Legality Tentative: MBR Official Ruleset for 2012

[Divinokage]

Lol.. the game isn't all about poking, frame traps and combos. We are playing smash after all.

 

[Kal]

I really dislike it when people decide to go on the internet and declare how drunk they are. But you went the extra mile by using the word imbibed (among the least pleasant words to pronounce) and by using the Cyrillic alphabet instead of simply typing Russian Standard.

In my defense, I just prefaced my point with the fact that I have had some vodka. In case my **** comes out too disorganized, which it frequently does. And the Cyrillic alphabet is awesome. Don't judge.

And luckily, most adults don't need to say the words aloud as they read them. And I'm sorry you dislike what I've done. I'll be sure to add this to my list of **** that upsets Doser.

And I like the word "imbibe."

 

[Doser]

It's nothing special, there are tons of people who decide to proclaim "SO DRUNK XDDDDD"

You just did it in a different way, but it's equally annoying.

 

[Kal]

Thanks Doser. Feel free to complain more in a PM.

 

[Frame Perfect]

I really dislike it when people decide to go on the internet and declare how drunk they are. But you went the extra mile by using the word imbibed (among the least pleasant words to pronounce) and by using the Cyrillic alphabet instead of simply typing Russian Standard.

LMFAO. poor liver

people shouldn't depend on stages to win

can't say it better than that. don't people feel those victories hollow?

 

[Mattnumbers]

can't say it better than that. don't people feel those victories hollow?

Not if you make money off of it

 

[Frame Perfect]

most people play at a loss. i would suggest getting a real income, especially if you want a really nice igloo

 

[Kal]

Why is the victory somehow less meaningful because you made use of a stage to get it? Is there any rationale at all behind this?

When Armada invests time in learning Young Link in order to beat Jigglypuff, this is somehow viewed as impressive. But learning a strategy unique to a stage is somehow viewed as unworthy. The irony here is that there isn't such a thing as not being dependent on the stage to win. The simple fact that you're dependent on your opponent not being dependent on a counterpick stage to win means that you are dependent on the starter stages to win. Everyone is dependent on the stage to win to some extent, and this doesn't go away with the starter stages (or else there would be no point in a strike and counterpick system).

The very fact that we are playing the matchup on a stage implies that we are dependent on the stage to win. Having an arbitrary preference towards starter stages and calling them neutral (for a reason which hasn't been justified since we dropped the random stage select a long time ago) does not make victories on these stages more meaningful.

 

[Cactuar]

Having an arbitrary preference towards starter stages and calling them neutral does not make victories on these stages more meaningful.

The only sense that it is not more meaningful is in the result, which is a win or loss.

On a personal level, the pride in winning on a neutral is indescribably higher than that of winning on a counterpick. It is simply a matter of difficulty. Winning any game on easymode is not satisfying to a competitive gamer. We want the stage influence to be as 50/50 as possible, because that is the most difficult possible status that can be achieved prior to character selection. We all want to play on hardcore and have that feeling of accomplishment.

I can actually recall several times where I would hear something about Cort or VanZ beating someone noteworthy, be impressed, then be told they won by Mute or Brinstar, and think significantly less of the set.

 

[Kal]

At the same time, winning an uphill battle is also quite satisfying. And, of course, these preferences are all just subjective. I would never consider them when making a ruleset. Moreover, (I believe we've touched on this before), the only sense that these matchups are as "close to 50/50 as possible" is when you restrict the cast to a small "viable" subset. This subset changes with time, so I would, again, never put that into consideration when making a ruleset.

And all of this "thinking less of the set" because someone won on Mute City or Brinstar is just scrubby. As far as I'm concerned, a win is a win. You wouldn't think less of my set because I used Peach to **** a Roy. Why is it different if I use Brinstar to **** a Falco?

 

[Cactuar]

Lmao, actually I did used to think less of players who would switch from their main to Peach, having never played her, to CP ICs. What is more sad, is that this used to work for pretty much any high/top level player.

