Legality "The 5's" Stances on UCF

[DarkDragoon]

Good afternoon!

First and foremost, this post is not regarding an official vote being completed by the Competition Committee.

Rather, this post is made at the request of "The 5" as they have recently voted to amend the rules to allow TO discretion with regards to usage of UCF, pending approval from "The 25". Packaged in that thread were statements from each of The 5 fleshing out their stances on UCF and their reasonings. It's understood that transparency should be one of the major goals of this process, and as such they've requested that I publish their comments on UCF for the public to read.

Nintendude:
Regarding UCF Standardization and Regarding TO Discretion

Dr.Z:
Regarding Both Votes

Juggleguy:

I voted no to UCF for a few reasons. The first reason is there's a slippery slope that comes with software mods that I don't want to see the community go down. I hold vanilla Melee in a sort of reverence; we have played this game since its release without ever modding it for tournament gameplay, and who are we to do so now, especially if it opens the floodgates to other mods? The second reason is it increases the perceived barrier to entry for new players who are crucial to the sustainability of the scene. A 16-year old game played on CRT TVs doesn't need to introduce another hurdle to its own potential growth. I would rather see vanilla Melee played with its flaws than see the community fizzle out due to the final straw in lack of accessibility. The third reason is it places a huge stress on major TOs who need to be mindful of external legal factors when organizing large events, which often require contracts with several entities and sponsors. I'd ask everyone to please understand that the non-disclosure agreements from these make it difficult to be 100% transparent.

Shi:

Due to the delicate nature of IP and Copyright Infringement laws and that different organizations have different needs and requirements, there is not a one shoe fits all solution to UCF. I firmly believe there needs to be a solution for the problems at hand but also understand there are constraints in the scope in which we can operate. Therefore my vote for the use of UCF is that it will be at the discretion of TO's to use it as they see fit with the needs of their event.

Blur:
Regarding both votes


Feel free to discuss or ask any questions you may have!

-DD

 

[CmonChapanya]

Is there a thread i can find about the 25 becuase im so lost

 

[DarkDragoon]

Ah! Right, that information is available here:
http://www.meleeitonme.com/competit...bers-of-the-at-large-panel-have-been-decided/

I'll link that into the OP.
-DD

 

[TriNewton]

Every argument that involves legality (in terms of IP infringement/copyright) disappoints me. Reggie didn't know how to Up-B. I promise you that no one at Nintendo knows what the Melee character select screen looks like down to a pixel, and none of them will even go to the trouble to understand what UCF is.

When Mario Maker came out, videos on YT that showcased mods of older Mario games (like Advance 2) that added harder levels using a level editor were taken down. I assume that this is the sort of situation that people are imagining when it comes to UCF, but when a Nintendo rep sees "This tournament ran UCF," what are the chances that they will immediately identify it as a mod and not some sort of ruleset modification when plain old Melee is being played right in front of their eyes? The name of the game played at the tournament will still be "Super Smash Brothers Melee" and this is what everyone looking at the surface level will see when they scour Youtube. Not to mention Nintendo hasn't made any sort of legal move ever since EVO.

Only mods like PM (that are very easy to identify at the surface level) need to worry about any sort of legal action (RIP). UCF requires time to fully understand by anyone not already in the community and the nature of UCF isn't even immediately apparent to someone not in the community. It is for this reason that legal arguments against UCF may be theoretically sound but will never be a problem in practice.

 

[TheManaLord]

UCF is an obvious improvement to the game. So is using the original version of the game 1.0. My discretion as a TO allows both of these things, thanks for allowing me the discretion to make good choices.

 

[Rᴏb]

The hurdle of finding a good controller is infinitely larger than the hurdle of setting up UCF. Juggleguy's accessibility argument is pretty dumb.

 

[CAUP]

UCF is an obvious improvement to the game. So is using the original version of the game 1.0. My discretion as a TO allows both of these things, thanks for allowing me the discretion to make good choices.

As a peach main, I am acutely aware that 1.0 contains the frozen turnip glitch, which would definitely influence peach's position ofnthe tier list if it was legal. You probably mean 1.1. Which still slightly buffs low tiers.

