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).