One is an advantage change that is controlled entirely by you and doesn't affect the player outside of contact. The other is one that directly disadvantages the other player. That kind of influence should not be granted to such a great extent.

 

[Kal]

The stage only disadvantages the opponent to the extent you are able to utilize it. This is true for all stages, even broken ones. The same holds for a character; the advantage only exists to the extent you are able to utilize it. Your preference for allowing matchups which are one-sided on Battlefield but not Rainbow Cruise, Kongo Jungle, etc. is a subjective one.

And obviously, "to such a great extent" is merely where we draw our respective lines at what is considered "broken." Different strokes. >_>

Yeah, low level players are easy to **** with Peach. Especially if the match is a counter. I remember playing some random Roy and lazily picking Peach and just dsmashing the entire time. GG no re.

Also, I'd like to speak with you on AIM or gmail chat or whatever. Perhaps you could humor me? This has nothing to do with the ruleset, by the way.

 

[Cactuar]

What matchup is one sided on Battlefield but not on any other stage?

I didn't mean a lower level IC opponent. I meant vs Chu.

 

[Kal]

I don't see the relevance of the first point. This just goes back to what I've already said. The preference is still entirely subjective. Seems to be more of a problem with there existing stage-specific counter strategies than there existing counter strategies.

And I know that you meant it regarding IC players like Chu. I misspoke. I merely meant what I said as an "in addition." I'm willing to hug this one out.

 

[Cactuar]

I just... don't really see what point was made by your comment if there are no matchups that are one sided on a neutral and suddenly not on any other stage...

 

[Kal]

My point is that the distinction seems totally contrived. This preference towards uneven matchups being preferred only on the starter stages does not make sense to me. An uneven matchup is an uneven matchup; where it happens should only matter if it's game breaking or "overcentralizing." Moreover it, at best, and only arguably, balances the game within only a small subset of characters. And I don't think it's the job of the TO to try and balance the game (past brokenness) anyway.

 

[Cactuar]

So just because the ability to make an uneven matchup even worse for the already disadvantaged player exists in the game, it should be used in competitive play?

Just for awareness on this, with a more liberal stage list, the characters that are already non-viable become worse when looked at as an average. Each of the stages tends to really cater towards one or two of the non-viables, and then makes the other non-viables' matchups with the viables much much worse. This essentially gives 2 non-viables a stage where they gain advantage, while giving every high/top tier character an extra stage to use when counterpicking against any other non-viable.

Mute and Brinstar in particular are not good for the competitive list because they aren't providing benefit to any non-viable, while making the advantage gain for two already high tier characters immense.

I don't understand what you mean by stating its not your job as a TO (and as such, the ruleset) to balance the game. We aren't balancing gameplay. We are balancing the expected player vs player odds interaction, with an assumption that both players are of equal skill and under the assumption of even character matchup. The neutrals give even or slightly more/less than even matchups for the greatest number of widely used characters, and ensure having results that are more accurate to player skill relevant to the competitive melee scene. Ability to navigate unused stages and work around obstacles that interfere with player vs player interaction is not one of those skills.


The thing that speaks to me most is the pride from winning straight up vs using counterpicks. This isn't something that is quantifiable, and won't be felt the same way by two individuals. I personally would not be satisfied with a victory over someone simply because they were unprepared for playing on my counterpick stage. Knowing that everyone uses neutrals, I can safely pick any of them and expect that my opponent is prepared and able, and no other issues involved, ready to play me to the best of their ability.

This is what I was referring to when addressing character vs character CPing vs stage CPing. One is something that directly affects you and the ability to engage in combat with the opponent. The other is one that affects both parties, working as a buff for you based on previous experience on the stage and character advantage that doesn't exist on the commonly used stages, and cripples your opponent on top of it because of their inexperience and possible character disadvantages from the CPs.


