Standardized Ruleset Development Idea

[LiteralGrill]

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.

Hmm... Minus the Smashball you'd like the Japanese ruleset then. Why FD only though out of curiosity? Also, the word you are looking for with the Sonic thing is Circle Camping.

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.

Wait a second, what are the degenerate strategies on Brinstar? If using the acid to hit opponents is degenerate we definitely do not agree on what the term means. The acid is definitely a hazrad that can be used in amazing and creative ways by both opponents. It's great CP material. Unless I'm missing a tactic I do not know about, I do not understand this one.

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

Hm... Not as small of a list as some, especially if you keep around PS2. I could stomach this at a national as a middle ground for both sides. It's not what I want, but managable.

...Yoshi's island can't gimp you, unless you're ness I suppose. Oh and please, provide video evidence of Yoshi's Island gimping people randomly, I'd like to see it.

Or Lucas!

But there are some other odd cases it's gimped others in the past. I'll see if I can find them.

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.

The problem here comes from our definition of Degenerate Play. Care to show me this play happening on Norfair or RC? Something 100% unbeatable no matter what? That's what it takes for gameplay to be degenerate, you HAVE to do it or you lose. Show me this happening.

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

It does when a large majority of people agree on what it is saying there. And some of what is said there is probably misinformation even. And what of the random new casual player who runs into it and learns everything from there? I've seen people point to it as a place to learn a bit about the game in a simpler format as well. A lot of that stuff needs updating VERY badly too, it keeps saying a bunch of stages are still generally legal when it hasn't been the case for years...

"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.

See, I can't agree with you here. This is Yoshi's Island to me. I can reasonably deal with the hazard, maybe even find ways to use it to my advantage. Also, just calling something "stupid" is not a worthwhile debate point. It's that kind of thing we generally call people scrubs for.

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

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

If you want to just keep using ad argumentum populum I'm done here. I've even kept saying over and over there is subjectivity, have you read MY posts? I want to to argue without some "there's more of us" fallacy that multiple times I've had to point out how much players with said mindset drove out players of the other mindset so from once there was a minority became a majority and if your fallacy WAS true you should have played it the other way from the start and not argued. (I'm going to quote Amazing Ampharos in a spoiler after this, read it. You may see where I'm coming from, and see how in the past they didn't agree to that reasoning.)

And you keep arguing as though your opinion IS true. That's why there is the fallacy. I know we have subjectivity, now debate as to why your subjective reasoning is better with objective points. It is possible, and the skill ceiling example I have used several times now is one thing in favor of your argument while is ways in favor of mine that I have provided for you. I want you to argue with something like that, so we can actually have something to debate over. Otherwise we'll just go back and forth for all eternity,

Spoiler

This thread is painful; let me break the ice by being the first to disagree.

Those features on "dumb-***" stages are not unfair. They never have been, and they never will be. I notice you, like most people who insist upon this position, didn't even give any actual arguments about the problems those features have. You just insisted that they're obviously terrible as though somehow that's supposed to be convincing. Well, for a timid fellow, it probably really is convincing since it was a very aggressive way of making the case and of course plenty of people are willing to just parrot your statement which makes disagreeing even scarier since it's going against a crowd, but not all of us are so timid. You've made no argument at all; you've just insisted that we should ban these things because we'll "end up at the point we know we're all going to end up at."

To that end, perhaps we should look at exactly why we're at where we're at. Here's how the stage list for Brawl was formed. We started by having a ton of legal stages. No one ever proved any significant problems with any of them; at best you could say we saw problems with a few of the very fringe stages that were on thin ice from the start and probably needed to be banned (Skyworld and Pirate Ship are the main two I can think of, and Hanenbow was obviously not okay but a few places had it on very early anyway). A vocal minority pushed very hard to ban stuff constantly though. They succeeded in banning this or than in some region or another. Once a stage was banned in one region, suddenly they had the support of all the players in that region. After all, now that stage was unfamiliar, and if you don't know how to play on a stage, it sure seems a lot less fair than it really is. Then this vocal minority was suddenly a lot less of a minority. All those players would pressure national level events to exclude those stages as to be inclusive to players from every region. Generally they did. Then the regions lagging on the ban would adopt it to keep up with the national trend. This repeated over the course of years first claiming the stages that were popular to gripe about and were maybe more "marginal" (Onett was an early victim), silently snagging stages that no one ever picked and therefore didn't notice when they were banned (Distant Planet, it was good knowing you), eventually moving into the popular cps (Norfair my friend, goodbye), sniping the cp stages that were just overwhelmingly obviously fair but that no one picked (PictoChat, you didn't deserve this), and then we're at today. Nowhere along the line did anyone ever prove anything was wrong with these stages, and efforts to that effect grew lesser as time went on. People just insisted they weren't okay, and apparently just insisting the fact over and over again is supposed to convince us (there was a minority that either tried to prove those stages were unfair [unsuccessfully] or formulated a theory of rulemaking that didn't care if the stages were fair to ban them, but let's ignore them for the moment). Even all the actual play on these stages showing they're okay doesn't deter the insistence, and the fact that the people who insist the loudest are those from regions that have the least experience on these stages doesn't seem to give anyone pause.

So yeah, we do need to skip a year or more of stupidity; I agree. However, all I'm convinced of is that we need to stop the moving goalposts that allow for this pattern. We could just allow a bunch of stages that fit the broad bounds of playability (no loops, nothing crazy-random, etc.) and then not entertain the idea of banning them later. We just keep them on forever unless someone can decisively prove that they have to go which will not be done in the form of people just insisting on bans over and over again as some form of non-argument that's supposed to convince people. We just insist upon really rigorous proof for rule changes, and honestly we know that we're extremely unlikely to see that, so we can just have a static ruleset that actually allows a wide berth of stages which is incidentally in accordance with what most people really wanted in the first place anyway.

If you want to disagree with what I just said, a good approach would be to show us the issues a bit more directly. You competed in MLG events for years that allowed stages such as Poke Floats. Have some match vids on hand that show sets "ruined" by these stages, ideally sets involving good players who knew the stages extremely well? That alone wouldn't really be sufficient to convince me or anyone who actually disagrees with you, but it would certainly be a good starting point for a case as opposed to just being aggressive in insisting on your position without backing it up. Following with an argument with logic, reason, objective gameplay facts, clear theory, etc. would also work. Just telling me I'm wrong is not going to convince me, and hopefully I'm far from the only one not convinced here.

 

[T0MMY]

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?

It's not so much about a 33% chance of getting the stage, it is the 67% chance NOT getting the stage.
Even if they ignored the obvious mathematics behind it, competitive spirit would rear up to address any kind of advantage another opponent has - this is the beauty behind competition. When an IC main is always getting CP'd by a Diddy Kong, R.O.B., planking Meta Knight, or having to face a "mirror match" it then forces them to get better or switch it up to another character/stage.
Maybe Diddy's bananas will foil IC chaingrabs on FD, but now we see Battlefield a viable choice against that character.
You have just helped to prove this process.

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

That's not my group.
But nice try.

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

Thanks for showing how those kinds of tactics will always fail in argument.

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?

I am not saying it is MY criteria that is better than any other. I am simply adhering to the spirit of competition and let THAT support the message I present. This philosophy comes from my research in reading literature about competitive sports (not electronic sports), from people like David Sirlin (in regards to electronic sports), and from the Smash Community itself (like reading Wobbles' blog).
My purpose is to translate this philosophy into something digestible for the common player so conflict may be avoided and a clear set of rules may be used given the event desired.

TL;DR: I'm not demanding anyone "follow" what I have presented - this is a public forum, my content deserves to be published here alongside all other public postings. No defense needed of it, none granted.

 

[BaPr]

Hmm... Minus the Smashball you'd like the Japanese ruleset then. Why FD only though out of curiosity? Also, the word you are looking for with the Sonic thing is Circle Camping.

