivity you must point to reasons as to why it is a good idea. In another thread, I listed a pro and con FOR YOU defending YOUR viewpoint. Why can't you do it for yourself?

If it attacked my opponent, it would have been just as stupid aend to the game, a victory that I didn't earn. Why do you assume that if things randomly went in my favour I'd be ok with it? That doesn't make it more competitive.

And again, yes it's true Yoshi's has some randomness. However, when it saves people, it still leaves them in a prime position to be punished/gimped, and the frequency of the ghost saving someone is far lower than pictochat screwing people over or Halberd screwing people over.
Yes it's a completely subjective line, because the completely subjective line has to be drawn somewhere, or we end up with horribly uncompetitive stages like pictochat and warioware legal.

Never said I thought Pictochat should be legal did I? Now you may be putting words in MY mouth. To be, Halberd isn't screwing people over because just like YI it could be worked around. YI you know the platforms could save and kill you, you can reasonably attempt to work around the randomness, this seems to be why you'd keep YI, it's why I keep Halberd. In my case, I'm sticking with what I believe, in your you are using a double standard.

Argument ad populum doesn't apply, when the majority's opinion is what determines rulesets, and rulesets themselves are subjective interpretations of what we need to do to the game to make it tournament viable.
It's like saying that in an election, when I say one party will get voted in because the majority supports them, you don't go "lol argument ad populum", because the population is what votes them in, rofl.
Just as the population of smash players talks to their TOs and determines the rulesets.

Opinions instead of facts? You're acting like anything you're saying is fact? Please get down from your high horse.

I don't really see how the psychologist's fallacy would apply so you'll have to explain that to me in more detail.

It does too apply, because you are using it to say that is what is RIGHT for determining rulesets, fallacies creating a ruleset is BAD. As of now, most rulesets are decided by DICTATORSHIP not by voting anyways, come up with a better analogy.

I keep asking you to actually provide with facts the pros and cons of your system vs what mine might be. If I have to do it because you keep refusing to I will, but I'd like you to actually do so from YOUR viewpoint instead of me doing so pretending to be you. If you refuse still though, I will.

You are assuming your subjective experience reflects the true nature of the events, and of the game. Not much more to explain here.

 

[Ghostbone]

I've read through your post but I'm going to sleep now, will edit this post with a proper response tomorrow.

 

[T0MMY]

So if I'm an Ice Climbers main, it's in my best interest to never agree to a stage just for the chance of getting FD? Same deal if I'm playing against MK of G&W
etc... etc... How silly.

I think it's silly you think a 33% chance of getting FD and a 100% chance your opponent can CP your character is going to give you some kind of advantage.

It's infuriating that you can't have a conversation like a normal human being, just fyi.

That's your choice to be infuriated by a concept you hold.

Anything t0mmy said in this discussion can be safely ignored until he justifies the competitive criteria he agrees with beyond just giving it intrinsic value and using it as a sacred cow, by the way guys.

The criteria has been stated in both the blogs and the wiki that have been linked. Go read.
Now be off with the extreme and bizarre ultimatums.

 

[LiteralGrill]

.

Don't forget we're still talking, where's the response to my last questions for you huh?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I think it's silly you think a 33% chance of getting FD and a 100% chance your opponent can CP your character is going to give you some kind of advantage.

Oh no! Some one is going to CP my character who has arguably no negative match-ups! OF COURSE it is going to give me an advantage, do you think Vinnie/Nakat (basically solo-ICs mains at this point) wouldn't go for that 33% chance in tournament every single time?

Your standardized ruleset doesn't actually mention the counter-picking procedure, by the way.

That's your choice to be infuriated by a concept you hold.

I'm not actually infuriated, I was just making fun of you.

The criteria has been stated in both the blogs and the wiki that have been linked. Go read.
Now be off with the extreme and bizarre ultimatums.

I am well aware of what the criteria is, re-read my post, I'm asking for justification. What makes your criteria undeniably better than others proposed, and if it isn't better, why should anyone follow it?

 

[Ghostbone]

Also, you'd be surprised what hype could happen with larger lists. When both players actually know the stage it can be incredible to watch the technical skill on the stage.