In summary: There is a difference in how a player approaches the game and the mentality of winning. Some people only care about winning their match/set/whatever. These are the ones who will most push for these types of advantages because they quantify their improvement and status as a smasher as how they place at a tournament or who they beat.

And then there is my camp. We quantify our improvement based on how much we can handle, how far we can push ourselves and how well we play. The winning is motivation, but true satisfaction is only gained when you know you are the best player you can be. The numbers and placings don't matter, as long as you overcame challenges greater than the last time you played. We want this feeling for both ourselves and our opponent, and we want both to have the opportunity to push their own limits. Reducing the opponent's ability to play the game goes against this mentality because it is flattening the climb, the challenge, the reason for playing.

 

[Kal]

So just because the ability to make an uneven matchup even worse for the already disadvantaged player exists in the game, it should be used in competitive play?

I don't see how this follows from what I said. That's not why it should be used. The point is that uneven matchups already exist on the poorly dubbed "neutral stages." What bothers me is that this is ok, but it's not ok to have uneven matchups on the counterpick stages strictly because they are more even on the starters. This seems absurd to me.

Just for awareness on this, with a more liberal stage list, the characters that are already non-viable become worse when looked at as an average. Each of the stages tends to really cater towards one or two of the non-viables, and then makes the other non-viables' matchups with the viables much much worse. This essentially gives 2 non-viables a stage where they gain advantage, while giving every high/top tier character an extra stage to use when counterpicking against any other non-viable.

This is entirely possible, though I am of the opinion that balance doesn't change much overall. The bad characters are going to do worse regardless. The exceptions seem to me the mid-range characters, who arguably might do better when the only available stages are the starters.

Mute and Brinstar in particular are not good for the competitive list because they aren't providing benefit to any non-viable, while making the advantage gain for two already high tier characters immense.

Again, I only see this as a problem when said advantage reaches an extremely high degree. The measure of viability will necessarily take into consideration which stages can be utilized.

I don't understand what you mean by stating its not your job as a TO (and as such, the ruleset) to balance the game.

If the metagame were static, and we were not discovering things, I would (maybe) see it as ok. But balancing the game with the metagame changing seems like a bad idea to me. If we were to try this a few years back, emphases would change. Even further back, we basically wanted to play on FD only because that was considered the most "balanced" stage.

Moreover, once you've banned something, the possibility of discovering counter strategies is essentially removed. So in an altruistic attempt to balance the game, you may be very well simply removing depth.

We aren't balancing gameplay. We are balancing the expected player vs player odds interaction, with an assumption that both players are of equal skill and under the assumption of even character matchup. The neutrals give even or slightly more/less than even matchups for the greatest number of widely used characters, and ensure having results that are more accurate to player skill relevant to the competitive melee scene. Ability to navigate unused stages and work around obstacles that interfere with player vs player interaction is not one of those skills.

Any attempt at balance is necessarily balancing gameplay. I don't really understand what you mean by this "player vs. player odds interaction." I assume you mean balancing matchups, essentially. I've explained why I don't like this idea.

It's a bit circular to justify a ban on the premise that the stage is unused. It amounts to "it's banned because it's already banned." And we've gone over the "working around obstacles" thing before, so I don't think we need to delve into that.

 

[linkoninja]

I agree with some points you guys are making. Fox vs Kirby is free as **** for Fox. However it is sooo much harder on a stage like Hyrule than on a stage like Dreamland. Dreamland would force the Fox and Kirby to actually fight (which could be good or bad, probably more bad for the kirby since the fox would **** him) but if the Kirby was good enough he'd have a chance (as seen by other low-tiers such as Taj's M2). Personally I agree with some stages being banned because they HEAVILY favor certain characters much more often. The only thing is whether these characters abilities would be abused on certain ban-worthy/banned stages. (like would a Fox really camp against Pichu on Hyrule when he could just **** him)
In the end unless there is a external force (such as Brinstar's lava) it's all about how YOU handle the stage against your opponent and his options.
If a Falcon was really good/dedicated he COULD counterpick to FoD if he learned the stage really well even though that stage is generally a bad stage for his CHARACTER. But the individual player would like that stage. I dunno if I'm making sense, but basically I approve of the stage choices (although the lack of variety is a bit disappointing) but if its for the competitive sack of this game then so be it. The ONLY complaint is.... Japes? Really -_-?