I am not a fan of multiple platforms on a small stage. It feels too crowded and when going against people like Snake, he can easily drop items on them (his down smash item and Down B), and it gets in the way when I am trying to shoot at someone downwards (control Pit's arrow and it gets blocked. This is just my preference though, but it seems weird you asked about the FD and not about the Smashball.
Oh yeah, and can't sonic stall in FD by going under the stage and keep using the B button?

 

[LiteralGrill]

I am not a fan of multiple platforms on a small stage. It feels too crowded and when going against people like Snake, he can easily drop items on them (his down smash item and Down B), and it gets in the way when I am trying to shoot at someone downwards (control Pit's arrow and it gets blocked. This is just my preference though, but it seems weird you asked about the FD and not about the Smashball.
Oh yeah, and can't sonic stall in FD by going under the stage and keep using the B button?

The sonic thing is actually beatable.

Smashballs on or off is just another thing different people have different thoughts on.

FD is tough to say should be the only stage mostly because it seriously polarizes certain matchups. I do hope this time around, static, starter, and neutral aren't used interchangeably, and FD can finally be a CP

 

[BaPr]

The sonic thing is actually beatable.

Smashballs on or off is just another thing different people have different thoughts on.

FD is tough to say should be the only stage mostly because it seriously polarizes certain matchups. I do hope this time around, static, starter, and neutral aren't used interchangeably, and FD can finally be a CP

Oh, I forgot that you can get him to stop, but lets say in a tournament, FD is chosen, and someone decided to do the Sonic thing. Wouldn't that be considered stalling? Also, if a player is stalling in a tournament, do they get a penalty or something, if so, what?

Smash balls are a random factor, but I just love them. I really don't have any reason they shouldn't be banned other than the fact that they are fun. That's why I love these casual tournaments I used to go to, because the one I used to go to turns on Smash Balls and it is fun to watch people all run towards it and try to get it, then I just shoot an arrow and bam, I win.

Yeah, I can see where FD gives off advantages to certain people. I understand why most stages are allowed, even though I don't like it. Maybe (if it were up to me) I would allow Battlefield too, but other places I don't like. YI, Halberd, and even Smashville are places I don't like because of moving platforms or things in the backround that randomly attack.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Oh, I forgot that you can get him to stop, but lets say in a tournament, FD is chosen, and someone decided to do the Sonic thing. Wouldn't that be considered stalling? Also, if a player is stalling in a tournament, do they get a penalty or something, if so, what?

Smash balls are a random factor, but I just love them. I really don't have any reason they shouldn't be banned other than the fact that they are fun. That's why I love these casual tournaments I used to go to, because the one I used to go to turns on Smash Balls and it is fun to watch people all run towards it and try to get it, then I just shoot an arrow and bam, I win.

Yeah, I can see where FD gives off advantages to certain people. I understand why most stages are allowed, even though I don't like it. Maybe (if it were up to me) I would allow Battlefield too, but other places I don't like. YI, Halberd, and even Smashville are places I don't like because of moving platforms or things in the backround that randomly attack.

You would enjoy a VERY conservative list then, Japan actually has FD only tournaments you might be interested in them and how their tier list is different then ours.

It could be considered stalling, that's up to your TO to call. Sometimes it's a lost stock for punishment, sometime lost match, sometimes lost round. All on the TO for that.

 

[mimgrim]

I always disliked FD because of lack of platforms myself, that and the annoying ledges it has (Brawl FD btw, Melee FD isn't that bad). Not to mention that the lack of platforms gives chain grabby characters a better advantadge then a stage with platforms. So yea if it became the only stage in the US to be played on, like it is in Japan, I would be a bit disspointed lol. Besides if it did get to where only 1 stage becomes legal in the US I have the feeling it would end up being Smashvill instead as from what I have seen that seems to be the most popular stage to be used in the US lol.

 

[LiteralGrill]

I always disliked FD because of lack of platforms myself, that and the annoying ledges it has (Brawl FD btw, Melee FD isn't that bad). Not to mention that the lack of platforms gives chain grabby characters a better advantadge then a stage with platforms. So yea if it became the only stage in the US to be played on, like it is in Japan, I would be a bit disspointed lol. Besides if it did get to where only 1 stage becomes legal in the US I have the feeling it would end up being Smashvill instead as from what I have seen that seems to be the most popular stage to be used in the US lol.

And in Europe for Smashville, one time they did some statistics that showed over 85% of matches were on Smashville.

FD should never have been a starter for some reasons you mentioned, but some fallacies got in the way.

 

[BaPr]

You would enjoy a VERY conservative list then, Japan actually has FD only tournaments you might be interested in them and how their tier list is different then ours.

It could be considered stalling, that's up to your TO to call. Sometimes it's a lost stock for punishment, sometime lost match, sometimes lost round. All on the TO for that.

I looked at the tier list and it is very different from ours (other than Metaknight being on top). Also, I don't get why Ganon is put on top of falcon.

I always disliked FD because of lack of platforms myself, that and the annoying ledges it has (Brawl FD btw, Melee FD isn't that bad). Not to mention that the lack of platforms gives chain grabby characters a better advantadge then a stage with platforms. So yea if it became the only stage in the US to be played on, like it is in Japan, I would be a bit disspointed lol. Besides if it did get to where only 1 stage becomes legal in the US I have the feeling it would end up being Smashvill instead as from what I have seen that seems to be the most popular stage to be used in the US lol.

Even though I absolutely love FD, I have to agree about what you said. Smash Ville does seem like it would win if we only had one. I could get used to it, since the top platform helps prevent chaingrabs (Ice Climbers might still be able to). What I never understood about the chain grabbing is that you could always spam ungrabbable attacks (aerials, projectiles, etc.), so they wouldn't be able to grab you.

 

[T0MMY]

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

Pardon my late response, I am oft times limited to when I can post and chose to address a lesser post since it would not take much time.
Thanks for the reminder though.

[quoteI 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.[/quote]
Yeah, I wouldn't call anyone who wants more stages than others anything more than someone who wants more stages than others. To do so is falling into the left/right paradigm trap and sets focused on bickering "you're wrong, I'm right" attitude.
Again, the focus should be on establishing a standard TO's want to adhere to, communicate properly to their attendees, and progressing from there.
My goal is to create a "Competitive Standard". I'll leave it to others to create their own standards. The stronger standard will displace the weaker ones.

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?

I both agree and disagree with what Amazing Ampharos stated. But in regards to nationals, let those heading the nationals do what they will with their national events. Someone like AlphaZealot worked hard to get to influence the MLG rules, and although I disagree with him on a number of elements, it ultimate was his call.
Someone like Alex Strife is a great show of command, as he saw many complaints that happened with MLG and put in the work to get a tournament styled after a more focused competitive ruleset.
What we see is that MLG has the reputation of not being as competitive with their ruleset and APEX has really stood the test of time.
Later with EVO 2013 the rules had a very focused sense of competitive stages and has been lauded as possibly the best Melee event. Contrast that with EVO 2009 when Items were used and more stages were allowed.
It seems that how events carry on in the thoughts of the community over time are defined by which standard we adhere to.
This seems to be a very paramount topic!

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?

I would not agree to that concept.
For an agreement to be made there needs to be fundamental reason WHY it should be used.
Again, it relied on saying the game does not explicitly say we can't use stages. It was shown to be a slippery slope. If I ignore this than I am agreeing to a conclusion that has no grounding.
It do not agree to groundless conclusions or those of fallacy.
Therefore I do not agree to it.

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.

They will be forgotten. Just look at how quickly these people who slung insults at me were forgotten the past few days in this topic alone.

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?

Harsh critics trying to poke holes is the best thing one can hope for. It is our enemies that lead us to be stronger, for without opposition then mediocrity would reign king.
When a standard is created it will stand the test against all others, again, a rich tree bears wonderful fruit and all sickly trees will be abandoned.

As for the left/right paradigm of more/less stages. Let that be vanquished by the light of reason. We are not arguing "more" or "less" but a standard, when that standard is grounded in reason then it will be a strong standard and TO's will flock to it like bees to succulent flowers.

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.