 

[trilok]

This is a very disappointing response from most of the big 5 and not due to the conclusion that they reached...
From how they have responded, it doesn't seem like they did any due diligence to consider what the vast majority of community wants, and why they want it. They seem to have failed to seek or address the counterpoints to their surface level criticisms of the mod, which have been pointed out in the various UCF discussions. To me, while I 100% agree they have the power and ability to enforce the rules at the majors they run, the big 5 seem unqualified to create good arguments/reasoning or represent what the community wants.

Nintendude UCF Explained:
- UCF is in Beta, but what if the community still wants it?
- Have any of you contacted the various locals that have used it without issues?
- Do you even have a comprehensive list of locals that have been testing the latest UCF and contacted them on whether they had issues or not?
- "We Should not require" -> again, what about 80%+ of community members who WANT it?
- I do get that the UCF mod should try to emulate vanilla as close as possible. however, I feel like there should be a choice by the community to accept these VERY small differences, rather than defaulting to shutting down the mod.
- "Dash Back is Largely Misunderstood" - true, but we want ucf not simply because dashback is an issue as a mechanic, but certain controllers will always have that advantage in certain situations and the controller hunt is a problem we want solved.
- "I believe that the Axe/Sung method of shield dropping is strictly inferior to the “straight-down” version" - yeah but most of the community values being able to do this, not to mention that there is a some utility in shield tilting in a certain direction to prevent pokes in some situations.
- "UCF’s “fixes” help certain characters more than others"- yeah so does having a "good" controller. UCF is to make sure everyone has that good controller. Should me being poor and not having 800$ for a good dashback controller be any incentive for me to switch a main because I can't use him to the fullest?

DR Z UCF Statement:
- agree on the legal aspects as a reason. I've personally been favor of the arduino mods on the controller + verifications, instead of software mods for these reasons.
- "The fact that UCF is in beta for me is a strong argument to reject it as a standard"- how about letting the community decide, while meanwhile gathering data on the numerous locals to see if they have any issues or other perceptions of the mod?
- "If UCF causes a malfunction in the finals of a major, we would then be morally if not legally responsible for that because we didn’t adequately demand testing." I don't think you would be legally responsible at all, and it should honestly be based on a community decision to accept the mod and its risks or not. Given the choice and community perception, do you honestly not know what we would rather have?

Juggleguy statement:
This statement is probably the one im dissappointed in the most...
Agree with the 3rd reason, but the first two seems so poorly thought out and egotistical.
" I don't want to see the community go down. I hold vanilla Melee in a sort of reverence; we have played this game since its release without ever modding it for tournament gameplay, and who are we to do so now,"
Lots of personal perception/opinion going into a decision that is opposite to the vast majority of the community thinks. Perhaps your decisions should be based on what the people "want" or "hold" or have "reverence" for? The statement comes across as not trying to represent what the community wants, and basically saying you run the tournaments, you make the rules, so your opinion matters for the decision only. I really dislike that basically either choosing to attend/not attend is the default choice you give us, instead of being able to communicate in order to find a mutually beneficial situation.
"who are we to do so now" - people who want to have it done? locals are doing it, and people seem to like it. Is this not actually a justification you accept? people liking it?
"A 16-year old game played on CRT TVs doesn't need to introduce another hurdle to its own potential growth" - yeah like being able to find a controller good for tournament play. Its not like this mod was created as a solution to make the game more accessible... 800$ dashback controller + shield drop notches vs copying a friends memory card. Teaching newer players to shield drop has never been easier, compared to me telling them they have to get notches.
"I would rather see vanilla Melee played with its flaws than see the community fizzle out due to the final straw in lack of accessibility." - the community thinks otherwise? And they thinks it makes the game more accessible...

Shi Statement:
Probably the only statement I agree with that kind of communicates and considers the needs and responsibilities of the TO's with the wants of the players. Its a simple good response that doesn't inject personal opinions as a justification. I think the community can understand the legal justifications regarding UCF, but the other members of the big 5 using personal opinions and bad arguments contrary to what the community was terrible.

