Standardized Ruleset Development Idea

[LiteralGrill]

Sorry, I answered your question, and I don't engage in argue with unreasonable people.
Your post is full of mere rhetoric and fallacy (ad hominem), therefore not reasonable. I didn't waste my time reading past the first paragraph.

Now if you are really interested in me explaining my answer to the stagelist, please ask nicely. Otherwise the conversation is over.

Alright, despite the fact that I see you using ad hominem which allows me the right to do the same, I shall ask simply: what stage list do you use in tournaments you run?

 

[T0MMY]

Your ad hominems were evidenced (that is, they were quoted), and thus ended the conversation.
As claims against me were indeed ad hominems (as evidenced by quotes), if tried to be utilized they would not give credence within an argument anymore 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."

 

[Vinylic.]

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."

Well done, you couldn't have said it any better yourself. So Courageous!

Also, for this topic, All-brawl was used in tournaments for fun, if that is called all-brawl, since items are used in the tournament, with 4 people playing in either FFA or Teams.

 

[LiteralGrill]

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."

Fine, an apology then. As I have had a small bit of personal growth oddly enough over the last few days and my position has changed somewhat, I'm willing to apologize. However, I still want to see your ruleset you run, I will assume it is:

Starter:
Final Destination
Battle Field
Smashville

CP
Yoshi's Island
Lylat Cruise

I assume this being it seems to be what your blog post proposes is a good set.

Now, I realize we both more then likely we have different philosophy on how this game "should be played". In the end, Sakurai allowed us to choose how we play ourselves, so from a designers standpoint I can't say you are incorrect about your decisions.

It would seem, you wish to have as much as a P v P experience as possible yes? Skill over luck, fair play to all opponents would imply this to me.

This is where I might disagree, I believe that the game should be played in as close to a native state as possible, creating a ruleset where my major goals are competition AND conservation.

Now, both of these designs can be competitive, and as mentioned before, both would be supported by the designer as he allows us to pick our own settings, and both test skills we wish to test in a player, yours more PvP mine more PvPvS as I find the game better in a native state, and wish to keep the integrity of the original game.

When I really look at it, both sides are competitive, and therefore okay. What isn't okay, is one side insulting the other, both games styles ARE competitive, we just wish to test different skills then the other side. So calling one "scruby" or "casual" and the other one competitive, isn't a fair statement as you do in your blog. However, some example you mentioned like picking stages because we like them, or because they have good music I could definitely agree is scrubby and casual, and I do know those kinds of players are out there and will come here. I don't think either of us want those types deciding how we compete. But your blog post seemed to label those who prefer a more liberal stage list as also being scrubs, which as I've explained is not correct.

I would like both sides to hold their own events as you yourself said, and allow us to play side by side. However, both sides need to stop saying "I have the only correct answer" as this is not the case, both sides hold a correct answer, and both sides should coexist together. Unfortunately, both sides tend to bash each other and are incredibly rude at times instead, which should be avoided (but sadly isn't, before my moment of realization I even admit that I acted the same way as you saw.)

However, the ruleset you run does bring up some questions, though I admit mine would as well.

You are trying to remove luck whenever possible to provide play that is fair for all yes? What constitutes as random to you, as I am assuming you wish to remove any and all random elements yes? If that is the case, I would say your stage list fails to do so with SV and YI as main offenders for sure, and even possible Lylat. Which leaves you with two stages, and we know one country as gone this route and chosen only FD. They too by doing so are correct in their own way, hold their own double standards, and present their own issues.

I would also say, such a small list does not provide what it was originally meant to in a starter/cp system, and does seem to lend a bias toward certain characters giving them a large advantage. (Though a liberal stage list could also do the same, providing advantages to characters that can deal with more stages.)


I can't even type about either side without showing issues it presents, it seems to me any ruleset holds serious flaws in one way or another. But we the players can choose which skills we wish to test and what game we wish to play, which the game itself supports. So who is right? We ALL are. And the issue that creates is we will either all fight to the death over which is best when neither is, or we can play our own games and test the skills we wish to test.

There is no problem with players playing the game the way they want to, the problem comes when one side says they other is wrong, and treats them poorly when they themselves are also wrong in a sense.

 

[T0MMY]

Very well, argument granted.

However, I still want to see your ruleset you run, I will assume it is:

Starter:
Final Destination
Battle Field
Smashville

CP
Yoshi's Island
Lylat Cruise

Your assumption is incorrect. It would follow that anything surmised from that assumption is incorrect.

I will directly state what I have said before: I do not have an ordained stagelist for my events.
The competitors determine which stage(s) they play on.

What I do provide is a list of banned stages (more due to the time constraints my events are under, but they also coincide with competitive play). So stages like New Pork City and 75m are not allowed, if they are played on the round can be disqualified and a new round played.

It would seem, you wish to have as much as a P v P experience as possible yes? Skill over luck, fair play to all opponents would imply this to me

When I run competitive events as per the Competitive Philosophy it will be a test of skill against competitors.
I do not award players based on luck, if I wanted to do that I would host bingo events instead.

This is where I might disagree, I believe that the game should be played in as close to a native state as possible, creating a ruleset where my major goals are competition AND conservation.

Might you and may you disagree with what type of events I run (competitive gaming vs bingo), there's no right or wrong about opinion. Because we are engaged in argument on the topic of competitive play, there is no room for opinion; it has no swaying power.

However, I request you define what you meant by "native state" and "conservation", it seems to be lost in translation.

Now, both of these designs can be competitive, and as mentioned before, both would be supported by the designer as he allows us to pick our own settings, and both test skills we wish to test in a player, yours more PvP mine more PvPvS as I find the game better in a native state, and wish to keep the integrity of the original game.

Again, what you (personally) find "better" is merely opinion and does not have much swaying power.
Another request: Please define "PvPvS"

When I really look at it, both sides are competitive, and therefore okay.

Please explain how both are competitive, as an assertion has no legs to stand on in an argument.

What isn't okay, is one side insulting the other, both games styles ARE competitive, we just wish to test different skills then the other side. So calling one "scruby" or "casual" and the other one competitive, isn't a fair statement as you do in your blog.

If you are claiming my use of the words "Scrub" and "Casual" are insulting, then you make a mockery of my thoughts. Not only would I disagree to that, but I'd take offense at it, sir.

Also, could you please define "skills"?

But your blog post seemed to label those who prefer a more liberal stage list as also being scrubs, which as I've explained is not correct

When you say "seemed to", that is describing an opinion based on a perspective you have taken; once again, opinion has no swaying power.
The content of my blog does not explicitly say someone who prefers a "more liberal" stage list is a scrub.
I don't think it even implicitly suggests such an idea, as Scrubs are well defined in my series of work.

I would like both sides to hold their own events as you yourself said, and allow us to play side by side. However, both sides need to stop saying "I have the only correct answer" as this is not the case, both sides hold a correct answer, and both sides should coexist together.

Agreed. Ultimately we will find we agree on our conclusions.
It will be fun.