Let me tell you, M2K vs Ally on Brinstar games weren't hype, they were constant "eugh" the entire way through.
And a game being decided by Halberd's claw isn't hype either, it kills hype when close games get decided by random factors, or degenerate strategies such as on Brinstar.

Okay, I'll work with this one. Give me what you believe the legal stagelist for brawl should be. My problem is probably that stages you believe degenerate play I don't. (Though I betcha we agree on Temple)

FD, Smashville, Battlefield, Yoshi's Island (Brawl), PS1, Castle Siege, Lylat Cruise, arguably Delfino and PS2.

I could easily be hit in that direction by a slower character that couldn't get to me before I recovered. What then? Or even Yoshi's Island where I CAN get gimped 100% at random as many characters, then what? You can draw a subjective line, but your line has some double standards.

...Yoshi's island can't gimp you, unless you're ness I suppose.

What if he could be viable, but your arbitrary nerfing made him so he wasn't along with other characters? And if only whatever top metagame YOU created by deciding subjectively how the rules would be is important, you can create whatever standards you want and continue to change them constantly so not matter what I would "be wrong". And I just showed YI can kill even viable characters at times, so even though you have a flawed argument I can even prove it wrong in one case.

Yea and Sonic would be viable if temple was legal.
That's all I need to say in response to that point, if G&W is made less viable from banning RC, sucks to be him, but we're not keeping a broken stage legal just for G&W like we're not keeping temple legal just for sonic.

Oh and please, provide video evidence of Yoshi's Island gimping people randomly, I'd like to see it.

People do not usually go "Look at what the wiki says!" What I was attempting to imply was many people use the exact reasons listed there to argue. I had to point out the other day during as talk about PS2 that the person almost quoted the exact reasons the wiki provided. The reason the wiki has those up is because they are the most commonly believed reasons for a stage being legal. And they are not always right about certain stages.

You're not listening
The wiki being wrong doesn't mean the stages are better. The wiki has nothing to do with anything.

I've been saying some subjectivty IS necessary actually, but that if you wish to use the subjectivity you must point to reasons as to why it is a good idea. In another thread, I listed a pro and con FOR YOU defending YOUR viewpoint. Why can't you do it for yourself?

So we've established that subjectivity is required, good.
I have defended my viewpoint, if you haven't noticed, then you haven't actually been reading any of my posts.

Never said I thought Pictochat should be legal did I? Now you may be putting words in MY mouth. To be, Halberd isn't screwing people over because just like YI it could be worked around. YI you know the platforms could save and kill you, you can reasonably attempt to work around the randomness, this seems to be why you'd keep YI, it's why I keep Halberd. In my case, I'm sticking with what I believe, in your you are using a double standard.

"Can be worked around" is stupid. You can't do anything about halberd putting you in a disadvantaged position arbitrarily. You can do something about Yoshi's Island saving your opponent.

It does too apply, because you are using it to say that is what is RIGHT for determining rulesets, fallacies creating a ruleset is BAD. As of now, most rulesets are decided by DICTATORSHIP not by voting anyways, come up with a better analogy.

Yea you definitely haven't been reading any of my posts.
No ruleset is correct, this has been stated multiple times, they're all subjective.
But guess which one has more support, not yours.

I keep asking you to actually provide with facts the pros and cons of your system vs what mine might be. If I have to do it because you keep refusing to I will, but I'd like you to actually do so from YOUR viewpoint instead of me doing so pretending to be you. If you refuse still though, I will.

"I refuse to read your posts, so I win the argument"
That's what you sound like.

You are assuming your subjective experience reflects the true nature of the events, and of the game. Not much more to explain here.

Throwing around that word true again, as if any opinion can be true.

 

[BaPr]

I have a question. Why does Sonic benefit from temple? My guess is because of the ability to hit and run for safety, but that probably isn't the reason, or isn't the only reason. Also, YI platforms seem a little unfair to me, but anyone can benefit from the platforms, and it doesn't seem to affect game play drastically, so I can understand why it is legal, but I don't like it. But anyways, if it were up to me, I would ban all stages except for FD and let the Smashball be turned on, so don't mind if I say anything completely wrong.

 

[Ghostbone]

Because it's impossible to catch Sonic on temple.
So he gets a lead and runs away until the time runs out.