I am going to be honest and let you know I am not avoiding my agendas, and I don't think you, I, nor anyone could abandon their biases completely. Instead I focus on making truth and reason my friends and hold those friends above all else.
No worries, I have been working on influencing the community on rules for many years. It's a slow and tenacious process that yields the best results, but only if it is supported by reason.

 

[mimgrim]

And in Europe for Smashville, one time they did some statistics that showed over 85% of matches were on Smashville.

FD should never have been a starter for some reasons you mentioned, but some fallacies got in the way.

I guess I can sorta see that for Brawl, but I think there should be a minimum of 3 starter stages at least, because stage striking needs to be fair, and allot of places only have 3 starters anyway with those starters being, Battle Field, Smashville, and Final Destination. Now what would you replace FD with as a starter? The only 2 stages I think have a chance of being starter material would be either Yoshi's Island or Lylat Cruise, and both of those stages seem more like CPs moreso then FD. Admittedly FD does give a bit more of an advantadge to certain characters then BF or SV, but not as much as other stages, and there should be at the very least 3 starter stages, just because of stage striking.

 

[LiteralGrill]

I looked at the tier list and it is very different from ours (other than Metaknight being on top). Also, I don't get why Ganon is put on top of falcon.
Even though I absolutely love FD, I have to agree about what you said. Smash Ville does seem like it would win if we only had one. I could get used to it, since the top platform helps prevent chaingrabs (Ice Climbers might still be able to). What I never understood about the chain grabbing is that you could always spam ungrabbable attacks (aerials, projectiles, etc.), so they wouldn't be able to grab you.

In the end, you generally end up getting grabbed anyways sadly, the moment you slip up that's when you get caught. If you were perfect, I could agree but I've never met a player skilled enough to avoid it forever.

I guess I can sorta see that for Brawl, but I think there should be a minimum of 3 starter stages at least, because stage striking needs to be fair, and allot of places only have 3 starters anyway with those starters being, Battle Field, Smashville, and Final Destination. Now what would you replace FD with as a starter? The only 2 stages I think have a chance of being starter material would be either Yoshi's Island or Lylat Cruise, and both of those stages seem more like CPs moreso then FD. Admittedly FD does give a bit more of an advantadge to certain characters then BF or SV, but not as much as other stages, and there should be at the very least 3 starter stages, just because of stage striking.

I'd recommend more then 3 stages to start, you still give certain characters something on par with a CP round one with three. It used to be the major argument that it should be 7 minimum, 9 is better. Personally, I'd do list striking over starter/cp if I could too.

But for FD: I'll sound insane but maybe PS2. I can back that up if needed.

 

[mimgrim]

I'd recommend more then 3 stages to start, you still give certain characters something on par with a CP round one with three. It used to be the major argument that it should be 7 minimum, 9 is better. Personally, I'd do list striking over starter/cp if I could too.

But for FD: I'll sound insane but maybe PS2. I can back that up if needed.

Personally I preffer the Starter/CP set-up myself tbh as the idea of the first round is to be as fair as possible, and having to big of a starter list can mess this idea up, however the CP list can be bigger becuase well it is for CPs and is suppose to give you a advantadge when you do CP a stage. And arguably the 3 most fair stages in Brawl are BF, SV, and FD and 3 is just enough for stage striking in the first round. Basically keeps it short and simple in my mind, which imo is how the first round should be treated. So basically I guess I am a "conservitive" on the starter list and "liberal" for the CP list. (hope I didn't get the terms mixed up lol)

Ps2 seems more like CP material to me, and doesn't each transformation give advantadges to certain character still, but the combination of all the transformations doesn't benefit every character however. I dunn I think a stage with transformations like PS1 or PS2 are my CP material.

 

[BaPr]

In the end, you generally end up getting grabbed anyways sadly, the moment you slip up that's when you get caught. If you were perfect, I could agree but I've never met a player skilled enough to avoid it forever.

One character I can see having a chance is Metaknight, since he can just spam his attacks. Also, one technique I used was (with Pit) was to dash at them then jump over (before they have a chance to grab) and use a dair. It knocks them upwards and they are vulnerable for a combo. When I used that online (with friends) it seemed to be effective. The only two problems I had with that is that it is pretty predictable if used over and over again (there are also other techniques) and that (like you mentioned already) that you can mess up and become vulnerable for a chaingrab.

The worst people to get chaingrabbed by are the ice climbers IMO, so I am actually wondering what would happen if there is only one on the 3DS version.

 

[LiteralGrill]

There's quite a bit of text and most of it I don't have a responce to and will have to think on a while. I'll just try to poke at some other things.

I would not agree to that concept.
For an agreement to be made there needs to be fundamental reason WHY it should be used.
Again, it relied on saying the game does not explicitly say we can't use stages. It was shown to be a slippery slope. If I ignore this than I am agreeing to a conclusion that has no grounding.
It do not agree to groundless conclusions or those of fallacy.
Therefore I do not agree to it.

But what of the other way around where someone bans something and you have to prove it shouldn't be? That has definitely happened often, and generally for "I don't like it, it's janky, it's gay" kinda reasons.

They will be forgotten. Just look at how quickly these people who slung insults at me were forgotten the past few days in this topic alone.

They aren't always forgotten, some of them were respected members of the backroom or even top TOs. I wont name names, enough reading in old threads can allow you a perspective of your own on that.

Harsh critics trying to poke holes is the best thing one can hope for. It is our enemies that lead us to be stronger, for without opposition then mediocrity would reign king.
When a standard is created it will stand the test against all others, again, a rich tree bears wonderful fruit and all sickly trees will be abandoned.

As for the left/right paradigm of more/less stages. Let that be vanquished by the light of reason. We are not arguing "more" or "less" but a standard, when that standard is grounded in reason then it will be a strong standard and TO's will flock to it like bees to succulent flowers.

I can't agree, I think what will make TOs flock to something is if they like it if the past is anything to look at. Especially seeing as with so much subjectivity there is just about no way you really can create a perfect standard, people will flock to the standard they like.

I am going to be honest and let you know I am not avoiding my agendas, and I don't think you, I, nor anyone could abandon their biases completely. Instead I focus on making truth and reason my friends and hold those friends above all else.
No worries, I have been working on influencing the community on rules for many years. It's a slow and tenacious process that yields the best results, but only if it is supported by reason.

Aw... And here I was trying to drop them in every way possible

I think part of my bias may be why I tried this thread. I wanted to see if two sides could compromise and try to drop them. So far, some progress has been made, but definately not done yet.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Personally I preffer the Starter/CP set-up myself tbh as the idea of the first round is to be as fair as possible,

If that is the case, you want LSS. It makes the first round fairer then any other system. I can do the math to show you if you like.

And arguably the 3 most fair stages in Brawl are BF, SV, and FD and 3 is just enough for stage striking in the first round. Basically keeps it short and simple in my mind, which imo is how the first round should be treated. So basically I guess I am a "conservitive" on the starter list and "liberal" for the CP list. (hope I didn't get the terms mixed up lol)

I can show you why the 3 most fair stages are NOT BF, SV, and FD. To start, you have a starter list where every stage is Ice Climber's best 3 stages. Fair surely doesn't qualify in this case. And even more so, those stages are all very strong for every top tier character we have now. With match 1 being the most important match, draw the lines as to why certain characters are top tier now. (Minus MK, he's the best no matter what.)

The more stages to strike from, the fairer the process.

Ps2 seems more like CP material to me, and doesn't each transformation give advantadges to certain character still, but the combination of all the transformations doesn't benefit every character however. I dunn I think a stage with transformations like PS1 or PS2 are my CP material.

PS2 was actually a starter in many regions for a time and still is. Through countless testing it seemed to not effect the outcome of matchups. When it was a CP in regions it was rarely chosen: you'd rather choose a stage that gave you a serious asvantage on your CP. I can grab some tournament matches from Nova Scotia to show you if you'd like, gameplay is very normal here.

One character I can see having a chance is Metaknight, since he can just spam his attacks. Also, one technique I used was (with Pit) was to dash at them then jump over (before they have a chance to grab) and use a dair. It knocks them upwards and they are vulnerable for a combo. When I used that online (with friends) it seemed to be effective. The only two problems I had with that is that it is pretty predictable if used over and over again (there are also other techniques) and that (like you mentioned already) that you can mess up and become vulnerable for a chaingrab.