Unfortunately, both sides tend to bash each other and are incredibly rude at times instead, which should be avoided (but sadly isn't, before my moment of realization I even admit that I acted the same way as you saw.)

People can do whatever they want, I'm not the boss of them.

My work does not tell people to be a scrub or a pro nor which rules to use, what my work aims to do is provide a definitive understanding of where these concepts lie and recognize the difference so each has its place.

However, the ruleset you run does bring up some questions, though I admit mine would as well.

Please avoid confusing your assumed concept with my real events.

What constitutes as random to you, as I am assuming you wish to remove any and all random elements yes?

Assuming an answer defeats the purpose of a question.

If that is the case, I would say your stage list fails to do so with SV and YI as main offenders for sure, and even possible Lylat.

Again, I believe you are confusing your assumed concept with my real event.

So who is right? We ALL are. And the issue that creates is we will either all fight to the death over which is best when neither is, or we can play our own games and test the skills we wish to test.

That seems to be an acceptable perspective on matters, but a tangent that keeps us from seeing the trees for the forest.

We are all "right" about what we want because this is opinion. This is why opinion has no swaying power and is useless in an argument. There's a time for our 2 cents and a time where too many chefs spoil the broth.
Thus why I have stated in my writings that I do not say any side is "right"; instead, I stress the cause for the conflicts that happen. When we, the community, know why such circumstances arise we then have the power to choose which destiny we want manifest.

One thing I like is that if I were to run casual events (which I have done before), this philosophy works well for casual as well as competitive.
Ultimately my attendees' have fun and a successful tournament results. I find satisfaction in reaching the goals I set forth.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Lots of stuff.

It seems our first problem is we may define things differently, so I shall give the definitions you ask for, if you can answer some questions for me.

I would like your definitions of casual and scrub. I would like to know the banned stage list you use, and exact reasons as to why each stage is bad. I also would like the exact process used by players to decide which stage(s) are played on. Use excruciating detail, I don't want possible interpretation issues.

As for the definitions you wanted.

Native State:

The state the games comes in.

Conserve:
In this case, wanting to keep the integrity of the game as much as possible, keeping the skills the game requires as close to what they were in the Native State as possible


Skills:

You asked me to define skills. I believe you do not wish to have me spout a direct definition of the word, but explain it in the context I was using. (Let me know if I was wrong.)


In most competitive games, we choose which skills we wish to test, this meaning we decide how we want to see if a player is better then another. Let me provide an example. Let us say that Temple is legal. You CAN fight on temple, however most gameplay on temple ends up with a player with a more mobile character landing a single blow then running away unable to be captured under any circumstance the rest of the match. TECHNICALLY this is a valid strategy, as the point of competitive play is to play to win, and a player does so. However, we do not wish to test how good a player is at running away for long periods of time, we wish to test a player's ability in battle, so this stage is banned.

I await a responce

 

[T0MMY]

It seems our first problem is we may define things differently

Agreeing to definitions is usually my first step in communicating. It helps. A lot.

I would like your definitions of casual and scrub.

A Casual is a player who plays casually (i.e. not competitively).

A Scrub is, as Sirlin describes in Playing to Win:
"...a player who is handicapped by self-imposed rules that the game knows nothing about. A scrub does not play to win."

Although I disagree with him that a scrub is not playing to "win", I should probably understand he is using the phrase in a more focused manner than I would (due to the context of his book). Additionally, I'd like to also state that the character of a Scrub is defined by their attempt to put these self-imposed rules on others in attempt to "win" (that is, unfairly).
In short: a Scrub does not abide by the Competitive Philosophy.

I would like to know the banned stage list you use, and exact reasons as to why each stage is bad. I also would like the exact process used by players to decide which stage(s) are played on. Use excruciating detail, I don't want possible interpretation issues.

I don't use excruciating detail.
But the stage that is banned is Sector Z. Every other stage is to be agreed upon by all players, and if no agreement can be met, Dreamland is the default stage.

Native State:
The state the games comes in.

Obviously keeping the physical disc unopened inside its unbroken shrink-wrapped box is a "native state". So I'll go with that.

Conserve:
In this case, wanting to keep the integrity of the game as much as possible, keeping the skills the game requires as close to what they were in the Native State as possible

Not sure how we can keep skills close to a game that is unopened in its box. Please explain.

Skills:
You asked me to define skills. I believe you do not wish to have me spout a direct definition of the word, but explain it in the context I was using. (Let me know if I was wrong.)

Wrong.
When I asked for a definition, only a definition will satisfy the request.

 

[BaPr]

AylasHero, looking at the 3DS thread, I can really see that you are trying hard to help the 3DS community. Keep up the good work.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Alright, I have to say a few things.

I don't use excruciating detail.
But the stage that is banned is Sector Z. Every other stage is to be agreed upon by all players, and if no agreement can be met, Dreamland is the default stage.

If you will not explain things in enough detail another person can understand, why would you require or expect me to do so? Your answer doesn't fulfill its goal: instead of answering things just raises even more questions. As much as I enjoy a debate, I don't want to use multiple posts to get an answer I should receive in one.

Only Sector Z is banned:
1. I asked for reasons why a stage would be banned, you gave none.
2. Do you only host 64 events?
3. Is this the only stage banned in ALL events you host if you hosted events for every game?
4. Do you host events for every game?
5. How do all the players go about agreeing on which stages to play on? What is the process?
6. What stops players from being jerks, refusing to play on any stage other then Dreamland?
7. Why is Dreamland the default?

I have more, but those sprung to mind first.

Obviously keeping the physical disc unopened inside its unbroken shrink-wrapped box is a "native state". So I'll go with that.

Not sure how we can keep skills close to a game that is unopened in its box. Please explain.

I'll start by asking if you've ever really had many stage list discussions. This isn't to be rude, but I was baffled after you said you wouldn't use excruciating detail that I would need to for such a simple term that is used incredibly often in such discussions.

In biochemistry, the native state of a protein is its operative or functional form. In a video game, the native state of a game is its operative or functional form.

So, your "obvious" answer isn't remotely correct. When wishing to conserve the native state of a game, you are attempting to keep how the game operates and functions as in tact as possible to preserve the integrity of the game.

To make sure you understand, here is a marvelous quote from Jack Kieser to try and explain in even more depth.

Spoiler

Wrong.
When I asked for a definition, only a definition will satisfy the request.

This should answer that for you. If you wanted only the literal definition of the word, it's that simple.

I also find it annoying you chose to overlook the example I gave. I'll place that here again, hopefully you will respond to it this time.

Spoiler

As a final word before I wait for a response, if you expect to have a debate with me please refrain for not properly answering questions I ask, study up on some terminology, if you don't know a word for word definition, and you seek to have that definition do not waste my time and force me to make another post when one click can solve your problem, and don't skip over a point when made.

If these requirements cannot be met, our conversation must end here.

 

[LiteralGrill]

(Double Post!!!)

AylasHero, looking at the 3DS thread, I can really see that you are trying hard to help the 3DS community. Keep up the good work.

Thanks! Feels good to get a compliment!

 

[SmasherP82]

(Double Post!!!)