Blur Statement:
"I do not think it is to our communal benefit to have it as the universal standard" - why not ask the actual community what they think and perceive?
"UCF’s latest version is still in beta and very untested, and the technical documentation for the mod is extremely sparse. Simply put, though we know the outcome that the mod hopes to achieve, we do not have the tools and documentation to know exactly how it gets there" This is something I would hope the big 5 would have researched and sought out before making a decision. I also believe, as mentioned numerous times, that I 100% agree the TO have the right to do whatever they want, but that community input should be what is used to allow something like UCF to be used at a tournament or not (barring the legal justification reasons).



TLDR: Legal justifications seem like a legit concern, but the big 5 using personal opinions and justifications instead of community perception/opinion is terrible.

I respect all the TO's for their hard work and dedication to the community, and value them significantly for what they contribute to us. My statements are merely criticisms to their response and not intended to bash them personally in any way. If I have worded my statements in any way that would make the TO's feel or be perceived negatively in a personal level instead of the words they have written, I apologize.

 

[Vro]

The inconvenient truth is that 1) a MAJORITY of people are not in favor, it's just more likely to hear favor than criticism due to reporting bias and 2) it is not the players' responsibility to think of repercussions so any argument which only highlights the mod's strengths completely disregards the onus placed upon decision makers.

Is there a controller problem? Yes, to some degree. Should we standardize a mod to fix this problem? Probably not.

 

[HolidayMaker]

A MAJORITY of people absolutely support UCF. Should it be standardized for majors before it's out of beta? Not sure on that one, but thinking a majority of players don't want it is borderline dishonest.

 

[Bones0]

This is ********.

 

[DaiChimpo]

The hurdle of finding a good controller is infinitely larger than the hurdle of setting up UCF. Juggleguy's accessibility argument is pretty dumb.

Wrote an essay lmao

Goddamn Hax or Armada or whoever got a bad controller once and now people think all but 1% of controllers are ****.
1. The vast majority of controllers are not only acceptable, but
2. The vast majority of people with this zealot-boner for UCF aren't playing at a level to be considered authoritative on what UCF changes.
3. The UCF changes are redundant or useless. Dashback is still and always will be random and controller dependent, Axe Shielddrop is inferior to the Chimpo Shielddrop , and its exact changes are unknown. Some top level players have noticed small inconsistencies in their play, and until it's 100% fixed, UCF shouldn't even be considered.
4. If I don't have the skill to shield-drop, I don't find a mod to make it easier, I don't implement it in my play. People are mistaking the UCF debate as a "I need UCF or I can't get better", when they need to look inwards.
5. "But my broken controller" boo ****ing hoo. My controller is actually busted and I still play. The fixes to controllers, if needed (my gate was .2 clockwise at one point) a Triwing is $5 and a file is $2. Forcing a software implementation that isn't perfect, has non-game issues alongside, that a large number of people disagree with, IS NOT THE SOLUTION.

Slippery slope fallacy, but I'd love to hear arguments about why we should use auto-Lcancel. Some controllers triggers are weird so it's definitely a controller issue.

As a peach main, I am acutely aware that 1.0 contains the frozen turnip glitch, which would definitely influence peach's position of the tier list if it was legal. You probably mean 1.1. Which still slightly buffs low tiers.

...Worse? SDI changes ruins Samus UpB, Zelda smash attacks, Pichu fsmash, Pikachu fair, as well as removing Yoink's Tetherrang recovery and boomerang jump, plus some odd nerfs like Ganondorf. Best version for low tiers (depending on which one) is 1.0, usually.


UCF and Smashboxx should never be legalized.