The worst people to get chaingrabbed by are the ice climbers IMO, so I am actually wondering what would happen if there is only one on the 3DS version.

MK is only tier one probably because of his chances against ICs now, you'd be correct. He has the best moveset for separating them. Online has lag, it does make chaingrabs and reaction MUCH harder. It's better to test offline if you can.

 

[BaPr]

MK is only tier one probably because of his chances against ICs now, you'd be correct. He has the best moveset for separating them. Online has lag, it does make chaingrabs and reaction MUCH harder. It's better to test offline if you can.

Yeah, the lag is true, but I was mainly talking about the lag free matches. There really isn't a way for me to test it offline, since most of my friends live far away. I think I only have one friend who plays nearby, but he isn't that good (neither am I, but I am a lot better than him). I don't think he has ever even used IC, or knows what Chain grabbing is.

Oh yeah, if characters are banned from stages because of the advantage (Meta Knight Rainbow Cruise) Why are the IC's not banned from FD. Sorry if this is a noob question, but my lack of knowledge just makes me curious.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Yeah, the lag is true, but I was mainly talking about the lag free matches. There really isn't a way for me to test it offline, since most of my friends live far away. I think I only have one friend who plays nearby, but he isn't that good (neither am I, but I am a lot better than him). I don't think he has ever even used IC, or knows what Chain grabbing is.

Oh yeah, if characters are banned from stages because of the advantage (Meta Knight Rainbow Cruise) Why are the IC's not banned from FD. Sorry if this is a noob question, but my lack of knowledge just makes me curious.

It's a good question.

To start, never worry about "noob" questions. Every single player was once brand new, we all start somewhere.

For your question: The answer you will be given is that MK is unbeatable on RC and ICs are still beatable on FD. Personally, it's a curious question, and another major reason to me FD should be a CP if it's played on.

 

[mimgrim]

If that is the case, you want LSS. It makes the first round fairer then any other system. I can do the math to show you if you like.

May I ask what LSS is?

I can show you why the 3 most fair stages are NOT BF, SV, and FD. To start, you have a starter list where every stage is Ice Climber's best 3 stages. Fair surely doesn't qualify in this case. And even more so, those stages are all very strong for every top tier character we have now. With match 1 being the most important match, draw the lines as to why certain characters are top tier now. (Minus MK, he's the best no matter what.)

The more stages to strike from, the fairer the process.

Whoa hold the phone back up the train. Since when is BF one of the 3 best stages for ICs? o.O And let's be honest here, SV is basically that one stage that is very good for, at least, almost all characters due to the way it works, mostly because of the moving platform as it makes gimping bad recovery chyaracters harder to gimp, which is probably the reason it is used so much. I mean cmon the stage is good for just about any character. On FD you are correct, and it is the best stage for any chain grabs in all honesty. But even with that, FD seems to have more "starter" status to it then other stages.

At the most I could see 5 starter stages but in my mind the more starters there are the unfairer it gets for the first round. I believe a starter list should be short and simple while the CP list should be longer and more complex, because of the nature of starters and CPs.

PS2 was actually a starter in many regions for a time and still is. Through countless testing it seemed to not effect the outcome of matchups. When it was a CP in regions it was rarely chosen: you'd rather choose a stage that gave you a serious asvantage on your CP. I can grab some tournament matches from Nova Scotia to show you if you'd like, gameplay is very normal here.

From the way the transformations work I feel like PS2 promotes floaty characters moreso then other character, same with how PS1 promotes camp characters.I could probably work as a starter better then PS1 but I think LC and YI should be starters before PS2, but that is just how I feel.[/quote]

 

[LiteralGrill]

.

Fix your post quick? Can't read it! I'll try to respond my best though, watch for edit.

 

[mimgrim]

Fix your post quick? Can't read it! I'll try to respond my best though, watch for edit.

There, did {.quote] in the first quote which messed it up on me. lol

 

[LiteralGrill]

May I ask what LSS is?

A List Striking System. Generally, you take an entire list of legal stages and striking down for the first stage you play on. Depending, you either allow the other legal stages to be used as counterpicks, or they use the last 5-7 stages struck as the legal stagelist after.

Whoa hold the phone back up the train. Since when is BF one of the 3 best stages for ICs? o.O And let's be honest here, SV is basically that one stage that is very good for, at least, almost all characters due to the way it works, mostly because of the moving platform as it makes gimping bad recovery chyaracters harder to gimp, which is probably the reason it is used so much. I mean cmon the stage is good for just about any character. On FD you are correct, and it is the best stage for any chain grabs in all honesty. But even with that, FD seems to have more "starter" status to it then other stages.

BF is a very flat stage where well place uairs can deal with the platforms. Not their VERY best stage, but definitely one of their best.

At the most I could see 5 starter stages but in my mind the more starters there are the unfairer it gets for the first round. I believe a starter list should be short and simple while the CP list should
be longer and more complex, because of the nature of starters and CPs.

Some reading for you:

http://smashboards.com/threads/9-st...vent-stagnancy-in-brawl.280670/#post-10737951

http://www.smashboards.com/threads/the-7-9-starter-system.268086/

Even the first few pages will teach you a lot on the subject, and me just quoting it all here would be too insane a wall of text.

From the way the transformations work I feel like PS2 promotes floaty characters moreso then other character, same with how PS1 promotes camp characters.I could probably work as a starter better then PS1 but I think LC and YI should be starters before PS2, but that is just how I feel.

Don't feel, go do! Find a player on your level and fight out a bunch of matches there.

But to help in case you can't:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-n3PgqzTBaE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zbel7gLfJY8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVTP2z1Oz1Y

Here's three matches on PS@ by top Nova Scotia players. Decide if they look abnormal to you.


Though the stages you suggested wouldn't be too bad either.[/quote]

 

[Grim Tuesday]

It's not so much about a 33% chance of getting the stage, it is the 67% chance NOT getting the stage.
Even if they ignored the obvious mathematics behind it, competitive spirit would rear up to address any kind of advantage another opponent has - this is the beauty behind competition. When an IC main is always getting CP'd by a Diddy Kong, R.O.B., planking Meta Knight, or having to face a "mirror match" it then forces them to get better or switch it up to another character/stage.
Maybe Diddy's bananas will foil IC chaingrabs on FD, but now we see Battlefield a viable choice against that character.
You have just helped to prove this process.

The obvious mathematics? Let's compare:
#1. 33% chance of getting their best stage in any given MU, 67% chance of getting either their second or third best. The second and third best are almost equally as good for ICs as one another.
#2. 0% chance of getting their best stage in any given MU, 100% chance of getting their second best.
Hm.

I'm not worried about Ice Climbers becoming "too powerful" or anything like that, though, it's not even about Ice Climbers specifically. Every ruleset change is an arbitrary buff and nerf to every character; the problem is that many time the best option (for one player) for stage selection is suddenly to roll a 3-sided die. Chance is bad for competition.

That's not my group.
But nice try.

AiB is down right now, but I recall being linked to that from your blog post about the competitive criteria.
You see, this is where most people would've said "That isn't actually my ruleset, THIS is my ruleset, and THIS is my counter-picking procedure", but your apparent egotism is making this much more difficult than it needs to be.

That's not ad hominem by the way, it's constructive criticism.

Thanks for showing how those kinds of tactics will always fail in argument.

The seed of dissention was planted, dearest Tommy. It shan't be long before even your closest friends turn against you now.

I am not saying it is MY criteria that is better than any other. I am simply adhering to the spirit of competition and let THAT support the message I present. This philosophy comes from my research in reading literature about competitive sports (not electronic sports), from people like David Sirlin (in regards to electronic sports), and from the Smash Community itself (like reading Wobbles' blog).
My purpose is to translate this philosophy into something digestible for the common player so conflict may be avoided and a clear set of rules may be used given the event desired.