Thanks! Feels good to get a compliment!

WOW seems like BaPr said it before me xD but yea I can see you trying hard for the 3DS Community :O and keep up the good work also :D

 

[T0MMY]

If you will not explain things in enough detail another person can understand, why would you require or expect me to do so?

This is a leading question, as if to provoke me into agree to not giving "enough" detail (that qualifier is subjective to your standards and thus makes it arbitrary where you judge what is enough and puts you in a position of authority, something that cannot exist in a logical argument). This statement also serves as a false dichotomy, a choice between putting you in a position of authority to judge or an exit for you from the argument:
Let it be known if either one of us exits from the argument without a valid conclusion or due to fallacy they will have failed.
Since you agreed to the terms of engagement I will hold you responsible to these standards.
Let us continue.

Your answer doesn't fulfill its goal:

If you are claiming there was a goal stated, please reference it, otherwise the claim is insubstantial

instead of answering things just raises even more questions. As much as I enjoy a debate, I don't want to use multiple posts to get an answer I should receive in one.

This is what I notice happens when one has expectations (conceptual desires of future events) - when reality does not align with such concepts disappointment occurs (mental defense mechanism to remove one's self from reality and safely in the conceptual construct).
Expecting that you shall receive the answer you expect in one post is simply concept, no amount of blame is going to change this, but asking the correct questions should yield correct answers.

1. I asked for reasons why a stage would be banned, you gave none.

You are wrong. Please check back on the posts again (#45)

2. Do you only host 64 events?

No.

3. Is this the only stage banned in ALL events you host if you hosted events for every game?

No, it is only available in Super Smash Bros. (SSB64/SSBVC), it would be superfluous if it were listed as banned for the other games.

4. Do you host events for every game?

No, that would be a ridiculous amount of work: I mostly host for Smash Bros. games and Street Fighter games.

5. How do all the players go about agreeing on which stages to play on? What is the process?

One player asks which stage, the other names one. They both ok it and play (or another stage is offered & OK'd).
Any other process may be used, but usually the above example is all I've ever seen as players find it both very simple and fair.

6. What stops players from being jerks, refusing to play on any stage other then Dreamland?

That's not being a jerk, that's a decision the player chooses to make.

7. Why is Dreamland the default?

It's the most agreed on stage and the most aligned to competitive philosophy.
Originally more stages were to be used, but SSB's stages are notorious for their limited number and questionable design. Ultimately I found I was unable to toggle stages ON/OFF and realized there was no way an in-game random could be used in case of disagreement. One stage had to be used, and Dreamland was chosen (for reason stated above).

I'll start by asking if you've ever really had many stage list discussions.

More than I can remember, with many people across the nation over many years.

I was baffled after you said you wouldn't use excruciating detail that I would need to for such a simple term that is used incredibly often in such discussions.

I am known to baffle at times.
Greater than a thousand excruciating details is one wise word.

In biochemistry, the native state of a protein is its operative or functional form. In a video game, the native state of a game is its operative or functional form.

This seems acceptable to me.

So, your "obvious" answer isn't remotely correct.

No, it is exactly correct.
Given the detail (at the time). No need to pull fast ones here.

When wishing to conserve the native state of a game, you are attempting to keep how the game operates and functions as in tact as possible to preserve the integrity of the game.

Again, this seems acceptable to me. However, there are gray areas players may exploit. It would be more akin to the spirit of the game rather than rules to adhere to.

To make sure you understand, here is a marvelous quote from Jack Kieser to try and explain in even more depth.

That quote is best summed up "TL;DR".
But I skimmed through it enough to disagree with most of what I read.
(yes, I have designed games of many types, and it does not persuade me to agree with his rhetoric).

This should answer that for you. If you wanted only the literal definition of the word, it's that simple.

Sorry, that was not a definition. Try again.

I also find it annoying you chose to overlook the example I gave. I'll place that here again, hopefully you will respond to it this time.

You are wrong that I overlooked it, that would be a misstep, what I did was set it aside until you've detailed what "skills" mean. We'll proceed after that.

As a final word before I wait for a response, if you expect to have a debate with me please refrain for not properly answering questions I ask, study up on some terminology, if you don't know a word for word definition, and you seek to have that definition do not waste my time and force me to make another post when one click can solve your problem, and don't skip over a point when made.

I don't hold expectations, as those lead to disappointment. What I do is properly respond the way to satisfy a formal argument, as we agreed to a formal argument (NOT a debate). Your request to "study up" can only be seen as an attempted put-down, a tactic to conceptually propel one up in a higher authority. There is no higher authority than reason in an argument, so any such use of a tactic will be seen as futile.

If these requirements cannot be met, our conversation must end here.

Remember, since you agreed to an argument then one may only reasonably exit with a valid conclusion.
If you wish the conversation must end here then my reasoning stands and I accept the surrender.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Let it be known if either one of us exits from the argument without a valid conclusion or due to fallacy they will have failed.
Since you agreed to the terms of engagement I will hold you responsible to these standards.
Let us continue.

I do exit this argument, and allow you to believe whatever you want as to the "winner" of it was. You have managed to go through this entire conversation using question dodging in its various forms. The times I have pointed this out, (though not directly calling it as such in an attempt to be polite previously) you have yet again used such fallacy to answer. You have also used false attribution, ignoratio elenchi, argumentum verbosium, and fallacy of the heap.

So I exit this conversation as you argue fallaciously, and the argument cannot go further with you doing so.

Thank you and sorry for taking your time. If you wish to say I have failed in this conversation all the power to you, but I will not carry on a fallacious discussion any further.

 

[T0MMY]

I do exit this argument, and allow you to believe whatever you want as to the "winner" of it was.

There's no "winner" in an argument. Just a successful formulation or a failure to do so.
I told you, I don't want a debate, just want to follow in a logical argument.

You have managed to go through this entire conversation using question dodging in its various forms.

Ad hominem fallacy. Disregarded.

The times I have pointed this out, (though not directly calling it as such in an attempt to be polite previously) you have yet again used such fallacy to answer.

Which fallacy was used?

You have also used false attribution, ignoratio elenchi, argumentum verbosium, and fallacy of the heap.

To defend such claims you would have to:

• Show the source that was a false attribution.
• And present the conclusion that was irrelevant.

If you failed to understand anything, that is not argumentum verbosium.

As for the claim of fallacy of the heap, now this is just simply not making sense.
I know this as fallacy of the beard where two extremes are said to be the same.

The irony here is you're appearing to present an "argumentum verbosium" and then blame it on me.
This is what psychology details as "projection".

So I exit this conversation as you argue fallaciously, and the argument cannot go further with you doing so.

As per the rules of engagement, exiting without a valid conclusion leaves your argument legless and it will be disregarded.
The unsubstantiated claims of fallacy will follow.

Thank you and sorry for taking your time. If you wish to say I have failed in this conversation all the power to you, but I will not carry on a fallacious discussion any further.

I don't say you fail at forming a proper argument, it stands apparent without my words.
But I thank you for not carrying on with the fallacious discussion.
I am left to stand by the Competitive Philosophy, which forms a stronger argument.