 

[Cactuar]

I don't see how this follows from what I said. That's not why it should be used. The point is that uneven matchups already exist on the poorly dubbed "neutral stages." What bothers me is that this is ok, but it's not ok to have uneven matchups on the counterpick stages strictly because they are more even on the starters. This seems absurd to me.

I thought the answer to this was presented by my post. The reason this cannot be done is that it provides top/high tiers even more advantages vs the majority of the cast, while basically randomly assigning a few mid tiers stages they might win on. To provide example for this, say I'm Fox, I just won on a neutral. You are Luigi. You take me to X counterpick that makes Luigi vs Fox in Luigi's favor and beat me. I now have green greens. Green greens is legal because it makes GaW vs Fox viable. Green greens takes me already 70-30 advantage on luigi and most of the low tiers, and makes it 90-10. Corneria, MKII, Onett, Hyrule, and Pokefloats also have this same effect. You are unprepared to play against me because I could choose any of those stages and gain tremendous advantage, while I can ban your CP because I know what CPs your mid tier is good on, and those CPs are very limited in number.

This isn't a case of balancing the stage. It is a case of removing scenarios that are clearly unfair/broken. This is why we don't use the top down method. We add stages by providing evidence of balance, and then test them before adding them to the list.

Balancing interaction outcome is about making the odds of either player winning even assuming both players are of equal skill and the matchup itself is 50:50. Balancing matchups is about changing the odds of one character beating another. I don't know how much more detail I can really provide about the difference here, as its something I see as being very different pretty naturally...

As a recap: For every one stage your mid tier character gets that gives him a good matchup against random high/top tier, he will be getting 10 other stages that cripple him horribly. Using the already provided matchup percents as a baseline, this makes the expected outcome of the two players much further in favor of the player using a high/top tier.

 

[Kal]

We've gone through all of this before. It seems we're just not getting anywhere.

 

[Cactuar]

There is only one answer:

HUG IT OUT

 

[The Star King]

Even if he agrees or disagrees, it's not something really enforceable except in maybe worldwide tournaments.

I know, I'm just curious why you would be against it.

First, let me preface this statement with the fact that I've just imbibed an entire bottle of Русский Стандарт, so take everything I say with a grain of salt.

Pre-johns

Don't become the forum version of Mango

Basically, in principle it doesn't make sense to me to say that something is against the rules, unless both players agree to it. Rules are black and white, at least as far as what stages are legal, and so I don't think the players agreeing to it should matter.

Eh, so you're against it because of your general perception of rules? Look at the clause specifically. I think the purpose of banning stages is to prevent people from choosing broken stages to screw over their opppnent and earn easy, near-guaranteed wins. If the person who won the previous game is agreeing to some stage then he obviously doesn't expect to be screwed by that stage choice.

However, as I said in my earlier post, there isn't much you can do, since the players can play whatever they want, and report the results of that as the results of the set they are "supposed" to play.

I know. Just curious.

Also, keep in mind that grand finals are noticeably less exciting for the spectators if the players agree to Bowser dittos on Hyrule.

Ha, aren't you the one who hates appealing to what people want with rulesets?

 

[Strong Badam]

There is only one answer:

HUG IT OUT

This guy knows what's up

 

[KishPrime]

And then there is my camp. We quantify our improvement based on how much we can handle, how far we can push ourselves and how well we play. The winning is motivation, but true satisfaction is only gained when you know you are the best player you can be. The numbers and placings don't matter, as long as you overcame challenges greater than the last time you played. We want this feeling for both ourselves and our opponent, and we want both to have the opportunity to push their own limits. Reducing the opponent's ability to play the game goes against this mentality because it is flattening the climb, the challenge, the reason for playing.