TL;DR: I'm not demanding anyone "follow" what I have presented - this is a public forum, my content deserves to be published here alongside all other public postings. No defense needed of it, none granted.

Finally, this is what I was getting to. Once AiB is back up or you post a copy of your competitive criteria, I will respond to it with this in mind.
But it's worth pointing out that, from memory, the end result of your ruleset seems to conflict with Sirlin's ideology that a ban must be warranted. How do you justify the removal of every stage but 3 (and don't tell me that they aren't banned because players can agree to them - players will rarely, if ever, agree to a stage other than the 3 you've listed if they're playing to win, so all others are effectively banned).

I'd actually like your ruleset if you replaced the random stage thing with "if the players can't agree; go to Battlefield", or replace Battlefield with Smashville. Either of those would be fine.

 

[mimgrim]

A List Striking System. Generally, you take an entire list of legal stages and striking down for the first stage you play on. Depending, you either allow the other legal stages to be used as counterpicks, or they use the last 5-7 stages struck as the legal stagelist after.

The former isn't to bad but I still think a start/CP is better. Some stages just shouldn't be an option for the first round, to me anyways.

BF is a very flat stage where well place uairs can deal with the platforms. Not their VERY best stage, but definitely one of their best.

If it really were one of their best stages then why is it one of the prime stages to be striked by them? Even in 7-9 starters they try to strike BF. They strik BF over stages such as, PS1, PS2, YI, and even CS. Honestly if BF truly was one of their best stages then why do the constantly priotize to strike that stage, whether it be 3, 5, 7, or 9 stage starter list.

Some reading for you:

http://smashboards.com/threads/9-st...vent-stagnancy-in-brawl.280670/#post-10737951

http://www.smashboards.com/threads/the-7-9-starter-system.268086/

Even the first few pages will teach you a lot on the subject, and me just quoting it all here would be too insane a wall of text.

I read what I could stand to read but I still agree with the people who prefer a 5 stage starter list to a 7/9 stage starter list. But I must ask you, what is the point in having a bigger starter list when in competitive play those extra starters will usually get striked any way? The 3 most common stages that seem to, usually, get picked in the beginning are FD, SV, and BF and if it gets to the point to where even in a bigger list of starter stages to where it basically always comes down to one of those 3 why not just make those 3 stages the starters, espically when those other stages, usually, don't get picked nearly as often as them.

Don't feel, go do! Find a player on your level and fight out a bunch of matches there.

But to help in case you can't:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-n3PgqzTBaE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zbel7gLfJY8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVTP2z1Oz1Y

Here's three matches on PS@ by top Nova Scotia players. Decide if they look abnormal to you.


Though the stages you suggested wouldn't be too bad either.

I know I'm not good at this game on a competitive level at the moment. But that Sothe (I think that was a textur hack of Sothe anyway, couldn't really tell with the low quality) seemed like a few levels higher the other people. But from what I saw of those videos, some of the transformations can give a considerable advantadge if used right and some characters can get advantadges from multiple ones. Did you see how long that Dedede stayed in the air during the Flying transformation? You can argue that it doesn't matter because the tansformation isn't permanent, but considering the length he was able to stay up there if he had used the situation better he could have benefitted allot better. And that ground transformation, if the Dedede had gotten the chance, or made a chance, it could have done a infinite wall chain grab on the Marth I believe and could have racked up a good bit of damage. Even the SotheMarth was able to do a D-tilt combo with that wall and racked up a good bit of damage. Also that Snake didn't seem to use the ground transformation to it's fullest but if he had it would have been a better advantadge for him, but that Snake did a decent job on the electric transformation, and that Snake could have done better on the Flying transformation if he had gotten further in the air and rained grenades meaning another advantadge. The advantadges might be small but the add up, espicallyif a character has advantadges on multiple transformations. It might work to an extent but from thos videos it doesn't seem as optimal as a starter as stages like SV, BF, FD, LC, and YI. It might not benefit certain characters as much as PS1 but it benefits enough to be a CP instead of a starter, at least to me.

Inb4youtotallybreakeverythingIjustsaidinthislastparagraphtopiecesandshowmehowenexpiriencedIamandgetmetoshutthehellupandletthepeoplewhoknowwhattheyaretalkingabouttalk.

 

[T0MMY]

But what of the other way around where someone bans something and you have to prove it shouldn't be? That has definitely happened often, and generally for "I don't like it, it's janky, it's gay" kinda reasons.

I agree, this is why people should not just ban stages, not for bad reasons, and definitely not good reasons. Bans should rarely be seen in the competitive scene. What we should be seeing is settings that align with competitive philosophy, at which point there simply is no room for non-competitive settings.

They aren't always forgotten, some of them were respected members of the backroom or even top TOs. I wont name names, enough reading in old threads can allow you a perspective of your own on that.

It is a matter of perspective, the threads remain a testament of poor argument.
If anyone tries to use that as evidence they stand by poor argument and are thus also left behind as the stronger argument continues.
In the long run, they are forgotten.

I can't agree, I think what will make TOs flock to something is if they like it if the past is anything to look at. Especially seeing as with so much subjectivity there is just about no way you really can create a perfect standard, people will flock to the standard they like.

TOs are, surprisingly, much like any other human - we do like reasonable order and conclusions that follow. If this were not true we'd have a chaotic mess with no hope of standards. Standards do exist, and I just see that they can be polished and presented as something very solid and trustworthy.
These are qualities that are universal, therefore they will be "liked", so you are correct. But there's no reason why we are looking to create the "perfect" standard, as that would be phantasmagorical and we might as well be chasing the wind.
My goal is to publicly present a valid competitive standard. If nobody else likes it then I may make the decision to be a iconoclast TO (though free market would most likely show this would be very successful anyway).

Aw... And here I was trying to drop them in every way possible

Nah, a strict sense of goals is good - in this light it is good to have biased views, but they should get one to their goals.

I think part of my bias may be why I tried this thread. I wanted to see if two sides could compromise and try to drop them. So far, some progress has been made, but definately not done yet.

I think you're doing a pretty good job here.
But I'm not going to be easy on ya ;^D

The obvious mathematics? Let's compare:
#1. 33% chance of getting their best stage in any given MU, 67% chance of getting either their second or third best. The second and third best are almost equally as good for ICs as one another.
#2. 0% chance of getting their best stage in any given MU, 100% chance of getting their second best.

It is unfortunate that your argument relies on the opinion of "best", as it is subjective.
Even if this is the case, what is the stronger model to replace the proposed stage select process (sounds like you are saying there should be more stages to reduce chances, which may not be the case)?
Even so, it seems the argument is of character, not stage.
This is why the reasoning goes to this next step...

Every ruleset change is an arbitrary buff and nerf to every character; the problem is that many time the best option (for one player) for stage selection is suddenly to roll a 3-sided die. Chance is bad for competition.

There is much in this post that now begs examination.
What evidence supports the claim that every ruleset change buffs/nerfs every character?
What is the reasoning behind assuming the best option is the 1 in 3 chance?
Why do you say chance is bad for competition?

AiB is down right now, but I recall being linked to that from your blog post about the competitive criteria.

A link in a blog does not mean I was proprietor of the material. You'll see that holds true when AiB is back up for you.

You see, this is where most people would've said "That isn't actually my ruleset, THIS is my ruleset, and THIS is my counter-picking procedure", but your apparent egotism is making this much more difficult than it needs to be.

Ad hominem, sorry, not only are you wrong, but the assumed fallacy doesn't even make sense.

That's not ad hominem by the way, it's constructive criticism.

Ad hominem means "to the man".
The "constructive criticism" was not directed to the argument at hand, it was directed toward me.
Therefore, fallacy. Not only does this mean it gets ignored, but it essentially ends the argument.

The seed of dissention was planted, dearest Tommy. It shan't be long before even your closest friends turn against you now.

Oh, I remember that old joke!
Very funny meme. LOL

But it's worth pointing out that, from memory, the end result of your ruleset seems to conflict with Sirlin's ideology that a ban must be warranted. How do you justify the removal of every stage but 3 (and don't tell me that they aren't banned because players can agree to them - players will rarely, if ever, agree to a stage other than the 3 you've listed if they're playing to win, so all others are effectively banned).