 

[Vinylic.]

Tommy is as close to a jerk as I am, only it's more scarier that he's probably more serious.

That beats paying my tuition.



(no, it doesn't.)

 

[BaPr]

I really like casual tournaments better, mainly because those are the only ones I have a chance at winning . The other reason is that I never went to a competitive tournament.

 

[LiteralGrill]

.

I have had another curious moment of growth. While I won't be discussing it in depth here, I realize that our discussion cannot go further as is, not just for my sake but for yours. I'm sorry this can go no further. In the future, we may both be able to fully express what we think and discuss it at that time.

Tommy is as close to a jerk as I am, only it's more scarier that he's probably more serious.

Might as well point out ad hominem, and ask why even enter the discussion with nothing productive to add other then to stir the pot needlessly? Even if I am wrong, is this necessary? Come on man. No matter what I may say it seems at times, and from what I hear from other people T0MMY is a decent guy. Don't muck up his discussion with this.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

...we've made mistakes with our rulesets over the years. We've banned things that maybe shouldn't have been, and there have been questionable decisions for sure.

This Is Not The Place Either To Debate What The Rules Should Be/Should Have Been.

Way to have a potentially foregone conclusion and then put yourself in an untouchable place.

This is easy, please follow the Competitive Philosophy and you're good to go.

You mean the Competitive Philosophy wiki article you wrote that got shoved to your wiki user page because it was essentially one long opinion?

Promoting the idea that competitive philosophy can be argued with rhetoric is exactly what is wrong with the competitive scene.

That's a weird statement to make. You're going to have to elaborate on exactly what those persuasive attempts are, and how the idea of using them is the principal problem in the competitive scene.

When you responded to AylasHero's hypothetical, "What do we do when we eliminate parts of the game that should not be eliminated?" you didn't answer the question. Instead, you (in repulsive detail) suggested that we tell the tournament organizer (who isn't in the hypothetical) we aren't going to attend a tournament based on "Competitive Philosophy." I can't think of anything less assertive. A lot of people don't have any other event options, and a legitimate competitive player can make all the other players look embarassingly awful in any format. Why cut your options short when you have the opportunity to knock some sense into the TOs? Also, stop plugging your Competitive Philosophy. You're using it too much as a blanket.

The amount of stereotyping you do to players who are new, or like a larger stage list is atrocious.

t0mmy's division of players is problematic in that he makes no attempts to justify the distinctions, but don't get angry because of how colorful he is about the division. The way he views the two groups reflects reality more than it doesn't. People new to competitive environments have no place making competitive judgement calls. Too much of the time new players are only interested in imposing their idea supported only by anecdote on a community already well established.

So now I shall attempt to demand an answer. Name the list you as a TO run for your events. I want to look at each and every stage and the fairness of design in choosing such stages and see if it is remotely competitive or fair, or simply made of bias. I look forward to dissecting your ruleset.

That's great you're trying to get an actual answer out of him, but you make it really seem like you think you're now the arbiter of competitive smash.

It would seem, you wish to have as much as a P v P experience as possible yes? Skill over luck, fair play to all opponents would imply this to me. This is where I might disagree, I believe that the game should be played in as close to a native state as possible, creating a ruleset where my major goals are competition AND conservation.

This is a major deviation from a discussion of defining the broad principles a Standardized Ruleset should have. I however am glad you finally admitted you have an agenda.

What isn't okay, is one side insulting the other, both games styles ARE competitive, we just wish to test different skills then the other side.

And what skills might those be? Grabbing a soda while the stage, character, and item combination places you in circumstances beyond your control?

Too much use of the phrase "fair and competitive" earlier in this thread. Is there such a thing as fair and uncompetitive in a fighting game? Ugh.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

This is a crazy topic in which I have to give Quilt credit for mostly being non-crazy, but I think you did miss a few things there Quilt.

This is a major deviation from a discussion of defining the broad principles a Standardized Ruleset should have. I however am glad you finally admitted you have an agenda.

My interpretation of what Aylas was saying, and I don't mean to put words in his mouth, was that he thought the principles that should guide a standardized ruleset would be "the game should be as close to its 'native state' as possible while supporting competitive play" as opposed to "the game should be optimized to be as competitive as possible". That seems to be simply taking a position on the original topic unless I misunderstand it completely. Yes, Aylas does have an agenda, but let's be real about it that we all have agendas so I'm not seeing the particular issue there either.

And what skills might those be? Grabbing a soda while the stage, character, and item combination places you in circumstances beyond your control?

I'm not going to defend Aylas's word choice as I don't agree with it; it's not so much different skills as a broader set (since all the stages the conservatives want legal are still legal under a liberal stage list). However, that's just the thing about liberal stage lists. No one advocates making the actually stupid stages that either make the game totally degenerate or remove the match from player control, stages like WarioWare, New Pork City, and Mario Bros. legal (or if you prefer Melee, go with Venom, Brinstar Depths, and Temple). However, those of us who want a lot of stages legal do want stages like Norfair and Luigi's Mansion legal (or if you prefer Melee, Poke Floats and Mute City). Those are the stages that play differently from other stages but are still "fair" in their own right (fair is a funny word that tends to encompass a ton of different concepts; for the sake of brevity, I'm going to assume that you just understand what I mean by that). This contrasts with the conservative mindset that distills the game down into a small set of mostly similar stages such that stage choice among the legal stages has a relatively minor effect on gameplay.

I'm not going to lie and tell you that a match on Norfair plays like a match on Final Destination; the basic tactics you use to maneuver and control space are just plain different, and playing smart to take advantage of the hazards has a lot of gameplay to it too that's just not present on other stages (even on other stages with hazards, the hazards behave a lot differently than Norfair's and therefore are best exploited differently). It's not "unfair" in any way (which some people don't believe, but they never win this argument), but you simply are not going to win on Norfair unless you very specifically know how to fight on Norfair which includes a set of skills unique to playing on Norfair. Norfair is more extreme than most, but in general every stage has this going on with it to some degree with the ones the conservatives want legal generally being the ones that, if you just treat them as the only stages, have this going on to the least degree as they are the set of stages most similar to each other. The liberal philosophy, to which I ascribe and I think it's clear Aylas does too, suggests that the uniqueness of stages is good and healthy and that the ideal form of the game at a competitive level seeks to include as much of it as possible. Those are the additional skills involved, the skills that let you win on all these various stages that are truly "fair" but are definitely different.

 

[T0MMY]

I have had another curious moment of growth. While I won't be discussing it in depth here, I realize that our discussion cannot go further as is

If it is truly for my sake, feel free to PM me the details.
And if you ever feel like picking up the argument, I'll be around.

No matter what I may say it seems at times, and from what I hear from other people T0MMY is a decent guy.

I actually like to be polite, helpful, and encouraging (especially in person), but when it comes to discussion such as this, I will be very curt and astute. Anything that is in conflict or left unanswered will be thoroughly held to the standards of logic or the very least a Socratic process.
If this is the only side people see of me, so be it X^D

@ Quilt:
What does moving a dissertation in a wiki have to do with the conversation? What are you implying?