I don't mean this in an insulting way, but the statement above is a pretty sugar-sweet way to justify your own game theory that makes your side sound good and another side sound bad. We all do exactly what you're saying. But you're suggesting that because you're pursuing an ambiguous, self-defined "higher ideal" instead of merely victory, it's better? What are we rewarding in tournaments? Isn't it victory? What, then, is so wrong about using victory as a measure of how well we are making decisions?

I just find it fascinating. So then, in the very next post, you start making arguments based on two players who refuse to change characters on counterpicks. (Luigi being "stuck" in a 90/10 matchup despite having every opportunity to change character)

What? If this higher ideal really was the goal, then both players would push to master multiple characters so as to take advantage of everything in the game and become the best player they can be. My ruleset presumes that whole-game knowledge, including developing a stable of multiple characters, is the goal that should be pursued. Every person makes it sound like "having to pick up Jigglypuff or Peach or Fox" is a horrific thing that should never happen. I don't understand this. Almost every top player has developed a high-end secondary or two or three, and they're rewarded for it.

Real life = Some choices are bad choices. And that's ok!

Basically, my personal, non-transferrable reaction to your explanations is that you're trying to go overboard on the fairness doctrine. No, you can't win a national tournament with Luigi. No, there is no such thing as a 50:50 matchup, and there's no need to pretend like there is. No, occasional random occurrences do not invalidate a game as a competitive experience. And no, there is no honor in putting yourself at a disadvantage by ignoring options in the game (or banning said options when other people won't ignore them, too). Refusing to play on a stage like Brinstar (that many people even agree alters matchups less than some neutrals) is like refusing to wavedash. Everyone doesn't get a trophy. Victory in Smash is a combination of good choices and good gameplay, and there's nothing wrong with that.

As always, the truth is somewhere in the middle. While the hard-line philosophy above might suggest that items should all be on, etc, my ruleset still pretty clearly tries to outline criteria for extreme-case scenarios, while also pointing out that taking it down to X stages never gives you a "fair" game, so why not just include as much of it as possible?

 

[Kal]

Holy ****ing **** I think Kish's post may be better than The Odyssey.

Eh, so you're against it because of your general perception of rules? Look at the clause specifically. I think the purpose of banning stages is to prevent people from choosing broken stages to screw over their opppnent and earn easy, near-guaranteed wins. If the person who won the previous game is agreeing to some stage then he obviously doesn't expect to be screwed by that stage choice.

Again, I just think rules are black and white. It's sort of a non-issue, because I don't see it hurting anybody, and it's totally not enforceable. But if I were pressed on whether I should allow the Gentleman's Clause, I would say "no, the rules are the rules. Sorry." In part, this means that I don't have to worry about something like, for example, a couple of players agreeing to Hyrule as long as they don't camp, and somebody deciding to camp, and then me being forced to make a subjective judgement if someone complains. Instead, I just say "sorry, Hyrule is banned."

In other words, it relieves the TO of being forced to address subjective issues or people being dishonest ("no, I didn't agree to Hyrule, I just didn't know it was banned"). But also, the rule itself just seems so contrived to me. Players agreeing to something doesn't really make it any more legal.

In my opinion, the purpose of banning stages is to remove broken strategies. They're still broken, even if the players agree to it. Out of principle, I have a hard time being ok with a broken strategy being used, even if the players agree to it. But, as I said, it's a non-issue. The fact is that you don't really need the Gentleman's Clause to be explicitly stated for it to exist. Players will agree to play where they want anyway.

Ha, aren't you the one who hates appealing to what people want with rulesets?

Yeah, that was just to sweeten the deal. If Gentleman's Clause were something I agreed with, I wouldn't have bothered mentioning this point.