 

[Bones0]

Goddamn Hax or Armada or whoever got a bad controller once and now people think all but 1% of controllers are ****.
1. The vast majority of controllers are not only acceptable, but
2. The vast majority of people with this zealot-boner for UCF aren't playing at a level to be considered authoritative on what UCF changes.
3. The UCF changes are redundant or useless. Dashback is still and always will be random and controller dependent, Axe Shielddrop is inferior to the Chimpo Shielddrop , and its exact changes are unknown. Some top level players have noticed small inconsistencies in their play, and until it's 100% fixed, UCF shouldn't even be considered.
4. If I don't have the skill to shield-drop, I don't find a mod to make it easier, I don't implement it in my play. People are mistaking the UCF debate as a "I need UCF or I can't get better", when they need to look inwards.
5. "But my broken controller" boo ****ing hoo. My controller is actually busted and I still play. The fixes to controllers, if needed (my gate was .2 clockwise at one point) a Triwing is $5 and a file is $2. Forcing a software implementation that isn't perfect, has non-game issues alongside, that a large number of people disagree with, IS NOT THE SOLUTION.

Slippery slope fallacy, but I'd love to hear arguments about why we should use auto-Lcancel. Some controllers triggers are weird so it's definitely a controller issue.


...Worse? SDI changes ruins Samus UpB, Zelda smash attacks, Pichu fsmash, Pikachu fair, as well as removing Yoink's Tetherrang recovery and boomerang jump, plus some odd nerfs like Ganondorf. Best version for low tiers (depending on which one) is 1.0, usually.


UCF and Smashboxx should never be legalized.

1. Acceptable is subjective. What is not subjective is that people consider it to be worth spending hundreds of dollars for a better controller because of the advantages good dash back and shield drop notches gives them. Then on top of that, you have the fact that even the best controller will still not hit back dashes properly. For a community trying to play the game competitively, this means every controller is unacceptable.

2. You don't need to be a Melee scientist to realize that having notches is a significant advantage. Dash back is a little more subtle, but anyone at the level where they start reaction tech chasing will immediately start being affected by it whether they understand it or not.

3. There's only two UCF changes. One is dash back and one is shield drop. If these changes were useless, no one would care about having them. I'm not sure how they can be redundant since they're completely unrelated.

4. I have the skill to shield drop, but I don't have the skill to carve up my controller's gate like a jack-o-lantern. If we lived in a world where all controllers had the same notches, we could just ban custom notches, but that's not the case. Some controllers have notches that are good for shield dropping, so whether you like it or not, people are going to rely on them. We might as well let everyone have shield drop notches without having to waste time, money, effort, and controller shells trying to achieve proper notches.

5. It's cool if you want to play with a busted controller, but the rest of the community wants working controllers that are accessible to everyone.

L-cancelling is not a controller issue... Not sure how you can claim it is. Even if there are some controllers that are "worse" at L-cancelling, no one has trouble finding controllers that do it properly. The same cannot be said for dash back and shield drop notches.

 

[CAUP]

...Worse? SDI changes ruins Samus UpB, Zelda smash attacks, Pichu fsmash, Pikachu fair, as well as removing Yoink's Tetherrang recovery and boomerang jump, plus some odd nerfs like Ganondorf. Best version for low tiers (depending on which one) is 1.0, usually.


UCF and Smashboxx should never be legalized.

Yeah dude, I know the changes between versions. 1.1 still has all the changes you are talking about without having the frozen turnip glitch. It might not have young link boomerang cancel, I don't know.

 

[Kino]

The inconvenient truth is that 1) a MAJORITY of people are not in favor, it's just more likely to hear favor than criticism due to reporting bias

This is untrue. If we had a majority of people not in favour - we would have had at least SOME threads complaining about ucf over the months and months that it has been used at tournaments now. I dont recall anything here or on reddit. Where is your evidence that the majority of the community are against UCF?

 

[KEYLIME SSB]

This is ********.

Oh same

 

[DaiChimpo]

1. Acceptable is subjective. What is not subjective is that people consider it to be worth spending hundreds of dollars for a better controller because of the advantages good dash back and shield drop notches gives them. Then on top of that, you have the fact that even the best controller will still not hit back dashes properly. For a community trying to play the game competitively, this means every controller is unacceptable.

2. You don't need to be a Melee scientist to realize that having notches is a significant advantage. Dash back is a little more subtle, but anyone at the level where they start reaction tech chasing will immediately start being affected by it whether they understand it or not.

3. There's only two UCF changes. One is dash back and one is shield drop. If these changes were useless, no one would care about having them. I'm not sure how they can be redundant since they're completely unrelated.