You're going to have to elaborate on exactly what those persuasive attempts are, and how the idea of using them is the principal problem in the competitive scene.

Well, I do not "have to" elaborate on persuasiveness in the Smash Community is used just because you say I have to. That's not very compelling, and honestly promotes the opposite of your desires.
But if you wish for me to explain how these tactics can (and are) used to derail a competitive aspect of the community then I can do so at a request.
Simply ask whenever you've got time to lend an ear.

When you responded to AylasHero's hypothetical, "What do we do when we eliminate parts of the game that should not be eliminated?" you didn't answer the question.

Wrong, an answer was given.

A lot of people don't have any other event options, and a legitimate competitive player can make all the other players look embarassingly awful in any format. Why cut your options short when you have the opportunity to knock some sense into the TOs?

All stages on random plus Items ON is not aligned with competitive philosophy. One may look at a competitively viable ruleset as "cutting options short" or they can look at it as a refining process full of win.
Individual choice here, and is subjective, that's as far as opinion goes.

Also, stop plugging your Competitive Philosophy. You're using it too much as a blanket.

I am not sure why you are calling it mine, since it is directly borrowed from David Sirlin's "Playing to Win" where he discusses the logic behind Competitive Philosophy. Sirlin has a degrees in math and business from MIT, a lead game designer behind well known fighting and puzzle games, spoken at GDC on the topic of balancing competitive multiplayer games, and has been described as a "renowned game theory author" by Forbes magazine.
The book I am referencing has been a cornerstone of competitive philosophy, so call it a "blanket" as much as you'd like, but opinions like this are readily forgotten where the work of Sirlin and others will stand the test of time.
Although I appreciate you crediting me with the work I've done translating the philosophy to the Smash community, I make no claims to it and offer it to the public to be used as best they can.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

Yes, Aylas does have an agenda, but let's be real about it that we all have agendas so I'm not seeing the particular issue there either.

What I was implying (and failed) is that I had a good idea that he had an agenda, and the thread would eventually devolve into him pushing it. It's the natural consequence of caring more about one's own ideas than the topic's (developing broad Standardized Ruleset principles.)

When I asked AylasHero what kind of skills he felt like different stages tested, I wanted to push him into actually thinking about what skills were being tested and finally put them out there. So far the thread has been nothing but vague hum-drumming.

Well, I do not "have to" elaborate on persuasiveness in the Smash Community is used just because you say I have to. That's not very compelling, and honestly promotes the opposite of your desires. But if you wish for me to explain how these tactics can (and are) used to derail a competitive aspect of the community then I can do so at a request. Simply ask whenever you've got time to lend an ear.

You are going to have to if you wish to complete my understanding of what you're trying to say, but it looks like you are not interested in that; Your ego is the bottom line. You have an unfortunate unwillingness to communicate effectively and a tendency to see a problem that isn't there. "If you wish for me to explain how... then I can do so at a request." No. You either will or will not. You don't get to make a claim and then refuse to explain it on such tenuous grounds. I am not going to needlessly appease you. Good luck being taken seriously anywhere.

All stages on random plus Items ON is not aligned with competitive philosophy. One may look at a competitively viable ruleset as "cutting options short" or they can look at it as a refining process full of win. Individual choice here, and is subjective, that's as far as opinion goes.

What are you trying to say? I don't fully understand how this remotely addresses my response to you. I can't even think of a context where these sentences would make sense.

I am not sure why you are calling it mine, since it is directly borrowed from David Sirlin's "Playing to Win" where he discusses the logic behind Competitive Philosophy. Sirlin has a degrees in math and business from MIT, a lead game designer behind well known fighting and puzzle games, spoken at GDC on the topic of balancing competitive multiplayer games, and has been described as a "renowned game theory author" by Forbes magazine. The book I am referencing has been a cornerstone of competitive philosophy, so call it a "blanket" as much as you'd like, but opinions like this are readily forgotten where the work of Sirlin and others will stand the test of time. Although I appreciate you crediting me with the work I've done translating the philosophy to the Smash community, I make no claims to it and offer it to the public to be used as best they can.

Oh, it's directly borrowed? Then you are definitely using it as a blanket; nowhere in this discussion do you actually refer anyone to Sirlin's book. Way to not give any credit yet. You're actually less than a wild-eyed missionary at this point, since they at least refer to some source material. And don't try to weasel your way out just because you briefly mentioned Sirlin's book with no external reference (his book is available online for free) in your competitive philosophy dissertation on a wiki.

You can't hide behind someone else forever. This isn't even a case where someone offers their informed opinion and someone yields to it.

While you're a sycophant of Sirlin, at the same time you seem to suffer from severe egocentrism. In the Competitive Philosophy page you reconstructed today, you literally rewrote the history of competitive Smash development and even wrote yourself and your master into it. I don't see anywhere where you've popularized the use of "Competitive Philosophy." It's just a junk term.

Smashboards results
Allisbrawl results via google

And writing a blog post and getting a few respondents out of it doesn't constitute popularizing the term (none of them even used it).

 

[lordvaati]

here's hoping we get more then 5 neutral stages this time.

 

[mimgrim]

here's hoping we get more then 5 neutral stages this time.

Other places get 5? Q_Q

In my region we only get 3 neutral stages, though where I live (San Antonio) there seems to be more counterpicks then normal. lol

 

[BaPr]

Other places get 5? Q_Q

In my region we only get 3 neutral stages, though where I live (San Antonio) there seems to be more counterpicks then normal. lol

First of all, it is nice to find that another person lives in S.A. Second, what are the extra counterpicks? I didn't know we had more than usual

 

[LiteralGrill]

This is a major deviation from a discussion of defining the broad principles a Standardized Ruleset should have. I however am glad you finally admitted you have an agenda.

Agenda has been brought up!

I got slightly offtrack in the discussion earlier, my agenda might actually surprise you. (Plus, reevaluating my thoughts has happened a few times since then. I've been talking to LOTS of people on ideas and maybe have come to my conclusion.)

If I were to attempt to list my current agenda... I find this harder to put into words then I thought it'd be. As it's not entirely on topic, let's spoiler this part.

Spoiler

I also would like to bring up something VERY related to the original point of this thread” an innocent until proven guilty process on stage legality. We must remember, Smash itself starts with every stage legal. To them, the burden is not upon those who wish a stage to remain legal to prove so. Every time players wish to ban a stage they themselves must go and provide proof that such a stage should be banned: videos that can be watched and pier reviewed to test if there are holes in the thinking as to why a stage is broken, and detailed write ups on the mechanics of every stage are vital in this discussion. It should NOT be the other way around no mater which side you argue for. (Though it often was that way.)

Which brings me to this:

When you responded to AylasHero's hypothetical, "What do we do when we eliminate parts of the game that should not be eliminated?" you didn't answer the question. Instead, you (in repulsive detail) suggested that we tell the tournament organizer (who isn't in the hypothetical) we aren't going to attend a tournament based on "Competitive Philosophy." I can't think of anything less assertive. A lot of people don't have any other event options... Why cut your options short when you have the opportunity to knock some sense into the TOs?