A very good question, and the answer lies in the fact that Sirlin was dealing with metagames, an extra ludo application to keep a game "competitive" as he illustrated with the soft ban of Akuma in Super Turbo.
There is no setting that bans Akuma from being used in-game.
The situation in which you are referring of my presented rules is actually an in-game setting, NOT an out-of-game ban. The game itself provides for setting any Stage as "OFF", this is what Capps would say is adhering to a "native state" of the game.

Now, the metagame of which stages to turn OFF is not a ban, but is a necessary standard. If you make the claim that if my rules are in conflict with Sirlin's standards set forth then EVERY ruleset would be in violation and NONE should be accepted? I'd wager a ruleset based on this would not be a very convincing ruleset and used by practically no TO (antithesis to my goals)

I'd actually like your ruleset if you replaced the random stage thing with "if the players can't agree; go to Battlefield", or replace Battlefield with Smashville. Either of those would be fine.

It is interesting that originally that is where I started. Battlefield in SSBB was to be the default stage, much akin to how Dreamland is the only default stage for SSB.
But going deeper with analysis I had to ask "Why Battlefield?"
The arbitrary use of Battlefield led to the inclusion of both Final Destination and Smashville, because anything that could be argued for one could be extended to the other. This also helps appease players who simply just want "more stages". The one group it seems to not satisfy is those who are against the use of Final Destination (which happens to be character specific, and is not a very persuasive argument when it comes to competitively aligned stages).

 

[Grim Tuesday]

It is unfortunate that your argument relies on the opinion of "best", as it is subjective.
Even if this is the case, what is the stronger model to replace the proposed stage select process (sounds like you are saying there should be more stages to reduce chances, which may not be the case)?
Even so, it seems the argument is of character, not stage.
This is why the reasoning goes to this next step...

If you're looking for pure objectivity, you have contradicted yourself (making subjective claims numerous times in this discussion) and you will be sorely disappointed. Objectivity doesn't exist in this framework.
A stronger model is forced stage striking (your current ruleset gives players the option, which is nice), or only using one stage.

It certainly is about characters, and also about stages. If we ignore the influence of characters, then every stage would be legal (a hypothetical banned stage that ignores characters would have to give players seizures, or something). Therefore, there is nothing wrong with it being "of character".

There is much in this post that now begs examination.
What evidence supports the claim that every ruleset change buffs/nerfs every character?
What is the reasoning behind assuming the best option is the 1 in 3 chance?
Why do you say chance is bad for competition?

Every ruleset changing buffing and nerfing characters is a logical deduction, and common sense, it doesn't require evidence. There is no default way to play, and every change to the rules will change each character's place in the metagame (if only slighty); therefore, every ruleset will buff/nerf characters arbitrarily depending on what you consider the baseline "worth" of each character (which is entirely arbitrary in and of itself).

The best option being 1 in 3 chance is an opinion, but one that is strongly supported by knowledge that is common to competitive Brawl players. I gave a hypothetical scenario above, and that scenario is backed up by player consensus (FD being ICs best stage, BF/SV being equally as strong as one another but not as good as FD) and tournament results.

Chance is bad for competition because the ultimate goal of competition is to determine who is the best at any given thing among the entrants. Chance reduces the consistency of that result, and gives players who are not the best an opportunity to win. This is not to say that anything random is inherently bad, as sometimes the depth that the random aspect provides for the game is worth the drop in consistent results (this is an entirely subjective declaration), however, the element of chance in any given thing is inherently bad for competition.

A link in a blog does not mean I was proprietor of the material. You'll see that holds true when AiB is back up for you.

Proprietor and "your" are not necessarily synonymous - if it is the ruleset you agree with and use, it can be called "your ruleset". If it is, in fact, not the ruleset you agree with/use, then I apologize.
Otherwise, it'd be nice if you stopped dabbling in semantics.

Ad hominem, sorry, not only are you wrong, but the assumed fallacy doesn't even make sense.

Ad hominem means "to the man".
The "constructive criticism" was not directed to the argument at hand, it was directed toward me.
Therefore, fallacy. Not only does this mean it gets ignored, but it essentially ends the argument.

I'm sure the adjudicator of this formal debate is very impressed with your knowledge of fallacies.

The reason I'm talking to you specifically isn't to undermine you as a person and therefore weaken your arguments, or to use you as a strawman - I just want to be able to discuss this in a manner that is actually productive. You're not getting browny points from the readers in this thread for playing by the rules, you're just drawing things out. There is a time and place for formality. I recall early on in this thread you requested an apology from another user - what a waste of time. Even ignoring the fact that asking someone to apologize completely mitigates the value of the apology and turns it into an exchanging of meaningless pleasantries, you're ironically taking away from the actual discussion at hand and making this all about you. Why else would you playing these games of semantics and dodging than to project yourself as "holier than thou".

Hopefully speaking your native tongue in that paragraph got through to you a bit better.

A very good question, and the answer lies in the fact that Sirlin was dealing with metagames, an extra ludo application to keep a game "competitive" as he illustrated with the soft ban of Akuma in Super Turbo.
There is no setting that bans Akuma from being used in-game.
The situation in which you are referring of my presented rules is actually an in-game setting, NOT an out-of-game ban. The game itself provides for setting any Stage as "OFF", this is what Capps would say is adhering to a "native state" of the game.

Now, the metagame of which stages to turn OFF is not a ban, but is a necessary standard. If you make the claim that if my rules are in conflict with Sirlin's standards set forth then EVERY ruleset would be in violation and NONE should be accepted? I'd wager a ruleset based on this would not be a very convincing ruleset and used by practically no TO (antithesis to my goals)

I am okay with this.

It is interesting that originally that is where I started. Battlefield in SSBB was to be the default stage, much akin to how Dreamland is the only default stage for SSB.
But going deeper with analysis I had to ask "Why Battlefield?"
The arbitrary use of Battlefield led to the inclusion of both Final Destination and Smashville, because anything that could be argued for one could be extended to the other. This also helps appease players who simply just want "more stages". The one group it seems to not satisfy is those who are against the use of Final Destination (which happens to be character specific, and is not a very persuasive argument when it comes to competitively aligned stages).

Yes, it is arbitrary no matter what.
I've given my reasons for choosing a single stage over 3, so I won't repeat them here.

However, I'd like to hear your reasoning for Smashville, Battlefield and Final Destination being set to ON at the exclusion of every other stage. More specifically, what is special about these stages?

 

[LiteralGrill]

A very good question, and the answer lies in the fact that Sirlin was dealing with metagames, an extra ludo application to keep a game "competitive" as he illustrated with the soft ban of Akuma in Super Turbo.
There is no setting that bans Akuma from being used in-game.
The situation in which you are referring of my presented rules is actually an in-game setting, NOT an out-of-game ban. The game itself provides for setting any Stage as "OFF", this is what Capps would say is adhering to a "native state" of the game.

Now, the metagame of which stages to turn OFF is not a ban, but is a necessary standard. If you make the claim that if my rules are in conflict with Sirlin's standards set forth then EVERY ruleset would be in violation and NONE should be accepted? I'd wager a ruleset based on this would not be a very convincing ruleset and used by practically no TO (antithesis to my goals)

Yes, that'd be "native state" alright, which lead me to finally maybe able to figure out something. I promise to respond to the rest later; I ended up with a rough end of my day and am too tired to type too much.

Remember the slippery slope argument earlier?

"As all stages are ON within the game, it must be proven by those that wish them to be OFF to prove this should be so."

I think I found a way around the innocent until guilty problems earlier, thoughts?

 

[Ghostbone]

There's no reason why any stage being on in the random stage select is any more objectively desirable than any stage being off.
Just as stocks aren't objectively more desirable than coin matches (can't even circle camp in coin games).

As soon as we make any changes to the "native state" of Brawl (including stuff like unlocking characters or more rules), you realise most of the settings are completely up to subjective preferences.