4. I have the skill to shield drop, but I don't have the skill to carve up my controller's gate like a jack-o-lantern. If we lived in a world where all controllers had the same notches, we could just ban custom notches, but that's not the case. Some controllers have notches that are good for shield dropping, so whether you like it or not, people are going to rely on them. We might as well let everyone have shield drop notches without having to waste time, money, effort, and controller shells trying to achieve proper notches.

5. It's cool if you want to play with a busted controller, but the rest of the community wants working controllers that are accessible to everyone.

L-cancelling is not a controller issue... Not sure how you can claim it is. Even if there are some controllers that are "worse" at L-cancelling, no one has trouble finding controllers that do it properly. The same cannot be said for dash back and shield drop notches.

1. Shield drop notches are not only not needed for even the most advanced of Melee, but they are EASILY doable at home, AND are sub-optimal to other methods of shield drop. Being better at shield dropping won't suddenly make you good at the game.
2. It's not at all when literally every controller can shield drop.
3. Shield drop through notch/Axe/Sung method is suboptimal and inconsistent, software modding it won't help your gameplay. Dashback is also a software issue not a hardware issue (kinda). There's other tech that is largely random due to controller polling, but people can still do it somewhat consistently. The trick is the same as anything else in a fighting game: If you're unsure of your consistency at what you're trying to do, limit your usage in bracket, and spam it in friendlies.
4. I don't believe you. Actually I kinda believe you sit at home practicing shieldrop shine back airs on netplay against bronze 5s, but the same point comes up: Shield Drop Notches are purely preference and a non-issue. This is like if I were to ***** I can't perfect moon-walk because of polling rate. Do it the other ****ing way.
5. It was anecdotal, chill. No one should play on this controller, but I was kinda using it as a point that "if you're bad it's not your controller".
L-cancelling definitely is an issue with some control. Some have different analog and digital pressures to require activation, and thus is inconsistent. We need to implement auto-Lcancel since it's just a technical barrier of entry that only exists due to oversight from the developers.

 

[Bones0]

1. Shield drop notches are not only not needed for even the most advanced of Melee, but they are EASILY doable at home, AND are sub-optimal to other methods of shield drop. Being better at shield dropping won't suddenly make you good at the game.
2. It's not at all when literally every controller can shield drop.
3. Shield drop through notch/Axe/Sung method is suboptimal and inconsistent, software modding it won't help your gameplay. Dashback is also a software issue not a hardware issue (kinda). There's other tech that is largely random due to controller polling, but people can still do it somewhat consistently. The trick is the same as anything else in a fighting game: If you're unsure of your consistency at what you're trying to do, limit your usage in bracket, and spam it in friendlies.
4. I don't believe you. Actually I kinda believe you sit at home practicing shieldrop shine back airs on netplay against bronze 5s, but the same point comes up: Shield Drop Notches are purely preference and a non-issue. This is like if I were to ***** I can't perfect moon-walk because of polling rate. Do it the other ****ing way.
5. It was anecdotal, chill. No one should play on this controller, but I was kinda using it as a point that "if you're bad it's not your controller".
L-cancelling definitely is an issue with some control. Some have different analog and digital pressures to require activation, and thus is inconsistent. We need to implement auto-Lcancel since it's just a technical barrier of entry that only exists due to oversight from the developers.

1. Again, whether they're needed or not is subjective. Do you need to pick a top tier to win a national? You could theoretically win a national without notches the same way you could win it playing all Kirby. That doesn't mean it's fair, which is the entire purpose of UCF.

I don't know why you or Nintendude think the notch method is suboptimal when it's both the fastest and most consistent way to shield drop. That's why almost every top player uses it and why players spend money on notches (which have to be redone every few months because of gate degradation). Read up on how shield drops actually work before you spout anymore misinformation.

2. Not every controller can shield drop at the notch, which is the fastest and easiest method.

3. Besides your first statement being totally wrong, if you don't think notches or UCF make you better, then why are you opposed to UCF as the standard? You've yet to give any concrete reason for why it's bad, only why it's not totally necessary.