Even if I did complain to my TO that they are not following a “competitive philosophy” what if that is the only event around, what if a TO disagrees on me about what is competitive, or if a TO flat out refuses to listen? PS2 had pages upon pages written about it, and established TOs in regions backing it was a fair stage, but many people (Including you T0MMY) dismissed it. (Though I shall admit, BPC who wrote about it was never a very diplomatic fellow.) You can go and read about 80 pages of forums posts if you'd like (there's tons of interesting stuff, though I admit the task is not for the faint of heart) and see the people coming sad because a TO literally just said “I don't like that stage, so no.” about many stages, even some very tame stages. And one guy complaining when there is one TO in an area, and all only like minded people who refuse to even listen wont do any any good wont make a change. Whether it's right or wrong, people don't like changing old ways, and most wont.

Too much use of the phrase "fair and competitive" earlier in this thread. Is there such a thing as fair and uncompetitive in a fighting game? Ugh.

Too much “fair and competitive” in the thread? I think the issue would be two sides thinking different things are fair, then one side saying they are competitive and the other isn't. So to each side... Apparently there is fair and uncompetitive? It doesn't make any sense...

My interpretation of what Aylas was saying, and I don't mean to put words in his mouth, was that he thought the principles that should guide a standardized ruleset would be "the game should be as close to its 'native state' as possible while supporting competitive play" as opposed to "the game should be optimized to be as competitive as possible". That seems to be simply taking a position on the original topic unless I misunderstand it completely. Yes, Aylas does have an agenda, but let's be real about it that we all have agendas so I'm not seeing the particular issue there either.

However, this nailed it for me. That would be what I am trying to say. I can admit as I hope we all can here we have an agenda we want to promote. But, I really do think that my thoughts written out much better by Ampharos then myself (thanks btw) is an important quality in making a ruleset. Innocent until proven guilty for stages, and especially “don't ban until game breaking” and “ban as little as possible” should also be included. (Sirlin even agrees with the mantras in quotes, those two will be hard to refute for anyone.)

I'm not going to defend Aylas's word choice as I don't agree with it;

But seriously, I did word the testing different skills thing VERY poorly, I'll admit that. Ampharos did WAY better of a job.

The liberal philosophy, to which I ascribe and I think it's clear Aylas does too, suggests that the uniqueness of stages is good and healthy and that the ideal form of the game at a competitive level seeks to include as much of it as possible. Those are the additional skills involved, the skills that let you win on all these various stages that are truly "fair" but are definitely different.

Yes, I would agree with this.

What I was implying (and failed) is that I had a good idea that he had an agenda, and the thread would eventually devolve into him pushing it. It's the natural consequence of caring more about one's own ideas than the topic's (developing broad Standardized Ruleset principles.)

When I asked AylasHero what kind of skills he felt like different stages tested, I wanted to push him into actually thinking about what skills were being tested and finally put them out there. So far the thread has been nothing but vague hum-drumming.

Yeah, vague hum-drumming, I can actually rather agree that's all it's been. Though I admit I didn't want the thread to go where it did, and wouldn't mind attempting to get it back on topic. (Just largely disagreed with a blog post mentioned earlier and instead of taking it elsewhere kept it here, I wont do that next time.)

Which I shall attempt to do!

A Mini Manifesto​

​

​

The principles that should guide a standardized ruleset should be as follows:

• The game should be as close to its 'native state' as possible while supporting competitive play.
• As all stages are legal in this 'native state' they are innocent until proven guilty when it comes to banning them. Burden of proof is on player that wish them to be banned. Every time players wish to ban a stage they themselves must go and provide proof that such a stage should be banned: videos that can be watched and pier reviewed to test if there are holes in the thinking as to why a stage is broken.
• Should have detailed information on EVERY stage for reference
• We should never ban things until they are game breaking.
• We should ban as little as possible.
• We should limit subjectivity whenever possible.
• We should have no double standards.

- - -​

There, take a look at that and pick it apart, and we'll have gotten back on topic!

(I got a feeling i missed some things, and the wording could DEFINITELY be better.)

 

[LiteralGrill]

here's hoping we get more then 5 neutral stages this time.

Other places get 5? Q_Q

In my region we only get 3 neutral stages, though where I live (San Antonio) there seems to be more counterpicks then normal. lol

First of all, it is nice to find that another person lives in S.A. Second, what are the extra counterpicks? I didn't know we had more than usual

Well, go look at MLG if you want to see a LOT of starters. (The ruleset worked very well on top of that too, though I admit I'd change a select few things.)

Also, be careful saying neutral: NO STAGE IS ENTIRELY NEUTRAL. What I think you mean is starter stages, to which I would respond: Why have starter/cp setup at all? A List striking System (LSS) is a much more effective and fair system. Instead of following tradition just because, let's adopt a better system.

 

[mimgrim]

First of all, it is nice to find that another person lives in S.A. Second, what are the extra counterpicks? I didn't know we had more than usual

Well depends on where you go in San Antonio. Do you goto Ooples for their weekly Smashfests and monthly tournaments? As that is where I go and they have stuff like RC, Brinstar, Dreamland, ect... as CPs and from my knowledge those stages are usually banned in competitive play. o.o

Well, go look at MLG if you want to see a LOT of starters. (The ruleset worked very well on top of that too, though I admit I'd change a select few things.)

Also, be careful saying neutral: NO STAGE IS ENTIRELY NEUTRAL. What I think you mean is starter stages, to which I would respond: Why have starter/cp setup at all? A List striking System (LSS) is a much more effective and fair system. Instead of following tradition just because, let's adopt a better system.

I kinda agree but not all the way. A list strick is done for the starter stages. However it wouldn't hurt to have more starters, but I think CPs should stay.

Unless I misinterpeted what you meant.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Well depends on where you go in San Antonio. Do you goto Ooples for their weekly Smashfests and monthly tournaments? As that is where I go and they have stuff like RC, Brinstar, Dreamland, ect... as CPs and from my knowledge those stages are usually banned in competitive play. o.o



I kinda agree but not all the way. A list strick is done for the starter stages. However it wouldn't hurt to have more starters, but I think CPs should stay.

Unless I misinterpeted what you meant.

A tiny bit. A List Striking System lists all legal stages. Players striking down to pick the first stages to fight on. The last 5-7 (depending on TO) stages struck become the legal stagelist for the match.

It's honestly really cool and adds LOADS of depth.

 

[mimgrim]

A tiny bit. A List Striking System lists all legal stages. Players striking down to pick the first stages to fight on. The last 5-7 (depending on TO) stages struck become the legal stagelist for the match.

It's honestly really cool and adds LOADS of depth.

Ehhhhh I don't actually like the sound of it.