 

[Deleted member]

If we were sitting down to play a game of Clue with people in the Smash community, before we play we'd have to debate the legality of every room in Clue to see if that room is too dominant in pathing strategies, and every player would have to start on the same spot to create a neutral start location. We'd also have to get rid of the die and play rock-paper-scissors with the entire table every round, with the winner being allowed to move one space.

This post is a joke and if you try to argue with me about the accuracy of an analogy that's not intended to be an actual analogy, you're a nerd.

Cue nerds.

...it's almost like you've spent an exceptionally long time at college.

while everyone is taking turns blowing tim, everyone look at how bad mew2king and I were back in the day:

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=368505

 

[Cactuar]

Here's a fun question: If the quality of a victory does not change depending on circumstance, why do people generally give Jigglypuff much less respect for tournament wins? Why is the response to hearing that someone beat someone else on Brinstar: "Ugh, brinstar"?


Actually, I have a better one.

Let's play Cactuar's Game.

We roll RNG 1-6. If the RNG comes up 1-5, I win. If the RNG comes up 6, you win.

The game was made this way. We should play it the way it was intended. It's not 100% broken because you have a 1 in 6 chance to win.

Now, we could get some people together, make an alternate ruleset using that provided RNG, and make it 1-3 I win, 4-6 you win, but we shouldn't because...?


This is the difference between gambling against the house and participating in competition.

Edit: RNG > dice

 

[Anand]

Here's a fun question: If the quality of a victory does not change depending on circumstance, why do people generally give Jigglypuff much less respect for tournament wins? Why is the response to hearing that someone beat someone else on Brinstar: "Ugh, brinstar"?

Because people are huge scrubs, basically. That is not at all a secret.

 

[Cactuar]

Yes, the scrub argument. I will explain away the phenomenon by calling the entire group of people who thinks that way a word that honestly doesn't really mean anything aside from "they disagree with me, and I am superior, therefor derogatory word".

I don't agree with that opinion of Jigglypuff, but it is something that deserves an actual explanation rather than hand waving and dismissal.


I actually view the vast majority of arguments around rule sets and stage lists similarly to the story of Goldilocks. Entire team is babies and you haven't yet found the one that's juuuuuust right for you.



Kish: I am curious about your response to this scenario:

Swordsman 1 loses his blade due to loss of footing, and, rather secure victory immediately, Swordsman 2 retrieves the blade and gives it to his opponent, before resuming the fight.

or

Player 1 SDs by accident.
Player 2 SDs on purpose immediately after.

Same thing really. Do you believe there is no difference in the quality of the victory if the other guy took advantage and didn't even the odds before continuing?

 

[The Star King]

@Kal I still don't agree because I think stages are banned to prevent people from being forced to play on broken stages, but I don't really know how to convince you of this so I'll agree to disagree I guess (since it can't be enforced anyways :D).

 

[KishPrime]

If quality of the win mattered, then Smash would be a judged sport. And do you really want that? Do you ever watch/follow judged sports? Victory is an easy, yes or no answer. Quality, on the other hand, can be analyzed through an inifinite, disparate number of viewpoints. I mean, I could rattle off 50 different prisms through which you could analyze the "quality" of a match. In the end, people will respect what they respect (usually players like themselves, which is why Hbox gets razed for being different) and will disrespect what they disrespect.

Smash isn't a skills exhibition. It's not the Harlem Globetrotters. The game provides the opportunity to demonstrate and utilize skills, but the goal is always to win. I've won an awful lot of matches where I made more mistakes than the opponent, and I'll take every one of them over a loss where I didn't miss an l-cancel. To me, that would imply that I spent far too much time worried about things that don't matter instead of focusing on the critical moments that lead to victory.

To get to the point of your question, opponent's mistakes are key in almost every victory, so no, I don't hold it against the winner if the loser makes mistakes. Are you really splitting hairs between an SD and a missed l-cancel that costs a player a 30%-death combo? An opponent's gap in knowledge or flaw in execution is just part of the game. Obviously, you might not be the best player in the world just because you beat the best player in the world off an SD or a rest off the lava, but it's certainly not meaningless because you got to the point where that moment was a critical moment, and winners are the ones who come through in critical moments. You're the best on that day, and that's all you can ever get from a tournament, where victory is the standard.