Dashback is a software issue that is directly impacted by the hardware issue of GCC potentiometers. Some controllers circumvent the software due to how their hardware works, and since there is no way to fix the controller's hardware, the next best thing is to fix the game's software to treat all controllers similarly. The consistency you're describing is commonly done with things that have hard execution. Most people that hit perfect dashbacks aren't more skilled than other people, they simply have controllers that do it better. This is well documented.

4. I've been shield dropping since at least 2011, and I used the straight down method for most of those years. Even on UCF, I still use straight down shield drops whenever I don't have a notch shield drop set up. Here's a clip if you still don't believe I've been shield dropping for several years.

5. It's entirely possible to lose a game because of a missed dashback. I know because it's literally happened to me on a last stock scenario. Having a good controller won't make you good, but it will make you better than an equally skilled opponent who has a bad controller because they will be missing dashbacks and missing shield drops or simply doing them more slowly.

L-cancelling isn't a developer oversight, so good job confirming how ignorant you are with virtually anything related to Melee mechanics.

 

[Johnknight1]

I find it creepy there even needs to be "up to TO discretion" on whether an Event Organizers can run this per this explanation.

That possibly implies there are situations where this "5" or "25" or another in power group has the power to shut down an event, change the status of event, or remove prestige of an event.

The comments should all just read "as always, all rule changes are up to the TO's discretion, but I do [or conversely don't] support this initiative" to prevent it from looking like a power creep.

Jugglyguy mentions a "slippery slope" being his fear of getting away from Vanilla Melee. Yet the words expressed in his statements and Nintendude's statements imply that such a "slippery slope" is possible with the 5 and the 25.

We have already seen it in the Smash Bros competitive community before, via the Unity Ruleset Committee in the Brawl competitive community from 2010 to 2012, which severely hampered that games' competitive scene and the reputation of that competitive community's legitimacy).

I thus believe it would be wise to use language to openly express that this is not possible, and to express the limits of power of the 5 and 25, namely as an advisory or non-mandatory guide for rules, management, and competition at events, rather than implying what they say could be the letter of the law in Melee esports.

 

[DarkDragoon]

I find it creepy there even needs to be "up to TO discretion" on whether an Event Organizers can run this per this explanation.

That possibly implies there are situations where this "5" or "25" or another in power group has the power to shut down an event, change the status of event, or remove prestige of an event.

The comments should all just read "as always, all rule changes are up to the TO's discretion, but I do [or conversely don't] support this initiative" to prevent it from looking like a power creep.

Jugglyguy mentions a "slippery slope" being his fear of getting away from Vanilla Melee. Yet the words expressed in his statements and Nintendude's statements imply that such a "slippery slope" is possible with the 5 and the 25.

We have already seen it in the Smash Bros competitive community before, via the Unity Ruleset Committee in the Brawl competitive community from 2010 to 2012, which severely hampered that games' competitive scene and the reputation of that competitive community's legitimacy).

I thus believe it would be wise to use language to openly express that this is not possible, and to express the limits of power of the 5 and 25, namely as an advisory or non-mandatory guide for rules, management, and competition at events, rather than implying what they say could be the letter of the law in Melee esports.

For the record (and has been stated several times since the group's inception), this ruleset is only in effect for those who choose to use it and is not mandatory / required by any event aside from those who sign on to it. The idea here was to create a ruleset that these TOs would all agree to run as part of an experiment to create a ruleset more akin to a living document that can be updated as necessary and have a more structured approach to it all than the whole scene just picking up whatever ruleset the next super major decided to run. So at the moment those TOs are bound by the rules that say they must run vanilla Melee. For the TOs of the group that are actually able to run non-vanilla Melee at their events for whatever reason, giving them the option to do so even if the other TOs won't at least steps in a direction that allows for more events to use a non-vanilla Melee.
-DD

 

[DRGN]

Regarding barrier to entry for new players:​

The second reason is it increases the perceived barrier to entry for new players who are crucial to the sustainability of the scene.