I would rather one of the following; have all legal stages as starters and for each game players stagestrike for the first round untill one stage is left and then in other rounds the loser picks the legal stage they want to play on or how it is currently by having a list of starter stages and CP stages. Howeer stagestriking for deciding the stagelist for the whole match doesn't really sit well with me. :/

 

[BaPr]

Well depends on where you go in San Antonio. Do you goto Ooples for their weekly Smashfests and monthly tournaments? As that is where I go and they have stuff like RC, Brinstar, Dreamland, ect... as CPs and from my knowledge those stages are usually banned in competitive play. o.o

How much is the entrance fee for smashfests and tournaments at ooples? Also, do you have to bring your own controller?

 

[mimgrim]

How much is the entrance fee for smashfests and tournaments at ooples? Also, do you have to bring your own controller?

Smashfests are free. Tournaments a 3$ if you don't have to pay venue fee, or 5$ if you have to pay venue fee (venu-fee is 2$) (aka bring your own set-up, or allot of extra controllers) and the side event is usally 1$. And it is usually better if you bring your own controller, buuuuuut I am going to start getting into the habbit of bringing extra controllers (like bringing 5 with me) as a just in case.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Ehhhhh I don't actually like the sound of it.

I would rather one of the following; have all legal stages as starters and for each game players stagestrike for the first round untill one stage is left and then in other rounds the loser picks the legal stage they want to play on or how it is currently by having a list of starter stages and CP stages. Howeer stagestriking for deciding the stagelist for the whole match doesn't really sit well with me. :/

What about it doesn't sit well, give me details and maybe I can give more explanations. (I was very basic to start.)

The one nice thing about having a stage list for the match as an example, would be stages like Raidnbow Cruise which is banned because "MetaKnight2Gud" for most people. If it could be banned to not be played on for MK matchups, but able to be legal for others where there are no problems, it'd be a great thing.

 

[mimgrim]

What about it doesn't sit well, give me details and maybe I can give more explanations. (I was very basic to start.)

The one nice thing about having a stage list for the match as an example, would be stages like Raidnbow Cruise which is banned because "MetaKnight2Gud" for most people. If it could be banned to not be played on for MK matchups, but able to be legal for others where there are no problems, it'd be a great thing.

Well cound't the same go for if they just did that for the first round? And don't people usually have the ability to declare a stage ban for the next round?

 

[SmasherP82]

I really like casual tournaments better, mainly because those are the only ones I have a chance at winning . The other reason is that I never went to a competitive tournament.

Same here bro xD I'd be at a Casual tournament because I'd most likely win in that since I've never played competetively before

 

[Ghostbone]

Tournaments are going to have rulesets that people want to play with. Most players don't want to deal with stages that automatically put people in disadvantaged positions (see Rainbow Cruise, Halberd, Norfair, Delfino to some extent)
People also don't want to play on stages like Onett/Bridge of Eldin which completely throw out the window the recovery dynamic of smash, something the game was designed around, since it causes massive imbalances and gimmicky strategies.

Next smash isn't going to be exempt from that, it's going to follow the pattern of, generally liberal stagelists everywhere for a bit then we end up with like 9 stages max that stay legal, which towards the end of the game's lifespan will get even smaller.

 

[T0MMY]

You are going to have to if you wish to complete my understanding of what you're trying to say, but it looks like you are not interested in that; Your ego is the bottom line. You have an unfortunate unwillingness to communicate effectively and a tendency to see a problem that isn't there.

It is the obvious fact that demonstrating a command is not as persuasive as a simple request has nothing to do with ego - it is a simple order of etiquette (have you not heard about honey and vinegar?). Notice how I didn't even request a simple "please"? :^D
Even more obvious is the fact your control attempts have failed. As courtesy I will remind you that all future attempts to coerce me of who I am and how I act will follow a similar fate.

As an example of control attempts, here is a public example as to what to avoid in proper communication:

No. You either will or will not. You don't get to make a claim and then refuse to explain it on such tenuous grounds. I am not going to needlessly appease you. Good luck being taken seriously anywhere.

^ This will stand as testament how you communicate with others.

What are you trying to say? I don't fully understand how this remotely addresses my response to you. I can't even think of a context where these sentences would make sense.

To put it simply, I illustrated what you put forth was shortsighted. Go over the posts a few times and let me know what you think.

Oh, it's directly borrowed? Then you are definitely using it as a blanket; nowhere in this discussion do you actually refer anyone to Sirlin's book. Way to not give any credit yet.

Four problems with your accusation:
1) Formal credit is not needed in an online BBS such as this.
2) Even so, it does not backup your "blanket" claim.
3) Your failure to search for and/or find what is lacking is not evidnce.
4) POST #47 = U FAILT

You can't hide behind someone else forever. This isn't even a case where someone offers their informed opinion and someone yields to it.

I shall paraphrase Newton when he said he could see further only because he stood atop the shoulders of giants.
Sir, by your logic are you also saying Newton was "hiding behind someone else" as well?
Poppycock.

I don't see anywhere where you've popularized the use of "Competitive Philosophy." It's just a junk term.

Opinions are forgotten in the vast sea of time. Whereas hard evidence stands the test of time.
I'll leave you with your opinions.

 

[T0MMY]

For one, I would say that BOTH conservative AND Liberal smashers provide a competitive format. I think everyone knows which I prefer. However, while I know I prefer one, I really do wish BOTH sides would coexist over saying one is the “Only True Smash”

Remember when I said ultimately we'd find that our conclusions would be in agreement?
Although I would avoid using the labels "Conservative" and "Liberal" as that would lead to malapropism.

We all must realize that when making rulesets there IS subjectivity. There HAS to be as terrible as that sounds.

I think what you are seeking is what I like to call an "agreeable subjectivity". It holds opportunity for a broad spectrum of players to agree to.

What should be done is both sides admit their possible faults, express what they are ACTUALLY wanting to achieve (be honest about it, even if it involves subjective thinking) and let each other play the way they want to play without calling one side or the other wrong. Both are right, and both are wrong at the same time.

Again, I would agree where you're getting at, but strongly disagree with the approach being taken (to want to see people admit they are "wrong").

I also would like to bring up something VERY related to the original point of this thread” an innocent until proven guilty process on stage legality. We must remember, Smash itself starts with every stage legal. To them, the burden is not upon those who wish a stage to remain legal to prove so.

This is an interesting approach, but sadly, it is grounded in premises that do not follow the conclusion.
I subject the premises to the obvious fact that Smash does NOT start with every stage "legal". First, there is no "legal" as defined in the game. Second, there are a number of stages that are to be worked to be unlocked - NOT EVERY STAGE IS INITIALLY AVAILABLE, the game itself locks you out of stages.

Even if I did complain to my TO that they are not following a “competitive philosophy” what if that is the only event around, what if a TO disagrees on me about what is competitive, or if a TO flat out refuses to listen?

I am not sure how exposed you are to the competitive scene, but the answer to your question is:
Tough luck.

Tournaments are the Tournament Organizer's property in both an intellectual sense and a physical one. Property rights are a completely different field of philosophy than what is being argued here on these boards and for that I would implore further research (and a whole new can of worms, a whole world of worms).

