Thanks for Playing 2 - July 20th, 2013 - Ijamsville, Maryland (A$, Star King, Nintendude, clubba!)

[Cobrevolution]

the community sure as ****ing **** isn't just the top 32 from apex. that's all i'm saying about that.

 

[clubbadubba]

Someone completely outside of smash 64 is perfectly capable of making good arguments about rulesets after obtain the basic knowledge of the game (which doesn't take long). Good players are just as capable of incorrect analysis as bad player, to assume otherwise is similar to saying that because Michael Jordan was good at basketball, he would be good at being a general manager. Playing =/= coaching or managing or reffing or rulemaking. You shouldn't get any bonus points in terms of ruleset analysis because you are good at playing the game. As simple as it would be if that were the case, its simply not a good correlation.

 

[Kefit]

We don't live in a world where we have SSB coaches or managers or referees or rulemaking bodies or players unions or analysts or fantasy league participants. We live in a world where the only parties that meaningfully interact with the competitive SSB64 scene are competitive players and spectators.

And I'm quite certain that Michael Jordan could write entire books detailing the consequences of any proposed substantial change to the rules of basketball. You do not become so skilled at a game without understanding it at a very high level.

Some guy who got 96th at Apex might have spent hundreds or thousands of hours analyzing every SSB video known to man and as a result have a theoretical knowledge base of the competitive aspects of SSB rivaling that of players much better versed in actual gameplay performance. But how the **** do we determine something like this? We can't. If we want our playerbase to shut the **** up about these issues then we need to find a realistically measurable means of polling a representative group who can reasonably be assured of understanding competitive SSB64. I've suggested one means of doing this. If you don't like my proposal then I suggest presenting your own suggestion of how we can feasibly accomplish this task.

 

[The Star King]

just hit me

top 32 at last Apex would be all controller players

keyboard players would have no say, since obviously they weren't there

I SEE YOUR PLAN KEFIT, VERY CLEVER

 

[Kefit]

Non-humans generally have a difficult time voicing intelligible input on analytical subjects like this. However, I suppose I'll deign to consider your guttural utterances by instead proposing "top Apex 32 and top 3.2 of all other Nintendude organized tournaments."

Seriously though, if nothing else, I hope that Nintendude reads through this and gets some ideas whirling around in his head on how to resolve this issue in a measurably objective fashion.

 

[B Link]

I just want to say that star king's sheermadness quote is hilarious

 

[Karajan]

Ya'll forgot the poll we took, Pro kb won like 2-1. You ban KB => you ban xbox => you ban LD. You ****ers who want to ban LD are a bunch of ****

 

[Nintendude]

Melee actually did away with the MBR because they decided it really wasn't needed anymore. For Brawl, they disbanded their ruleset committee under the belief that TOs, not a ruleset committee, should be determining the rules for the tournaments they host.

 

[clubbadubba]

Well technically digital input for control sticks would be banned, which would allow xbox controllers still.

And kefit, oh my god no Michael Jordan would not be able to write anything intelligible regarding basketball rules. That's what I'm saying. Its possible to be extremely good at things and be very ****ty at doing tasks related to that thing. Just like you wouldn't know that 96th place has good ideas, you do NOT know that the person who finished 5th has good ideas.

TO choice is probably the best right now. TO listen to community, then make a judgement call. Based on majority is silly because we have no way of determining when its a true representation of the community.

 

[Cobrevolution]

insert comment about MJ and the bobcats.

 

[Kefit]

Melee actually did away with the MBR because they decided it really wasn't needed anymore. For Brawl, they disbanded their ruleset committee under the belief that TOs, not a ruleset committee, should be determining the rules for the tournaments they host.

How is this kind of decision making handled by the greater FGC anyway?

 

[Nintendude]

I have absolutely no idea.

 

[The Star King]

Summoning Fireblaster

The local FGC expert

I think.

 

[Sedda]

He will only show up if you make him angry

 

[clubbadubba]

Fireblaster sucks if he loves the FGC so much why doesn't he marry it?

Spoiler

jk love you bro

 

[prisonchild]

sometimes an outside perspective is like... a good thing. most people 'in the community' are biased as ****.

i think leaving the ruleset up to the TO would be a good idea.

 

[Cobrevolution]

i think leaving the ruleset up to the TO would be a good idea.

a TO can choose to have 3 stocks DL only for "sake of time" if he so wishes, then.

 

[KnitePhox]

whatever the community wants, the TO has final decision anyway PWN

 

[prisonchild]

and then people don't attend the tournament. Most TO's are very reasonable people though.

 

[Cobrevolution]

and a reasonable TO will take the community's opinion into consideration.

 

[prisonchild]

opinion is different from a specific community-wide ruleset. besides, are people going to force the TO to use this ruleset? at the end of the day the TO can do what they want with their tournament. that being said, i doubt any TO would change the rules in a major way anyways.

 

[Fireblaster]

How is this kind of decision making handled by the greater FGC anyway?

It's decided by the TO's on a case by case basis for each individual tournament. Of course, TO's don't want to piss off the community with rules that most of them don't like, so they usually do not deviate unless they have a good reason for it and most people don't disagree with it. The first couple of months up to EVO 2011, MvC3 was run BO3 except for winner, loser, grandfinals which were BO5. After that evo, the community basically came to an agreement that the game was too random to be decided on BO3, so more and more tournaments just started having UMvC3 tournaments at BO5 for the entire thing. It was a slow process though, as EVO 2012 only had every non-pools match for UMvC3 at BO5, and at EVO 2013 every single UMvC3 match was BO5 except for one set of pools. The reason that the tournament rules evolved like this was because as people got better, they got better at killing characters with TOD's (touch of death aka z2d). So matches went by faster and slowly the TO's found out that MvC3 tournaments could use 3/5 through more of the tournament and still run on time. Running on time is one of the most important issues to TO's.

SF4 top 8 at EVO 2012 was BO3 except for the 3 finals and went by really quickly as infiltration just bodied everyone easily, so to make SF4 not feel like it gets much less time than all other games and to give players a better chance to adapt, the entire top 8 at EVO 2013 was BO5. Southeast Asia Major 2013 ran two streams at the same time for multiple top 8 for games, so they had plenty of time and went nuts and made SF4 top 8 all best 3 out of 5, the winner and loser's finals best 5 out of 9, and the grand finals best 7 out of 13.

As far as I know, rounds in a game are probably the equivalent of stocks in smash. Except in games like MvC3, Injustice, or KOF XIII where the number of rounds can't be changed because it makes no sense, every game has never changed their number of rounds. SF4, SFxT, and MK9 have always been 2 out of 3. Soul Calibur and Tekken have always been best 3 out of 5.