Brawl isn't a competitive game out of the box and we should stop trying to treat it like it is, and yes that means subjective preferences are legitimate reasons to ban things.
If Smash had an issue with rules being incredibly difficult to understand as we add layers and layers of external limitations, then we'd have to stop making rulesets with subjectivity.

But that hasn't happened, rulesets are generally easy to follow, the only external limitations in place are easily understandable stuff (don't extend dimensional cape, don't time out after grabbing the ledge 35 times, don't combo past 300%, don't pick these stages).
The reason you generally want to keep games as close to their native state as possible is for simplicity, and the Brawl rulesets used are still simple enough to understand.

Tbh there are two extremes you could take rulesets to, the standard that we use (3 stock 8-10 mins, close to 7 legal stages), or a system where players strike from every stage in the game (except for 1, since there's 42 total stages and we need an odd number) to determine where they play, with coin matches (stock matches are inherently flawed when you don't have outside interference from LGL or time rulings)
You have to realise anything besides the latter is a completely subjective interpretation of what you think the rules should be, having 20 legal stages isn't any more "objectively" valid than having 7 legal stages.
When you realise that objectivity can't be used to make the ruleset, then it's subjectivity we use instead.
If you want to increase the legal stagelist, then no arguing about which ruleset is intrinsically better will help you achieve your goal, the only way would be to actually go out and convince players that they should want to play on those 13 other stages.

In the end, people are going to play the game the way they want to play, and to try and tell people that the way they're playing is wrong is incredibly elitist.
Host your own tournaments with heaps of stages or items legal, get other TOs to agree with you (to do that you'd have to show that attendance and player satisfaction increases), that's how you'd change the mindset of most players.

You can dismiss that as "Oh you're not actually arguing your point, just using fallacious reasoning", and I'd respond to that with, even if that's true, it's the reality of the situation whether you want to accept it or not.

 

[LiteralGrill]

In the end, people are going to play the game the way they want to play, and to try and tell people that the way they're playing is wrong is incredibly elitist.
Host your own tournaments with heaps of stages or items legal, get other TOs to agree with you (to do that you'd have to show that attendance and player satisfaction increases), that's how you'd change the mindset of most players.

You can dismiss that as "Oh you're not actually arguing your point, just using fallacious reasoning", and I'd respond to that with, even if that's true, it's the reality of the situation whether you want to accept it or not.

Last part: why didn't everyone else play on the largest stagelists then? They HAD THE MAJORITY THEN!

I can't count how many times I've asked this now. If you are going to use your fallacy, why didn't it apply then?

And if I'm elists for telling people "they are wrong", you are for doing the same to me earlier. You seem to say how I want to play is wrong, when I've even said during this thread both sides ARE RIGHT. It's the defense of your position and the double standards you have that are my problem.

 

[Ghostbone]

Last part: why didn't everyone else play on the largest stagelists then? They HAD THE MAJORITY THEN!

People wanting large stagelists was never the majority.
And is it so hard to believe that a lot of the people who might have wanted larger stagelists changed their mind as the game developed?

And if I'm elists for telling people "they are wrong", you are for doing the same to me earlier. You seem to say how I want to play is wrong, when I've even said during this thread both sides ARE RIGHT. It's the defense of your position and the double standards you have that are my problem.

You're not wrong per se, opinions can't be wrong, but the majority has a different opinion.

 

[LiteralGrill]

People wanting large stagelists was never the majority.
And is it so hard to believe that a lot of the people who might have wanted larger stagelists changed their mind as the game developed?



You're not wrong per se, opinions can't be wrong, but the majority has a different opinion.

If they weren't the majority, why did we have larger stagelists from the start, and explain MLG.

 

[Ghostbone]

If they weren't the majority, why did we have larger stagelists from the start, and explain MLG.

MLG's ruleset was determined by like 1 guy, who happened to be of the liberal mindset.
Were you there for the massive outcry over it? The actual supporters of the stagelist were few.

Stagelist started big because people were open minded, lots of new players especially (who would often change their minds as the game evolved)

As much as I'd like to again be "open-minded" about the next smash, after seeing the same thing happen for 2 games, with a 3rd that has very similar mechanics, I feel like it'd just be a waste of time to keep heaps of stages legal for a year. (sure I'll play them all individually and judge them, but early tournaments should really have like 9 legal stages max)

 

[T0MMY]

Remember the slippery slope argument earlier?

"As all stages are ON within the game, it must be proven by those that wish them to be OFF to prove this should be so."

I think I found a way around the innocent until guilty problems earlier, thoughts?

This is a better argument. However, it begs the question.
Given that we take this circular reasoning as given, we would then have the onerous process of adjudicating. Just who is going to fill the roles of prosecutor/defense/judge/jury? It will undoubtedly turn into a cockfight and one person would step in as judge/jury/executioner - remember that post you linked to where a "this is how it is, 'cuz I said so" personality takes charge?

Whoa, so much potential for chaos there. Let's step back and look at the practicality of our situation:
Each tournament has the rules set by the TO.
The TO tries their best to make the attendees happy.
Not all attendees like all stages.
Some will complain that some stages are not used.
Others will complain they are used.
What is a TO to do?

This is how I came to the process of agreeing to a stage.
I can't begin to explain how much this process has helped me quell these problems.

If you're looking for pure objectivity, you have contradicted yourself

I never said I was, as I do not work with absolutes.

A stronger model is forced stage striking (your current ruleset gives players the option, which is nice), or only using one stage

What makes it stronger?

It certainly is about characters, and also about stages. If we ignore the influence of characters, then every stage would be legal (a hypothetical banned stage that ignores characters would have to give players seizures, or something).

Not sure if this is a tangent or some kind of assertion.

Therefore, there is nothing wrong with it being "of character".

Nobody said it would be wrong.

Every ruleset changing buffing and nerfing characters is a logical deduction, and common sense, it doesn't require evidence.

Simply relying on it being "common sense" is a double edged sword, as the complete opposite claim could be made based on "common sense".
So maybe stick with the logical deduction; from what argument was it deduced?

There is no default way to play

Actually, there is a default way to play. The game has a default setting initially for each mode of play (e.g. 2 minute timer with items on). Would you now suggest we simply use the default settings for competitions?

and every change to the rules will change each character's place in the metagame (if only slighty); therefore, every ruleset will buff/nerf characters arbitrarily depending on what you consider the baseline "worth" of each character (which is entirely arbitrary in and of itself).

Given this buff/nerf assumption, what is your conclusion?

The best option being 1 in 3 chance is an opinion, but one that is strongly supported by knowledge that is common to competitive Brawl players. I gave a hypothetical scenario above, and that scenario is backed up by player consensus (FD being ICs best stage, BF/SV being equally as strong as one another but not as good as FD) and tournament results.

Yes, you did, unfortunately hypothetical situations/theory crafting is not equivocal to practicality.
In practice, this process has been the most successful. If you have a stronger process, please tell.

Chance is bad for competition because the ultimate goal of competition is to determine who is the best at any given thing among the entrants. Chance reduces the consistency of that result, and gives players who are not the best an opportunity to win. This is not to say that anything random is inherently bad, as sometimes the depth that the random aspect provides for the game is worth the drop in consistent results (this is an entirely subjective declaration), however, the element of chance in any given thing is inherently bad for competition.

For competition:
Chance is "bad".
Random (chance) is not inherently "bad'.
The element of chance in any given thing is inherently "bad".

You've got a lot of explaining to do or else this looks like one major contradiction (Inherent? Element?). Until then, at its best it is just ambiguous/convoluted.

Proprietor and "your" are not necessarily synonymous - if it is the ruleset you agree with and use, it can be called "your ruleset". If it is, in fact, not the ruleset you agree with/use, then I apologize.
Otherwise, it'd be nice if you stopped dabbling in semantics.

Synonymous or not, I'm not the one making the claim it is "mine". I never said I "agree" with the ruleset, nor has it been shown I "use" it.
I request you please verify before making claims like this in the future, please.

I'm sure the adjudicator of this formal debate is very impressed with your knowledge of fallacies.

Snarky. haha.