PS2 had pages upon pages written about it, and established TOs in regions backing it was a fair stage, but many people (Including you T0MMY) dismissed it.

I did dismiss it, because it was a terrible stage. But that is not to say I have not changed my opinion of the stage (or the way I describe my opinion). So please refrain from referencing such old posts when I am readily available to make a more clear declaration.

because a TO literally just said “I don't like that stage, so no.” about many stages, even some very tame stages. And one guy complaining when there is one TO in an area, and all only like minded people who refuse to even listen wont do any any good wont make a change.

That is one perspective on the matter, however the behind-the-scenes DVD special feature perspective (as I like to describe it) begs to differ. There were a number of well-seasoned veterans who had to patiently reason with their TOs to keep a more even competition between players.

But seriously, I did word the testing different skills thing VERY poorly, I'll admit that. Ampharos did WAY better of a job.

I agree, the link to Google was both snarky and unhelpful.

A Mini Manifesto​

​

​

The principles that should guide a standardized ruleset should be as follows:

• The game should be as close to its 'native state' as possible while supporting competitive play.
• As all stages are legal in this 'native state' they are innocent until proven guilty when it comes to banning them. Burden of proof is on player that wish them to be banned. Every time players wish to ban a stage they themselves must go and provide proof that such a stage should be banned: videos that can be watched and pier reviewed to test if there are holes in the thinking as to why a stage is broken.
• Should have detailed information on EVERY stage for reference
• We should never ban things until they are game breaking.
• We should ban as little as possible.
• We should limit subjectivity whenever possible.
• We should have no double standards.

- - -​

There, take a look at that and pick it apart, and we'll have gotten back on topic!

1) I'd suggest dropping the "native state" for something more clear, as it could be interpreted so vaguely as to find it is against your agenda.
2) Already addressed the problem of all stages legal.
3) Why? If something violates general reason it wouldn't get to the stage of detail.
4) Agreed! But "game-breaking" is going to be pulled into question.
5) Redundant
6) I'll remain skeptical of this, as it needs to be further examined.
7) If this is alluding to a logical process, I can agree with this. But it is what I'd say is axiomatic and therefore does not need to be stated anymore than "We should be right".

Also, my suggestion I put out there is to avoid using the word "we" as that can be seen as coercive language to get people to agree rather than letting the apparent truths hold - creating an image of collectivist thought leads to "herd mentality" and a "might makes right" attitude. Let truth be the support of reason, a support stronger than any amount of concept.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Well cound't the same go for if they just did that for the first round? And don't people usually have the ability to declare a stage ban for the next round?

Sort of, except you only get one ban. If there really are two stages a character "can't handle" then you are doomed with only one ban, this way you could handle it better, and it brings you to the best median for stages to play on to be fair for both characters.

Tournaments are going to have rulesets that people want to play with. Most players don't want to deal with stages that automatically put people in disadvantaged positions (see Rainbow Cruise, Halberd, Norfair, Delfino to some extent)
People also don't want to play on stages like Onett/Bridge of Eldin which completely throw out the window the recovery dynamic of smash, something the game was designed around, since it causes massive imbalances and gimmicky strategies.

Next smash isn't going to be exempt from that, it's going to follow the pattern of, generally liberal stagelists everywhere for a bit then we end up with like 9 stages max that stay legal, which towards the end of the game's lifespan will get even smaller.

Now, before we talk about how smash was designed to be played, I have a simple chart for you.

Edit: Use the second spoiler, crashboards messing up again and no editing I can do will fix it :/

Spoiler

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.

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.

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.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Remember when I said ultimately we'd find that our conclusions would be in agreement?
Although I would avoid using the labels "Conservative" and "Liberal" as that would lead to malapropism.

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

I think what you are seeking is what I like to call an "agreeable subjectivity". It holds opportunity for a broad spectrum of players to agree to.

Again, I would agree where you're getting at, but strongly disagree with the approach being taken (to want to see people admit they are "wrong").

Yes, and agreeable subjectivity being subjective doesn't help either, but still, it's worth admitting to.

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. 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. I also would like to have some people admit they don't have knowledge on certain subjects at times. 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 an interesting approach, but sadly, it is grounded in premises that do not follow the conclusion.
I subject the premises to the obvious fact that Smash does NOT start with every stage "legal". First, there is no "legal" as defined in the game. Second, there are a number of stages that are to be worked to be unlocked - NOT EVERY STAGE IS INITIALLY AVAILABLE, the game itself locks you out of stages.

Same for characters though too. I think we must look past the very beginning slightly. 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.

I am not sure how exposed you are to the competitive scene, but the answer to your question is:
Tough luck.

Tournaments are the Tournament Organizer's property in both an intellectual sense and a physical one. Property rights are a completely different field of philosophy than what is being argued here on these boards and for that I would implore further research (and a whole new can of worms, a whole world of worms).


That is one perspective on the matter, however the behind-the-scenes DVD special feature perspective (as I like to describe it) begs to differ. There were a number of well-seasoned veterans who had to patiently reason with their TOs to keep a more even competition between players.

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. One side saying someone is stupid for suggesting a stage (which happens VERY often) vs one side suggesting and the other side saying "it doesn't meet the goals we have" and admitting its a bit subjective would be WAY better then the animosity used today.

I did dismiss it, because it was a terrible stage. But that is not to say I have not changed my opinion of the stage (or the way I describe my opinion). So please refrain from referencing such old posts when I am readily available to make a more clear declaration.

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 have a feeling as our subjective goals are different it will be acceptable to me, but not for you, so our individual conclusions on the matter are correct to ourselves, but maybe not to the other. Though like I said there's no problem with that.

1) I'd suggest dropping the "native state" for something more clear, as it could be interpreted so vaguely as to find it is against your agenda.
2) Already addressed the problem of all stages legal.
3) Why? If something violates general reason it wouldn't get to the stage of detail.
4) Agreed! But "game-breaking" is going to be pulled into question.
5) Redundant
6) I'll remain skeptical of this, as it needs to be further examined.
7) If this is alluding to a logical process, I can agree with this. But it is what I'd say is axiomatic and therefore does not need to be stated anymore than "We should be right".

Also, my suggestion I put out there is to avoid using the word "we" as that can be seen as coercive language to get people to agree rather than letting the apparent truths hold - creating an image of collectivist thought leads to "herd mentality" and a "might makes right" attitude. Let truth be the support of reason, a support stronger than any amount of concept.

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. And I'm guessing game-breaking is one of those subjective things we can't avoid. I spose for 6 it would be to remain as objective as possible. 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. For 7, more along the lines of: if you say no random factors should be in AT ALL that means NONE, Smashville even. Use our words precisely, acceptable subjectivity of randomness is acceptable, or reasonably randomness that can be prepared for and dealt with maybe (thinkg of the random support ghosts on YI here). I admit both of those wordings seem terrible to me...

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.

 

[mimgrim]

Sort of, except you only get one ban. If there really are two stages a character "can't handle" then you are doomed with only one ban, this way you could handle it better, and it brings you to the best median for stages to play on to be fair for both characters.

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