I don't see how this hurts or inhibits new players, as there's nothing necessary for them to do or know. They go to a tournament, and that event either runs UCF (already enabled on the system) or it doesn't. The only difference I see is that people [i.e. those that pay close attention to their controller] don't have to worry about finding a good one if they don't have a perfect one, or worry about using their good one too much before the event (wearing it out), etc. If an individual doesn't pay that much attention to their controller or is fine with most (and/or don't use the Axe/Sung method of shield drops, or shield drops at all), that's totally fine; UCF should be transparent to those players and make no difference to them. In other words, in terms of controllers and controller "hunting", UCF seems like it should be a positive change to most people, while inconsequential to the rest.

Regarding changing the state of things:​

I hold vanilla Melee in a sort of reverence; we have played this game since its release without ever modding it for tournament gameplay, and who are we to do so now...

I see this mentality spring up pretty often whenever anybody mentions changing something; it seems to be a popular argument that something shouldn't be changed simply because, 'that's how it's always been done'. But in most cases I don't think that's a good argument. Whether or not changes are favored (or how such change affects the environment or competition, in this case) should be more important than how long a particular method/thing/ruleset has been around. I'm certainly not saying that community favor would be the only factor; just that it should be more important than the latter. Similarly, a phrase I hear that's thrown around (too often) is, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." But if that were true, we'd still be in the stone age. Evolution isn't exclusive to biology, and I think it's more often than not a good thing.

Regarding legal matters:​

I feel like I'm missing something regarding the legal constraints and concerns, because I don't really see a problem there. If it's sponsor related, could someone explain what the difficulty is there? Or is the fear mainly that Nintendo might try to hurt the Melee community in order to potentially help newer smash games? I find it pretty hard to imagine them trying to do that, considering that that itself would cost money. Technically speaking, although the game as a whole probably doesn't have a patent (except maybe the source code as a literary work?), certain aspects of it do (like characters, music, environments, etc.); but any patents regarding this specific game would be expiring soon anyway, right? In any case, it's already easy to walk through a tournament and find things they probably wouldn't "technically" like, even though any specific Nintendo-affiliated-individual probably wouldn't care at all for this game, such as custom costumes, alternate music, and the very medium it's being played on for some setups (emulator or other unlicensed software running an ISO). Why would UCF, something they probably wouldn't care to understand in the first place, suddenly make them care more than these other things that are already done? In spite of all of this, if UCF was officially recommended, and Nintendo didn't like it and told us to stop, then it could simply be removed from the recommended ruleset. Is it really even necessary to preempt their [likely non-existent] reaction to it?
@HyugaRicdeau (I know you don't visit here real often, but just in case....)


I think it'll be interesting to see how this discussion changes as UCF updates or moves out of beta. It's a relatively simple bit of code, so it likely won't be changing by much. And it's obviously already super stable. It 'being in beta' will probably be a matter of appearance for public acceptance more than anything. I mean, if it never caused any problems, but was still called beta, should the name matter? Surely not. (Anyone want to volunteer to stress-test Melee for some raw numbers? ) It's good that the writers of the code are conservative on that though. However, this also raises the question: what failure rate is good enough? Even though I wouldn't be surprised if the fail rate is or was reduced to zero, it's still an interesting question. I mean, I've seen even vanilla Melee crash or do weird things (obviously it's rare, but still possible to happen once in a while). And if UCF were eliminating unwanted happenings in the mean time.... (...I sense a trolley approaching.)

I think it makes sense to let more testing happen before making changes, but I also think if it works it would be a good change for any tournament running it. That might not make it a necessary/required change for standardization. But for a "Recommended Ruleset", I think it would be a pretty good addition.

 

[Someone7]

A 16-year old game played on CRT TVs doesn't need to introduce another hurdle to its own potential growth.

This.

As someone who recently moved to another country where people never played the game, I can tell you even buying a Gamecube controller that isn't a piece of crap is ridiculously difficult. The fact that Melee has some sort of weird lag to it when you're not playing on a CRT television just makes it weirder.

I myself support the UCF, but only because I recognize that Melee needs to be set free. We need an open-source Melee clone game, one as close as possible to the original game, but also de-Nintendoized (completely change the story and appearance of all the characters, but make the mechanics of the game almost identical, except for stupid stuff that should be removed like infinite ledge-stalling).