More importantly, scrub doesn't have to be derogatory, unless you choose to take it that way. I'm a happy Pokemon scrub that enjoys his Eevees.

 

[Beat!]

That's not being a scrub. That's being a casual.

 

[Geenareeno]

Hey, random off topic question? I KNOW this is terrible idea but can someone tell me why? Character specific stagelists. Like if you were playing Link you would have a different stagepool than Jigglypuff.

 

[The Star King]

Too much hassle.

 

[Cactuar]

You would rather take a set on an off day and say that you were better that day, than play a match where you and your opponent were playing at your best and know that you are better, period.



Whatever floats your boat man. (lol midwest joke)

 

[Kal]

I don't think Kish is saying that he would rather win on an off day than win knowing his opponent was playing his best. Victory being the standard means that all he can ever derive is the knowledge that he was better at a particular event. That's the point he's making, I think. Even if a match is even, you can derive nothing, given that you won, save for the fact that, at that particular event, you are the better player. By definition, in fact, since victory is the measure of skill.

 

[Divinokage]

You would rather take a set on an off day and say that you were better that day, than play a match where you and your opponent were playing at your best and know that you are better, period.



Whatever floats your boat man. (lol midwest joke)

Ya but SDs are part of the match, for example, I SDed at 10% vs Hax on Yoshi's while he was only at 10% but I still managed to win. Does that mean I wasn't playing my best? Of course I was but I made a mistake however I didn't let that mistake influence me in anyway, I knew that if I landed 2-3 hits I can kill him. I think people draw conclusions to their mishaps a little too quickly. I know losing sucks very much and then you want to justify why you lost to make yourself feel better but I mean if you take everything that happens in a match for what it is then it's always possible to comeback and take the match. You have to do everything to win.

You can't really control when you are going to have an off day or a super day.. all you can do is try to beat your opponent for the win, there's no other way, **** the johns honestly.

 

[Cactuar]

The only sense that it is not more meaningful is in the result, which is a win or loss.

I don't think Kish is saying that he would rather win on an off day than win knowing his opponent was playing his best. Victory being the standard means that all he can ever derive is the knowledge that he was better at a particular event. That's the point he's making, I think. Even if a match is even, you can derive nothing, given that you won, save for the fact that, at that particular event, you are the better player. By definition, in fact, since victory is the measure of skill.

Yes I know, hence my initial statement posting today. At any individual event, a win is a 1 or a 0. But grand scheme, that isn't an indicator of player skill except in a vacuum (that event), as there are many factors contributing to the current status of both players.

Anything less than peak play, and any random influences, sways away from the ideal of two players opposing each other at the peak of their abilities and with limited random effect in the short term to accentuate player influence in outcome rather than random benefit.

Desire and reality are two different things though. That ideal is extremely difficult to achieve and isn't something I really use as a basis here.

 

[KishPrime]

You would rather take a set on an off day and say that you were better that day, than play a match where you and your opponent were playing at your best and know that you are better, period.

Whatever floats your boat man. (lol midwest joke)

Actually, I said I'd rather have an off-day and win than an on-day and lose, which is completely different from what you are quoting. If you're going to go sarcastic, at least read it right. :/

If you're in it for Zen, then that's fine, we all have our objectives. I play because I enjoy combating people. Part of that is sensing weakness and pressing on it until the other player breaks or they find a mechanic to cover it. By the end of my career, I countered players who were bad on Brinstar and Mute there, and took everyone else to FoD or Story. I don't think the wins are cheapened because my opponent wasn't smart enough to know how to handle alternate stages.

I used whole-game knowledge and don't apologize for it, and frankly, think the same of said anti-Mute/Brinstar players as players who refuse to wavedash. I've played against plenty of players who learned how to play the stages and did fine there.