The reason I'm talking to you specifically isn't to undermine you as a person and therefore weaken your arguments, or to use you as a strawman - I just want to be able to discuss this in a manner that is actually productive.

An ad hominem is an attempt to undermine.
And I disagree with the implication of not being productive.

You're not getting browny points from the readers in this thread for playing by the rules, you're just drawing things out. There is a time and place for formality

I don't do this for accolades, nor to draw things out - patience is a virtue.
As easy it is to say "you're stupid, I'm right!", I'd rather hear everyone out than fall prey to fallacy.
If there is a problem with this, feel free to end the discussion.

I recall early on in this thread you requested an apology from another user - what a waste of time.

The apology was a redress to get the discussion back on track so we could put the ad hominems behind us and continue. As you can see, the other user and I are making great progress towards a proposed standard. One of the contributing factors for this is we are not wasting our time with ad hominems and telling each other what we should do.

more ad hominems

Ad hominems and all other fallacies are ultimately forgotten.
No need to waste anymore time with that.

Hopefully speaking your native tongue in that paragraph got through to you a bit better.

English?

Yes, it is arbitrary no matter what.
I've given my reasons for choosing a single stage over 3, so I won't repeat them here.

Cool. I use that option in some tournaments I run.

However, I'd like to hear your reasoning for Smashville, Battlefield and Final Destination being set to ON at the exclusion of every other stage. More specifically, what is special about these stages?

As I stated earlier, it mostly has to do with timeliness of the tournament itself. But has a lot to do with adhering to the philosophy of competition.
Keep in mind, the three stages that are set to ON, are not the only stages available to be played on through the entire set; the 3-stage ON rule in question is regarding starting stages. Many other stages may (and have been) used by the players.

 

[LiteralGrill]

[quote="T0MMY, post: 15768595, member: 23326"
For my events I like a timely match, larger stages are not allowed due to time constraints. Also, I've witnessed too many instances where a canonball, speeding car, or giant fish KO'd a person, and because I think it's ridiculous to award the prizes to a stage element instead of a player, I decided to limit the stages to neutral stages.[/quote]

Careful, those stages are not actually neutral. The term "starter" might apply, but not neutral. We don't have a 100% neutral stage in smash.

 

[T0MMY]

Which definition of "neutral" are you going by, and why should I adhere to it?

 

[mimgrim]

.

Why do I feel like you ignored my reply to you yesterday, lol.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Which definition of "neutral" are you going by, and why should I adhere to it?

No stage does not effect characters matchups in any way. I get what you mean by "neutral" but it's never been a correct term.

 

[T0MMY]

I am not sure what you are saying here.
What is your definition of "neutral" for a stage?

 

[LiteralGrill]

Why do I feel like you ignored my reply to you yesterday, lol.

Sorry! Had a rough day at the end of the day yesterday and it just slipped my mind, let me respond now!

The former isn't to bad but I still think a start/CP is better. Some stages just shouldn't be an option for the first round, to me anyways.

If it really were one of their best stages then why is it one of the prime stages to be striked by them? Even in 7-9 starters they try to strike BF. They strik BF over stages such as, PS1, PS2, YI, and even CS. Honestly if BF truly was one of their best stages then why do the constantly priotize to strike that stage, whether it be 3, 5, 7, or 9 stage starter list.


I read what I could stand to read but I still agree with the people who prefer a 5 stage starter list to a 7/9 stage starter list. But I must ask you, what is the point in having a bigger starter list when in competitive play those extra starters will usually get striked any way? The 3 most common stages that seem to, usually, get picked in the beginning are FD, SV, and BF and if it gets to the point to where even in a bigger list of starter stages to where it basically always comes down to one of those 3 why not just make those 3 stages the starters, espically when those other stages, usually, don't get picked nearly as often as them.

A lot of this is related, so I'll try to tackle this all together.

I never knew ICs were striking BF with YI, PS1, and/or CS as starters. Where is this going on?

If you take a list of all legal stages and strike them down, well, here's an elequent explanation:

The post is based on the idea of using a large starting list to create a more balanced initial stage and you choose to use 7 stages for your example. Why not continue the thought and stage strike from the entire list of legal stages? I personally feel that striking from the entire (legal) stage list will result in the most balanced possible stage for the beginning round and I hold this belief for several reasons.

1. There is no universally accepted equal playing field in brawl. All stages will bias one character in one way or another and no matter how small the advantage is, it is still an advantage making a neutral stage nonexistent. Striking from the entire list will remedy this problem by finding the stage which gives the *median of bias*.

2. The stage which is selected will often not be the most "neutral" (as seen by the common perspective) stage instead it will reward characters who play well on many types of terrains. Game and Watch is a very dynamic character who can play on many stages well however does very poorly on Final Destination and other "neutral" stages. By using the entire list we may see that game and watch does well on 75%** of the stages and it is in my opinion that because Game and Watch does well on many stages he should be given an advantage on the first stage. Ice Climbers fall on the other side of the spectrum and may only do well on 25%** of stages and as a result are being artificially buffed by being given a biased starter list and it is in my opinion that they should be placed at a disadvantage for their lack of adaptability to multiple terrain.

3. Our perception of what is "Neutral" is very narrow. We often view stage with dynamic features such as pictochat, jungle japes, and rainbow cruise to be less "neutral" due to them giving more advantage to some characters over others than we normally like. Sadly we often ignore when they do not give significant advantage to either party. I have preformed stage striking using the full list in friendlies before and ended up having matches on pictochat. brinstar, jungles japes, and many other less "neutral" stages despite them often giving single characters major advantages in some situations.

*by median of stage bias I mean that if every stage were to be given a number from 1-10 indicating how severely it gives a character an advantage over another character than the stage resulting from the striking would be in the dead center assuming both parties strike to their own best interest.

**the numbers are being pulled out of thin air just roll with the idea of the statement not the mathematical accuracy

I know I'm not good at this game on a competitive level at the moment. But that Sothe (I think that was a textur hack of Sothe anyway, couldn't really tell with the low quality) seemed like a few levels higher the other people. But from what I saw of those videos, some of the transformations can give a considerable advantadge if used right and some characters can get advantadges from multiple ones. Did you see how long that Dedede stayed in the air during the Flying transformation? You can argue that it doesn't matter because the tansformation isn't permanent, but considering the length he was able to stay up there if he had used the situation better he could have benefitted allot better. And that ground transformation, if the Dedede had gotten the chance, or made a chance, it could have done a infinite wall chain grab on the Marth I believe and could have racked up a good bit of damage. Even the SotheMarth was able to do a D-tilt combo with that wall and racked up a good bit of damage. Also that Snake didn't seem to use the ground transformation to it's fullest but if he had it would have been a better advantadge for him, but that Snake did a decent job on the electric transformation, and that Snake could have done better on the Flying transformation if he had gotten further in the air and rained grenades meaning another advantadge. The advantadges might be small but the add up, espicallyif a character has advantadges on multiple transformations. It might work to an extent but from thos videos it doesn't seem as optimal as a starter as stages like SV, BF, FD, LC, and YI. It might not benefit certain characters as much as PS1 but it benefits enough to be a CP instead of a starter, at least to me.

Inb4youtotallybreakeverythingIjustsaidinthislastparagraphtopiecesandshowmehowenexpiriencedIamandgetmetoshutthehellupandletthepeoplewhoknowwhattheyaretalkingabouttalk.[/quote]

inb4 what?

A lot of things you mentioned are somewhat similar to things that happen on PS1 yet it is legal. Certain stallish points, possible wall infinites, and various advantages.

And I can't argue that much against it being a CP, it's not unreasonable (it's a GREAT stage for Ganon. I know, insane as it sounds). The major reason I always though it'd be worth looking at as a starter because it was rarely chosen as a CP. You want to pick a stage that gives you a major advantage if you can as a CP, and PS2 not being picked for that reason makes it look as a starter to me.

 

[LiteralGrill]

I am not sure what you are saying here.
What is your definition of "neutral" for a stage?

The only way a stage could be neutral is if it did not effect a matchup in any way between characters. Smash CANT have that. We aren't Street Fighter.