Nintendo doesn't own platform games. You could create a new Melee simply as another kind of platform game, and then build the tournament fighting aspect around it. You could turn it into a 2 dimensional game (no need for the pseudo-3d graphics) so it could run on nearly any device (imagine people playing Melee on their phones!). Keep the top tier characters almost exactly the same, but buff some of the crappy characters (fix Game & Watch so all his aerials have proper L-cancels, potentially alter some completely useless clone characters like Roy).

I'm not really the conspiracy-theory type, but to me, when I watch videos of a Melee tournament being held in someone's house with a grand prize of $30,000 and no real audience to speak of, I'm thinking the eSports industry is supporting you guys. Melee is on life support. It should be on life support, because it is probably the most highly competitive fighting game ever created so far (at least it feels like that to me). One day they're gonna pull the plug on Melee, and bye-bye $30,000 grand prize tournaments, bye-bye sponsors, and since everything is so old, also bye-bye any sort of tournament scene at all, because no one wants to use old CRT televisions and ancient controllers to play this game anymore.

Melee needs to be free. Free as in $0. Free as in open-source. Free as is Nintendo doesn't own it and can't control it or tell us what to do.

We need AI that can train noobs to tournament-level ability. We need online play that is consistent and smooth. We need global ranking systems, and we need a product that can appeal to a global audience. Melee isn't gonna take over the world, but a properly done Melee clone, in this day and age, could take the entire planet by storm.

 

[crisol]

This.

As someone who recently moved to another country where people never played the game, I can tell you even buying a Gamecube controller that isn't a piece of crap is ridiculously difficult. The fact that Melee has some sort of weird lag to it when you're not playing on a CRT television just makes it weirder.

I myself support the UCF, but only because I recognize that Melee needs to be set free. We need an open-source Melee clone game, one as close as possible to the original game, but also de-Nintendoized (completely change the story and appearance of all the characters, but make the mechanics of the game almost identical, except for stupid stuff that should be removed like infinite ledge-stalling).

Nintendo doesn't own platform games. You could create a new Melee simply as another kind of platform game, and then build the tournament fighting aspect around it. You could turn it into a 2 dimensional game (no need for the pseudo-3d graphics) so it could run on nearly any device (imagine people playing Melee on their phones!). Keep the top tier characters almost exactly the same, but buff some of the crappy characters (fix Game & Watch so all his aerials have proper L-cancels, potentially alter some completely useless clone characters like Roy).

I'm not really the conspiracy-theory type, but to me, when I watch videos of a Melee tournament being held in someone's house with a grand prize of $30,000 and no real audience to speak of, I'm thinking the eSports industry is supporting you guys. Melee is on life support. It should be on life support, because it is probably the most highly competitive fighting game ever created so far (at least it feels like that to me). One day they're gonna pull the plug on Melee, and bye-bye $30,000 grand prize tournaments, bye-bye sponsors, and since everything is so old, also bye-bye any sort of tournament scene at all, because no one wants to use old CRT televisions and ancient controllers to play this game anymore.

Melee needs to be free. Free as in $0. Free as in open-source. Free as is Nintendo doesn't own it and can't control it or tell us what to do.

We need AI that can train noobs to tournament-level ability. We need online play that is consistent and smooth. We need global ranking systems, and we need a product that can appeal to a global audience. Melee isn't gonna take over the world, but a properly done Melee clone, in this day and age, could take the entire planet by storm.

I agree with a lot of this, especially with someone making an open source port of melee for PC. However, part of what makes smash so great is the nintendo characters. A de-nintendonized melee clone would lose a lot of the charm that the game has. I think that a source port of melee for PC similar to that of games like openrct2 that adds several training features that 20XX has would be perfect, so instead of using Dolphin, you could just use a direct executable file that lets you run Melee natively from your PC, rather than through an emulator. However, unless someone somehow finds the Melee source code, or reverse-engineers the games code, or somehow manages to reprogram the entire game from the ground up to the tee, it most likely won't happen. Personally, I wouldnt mind people switching off to HDMI converters and standardizing UCF. It is actually possible to get LESS input lag than with a CRT