The Unity Ruleset: Discussion

[Steam]

I completely agree. I tend to stop arguing with "brawl gen" people because simply because they just dont have the EXPERIENCE.In general, All they know is BRAWL or 08 melee(aka everyone moved on to brawl and doesnt care about melee). They sit there and form these HUGE essay with fancy words and "logical this" and "logical that" and it looks REALLY REALLY good(and thats how they get their supporters because people naturally follow "smart" people) but at the end of the day what they say works just ON PAPER and almost NEVER in game. They also sit there and try to tell you whats "fair/unfair" "logical/illogical" "neutral/counterpick" "broken/not broken" and to be honest, the definitions of those terms were set back in melee but since they dont like that or dont wanna admit they suck/are wrong/******** they just decide to rewrite these terms into what THEY want. You cant win with these people. ROFL.

I know this is an old post... but wow what an elitist post.

 

[[FBC] ESAM]

So what's up with Rule #5? Can we define "intentional forfeiting"?

Let's say that Ally beats M2K and Anti, while Anti beats M2K.

Mew2king and Ally are in Winners Finals while Anti is in Losers Finals, waiting. Intentionally forfeiting would be that Ally literally forfeits (Like, "I don't wanna play M2K, put me in Losers Finals) so that Ally would play Anti, beat him, and reach Grand Finals with Mew2king.

Another good example is between Fatal and Koolaid. They took turns forfeiting to each other in tournament, and that would be punishable by the TO.

We cannot tell if somebody is sandbagging with their character (To cause the desired outcome) but we want to stop manipulation of the bracket as much as possible.

 

[ぱみゅ]

inb4 do you remember when MLG banned M2K and ADHD?

 

[[FBC] ESAM]

Well thats basically the point. The TO has the right to kick anybody out of their venue if they break the rules so...that would be perfectly fine to do based on rule 5.

 

[fUddO]

It's a pretty sweet rule. MLG made the SSB community look terrible in the eSports world.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Uh okay. Banning a move that does 17%, can be done on accident, and pretty much makes the character unviable without that move

can definitely be put on equal footing with

banning a technique that does 300% AND kills the opponent, cannot be done on accident, and does not invalidate the character when removed.

EFFECTIVENESS IF ****ING IRRELEVANT CONSIDERING THAT THE ONLY THING I WAS TRYING TO PROVE IS THAT THEY ARE BOTH EQUAL IN THE SENSE THAT REMOVING THEM MAKES A CHARACTER MORE VIABLE!

How is this not clear?, which of the posts I've made since starting this discussion has led people to believe that the effectiveness of the move is actually important for the point I was trying to make? I already explained that all I was trying to show with that example was that the only difference between them IS the effectiveness, and because that is subjective, I am not objectively wrong for keeping infinites legal.

I also said that the move would only be banned in the Jigglypuff match-up (lol at Snake being unviable without Up Tilt, by the way) and that it would only result in a DQ if you hit with it.

I dont care if you ignore me or not since you didnt respond to my post but you really dont understand the difference between banning a move and a tactic lmao

For the argument I am making, there is no distinction.

 

[Reizilla]

Well then your argument is just a poor one.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

My argument was that the only way you can make a distinction between Utilt ban and infinite ban is their effectiveness.

The exact effectiveness the rule has to have to be considered "worth it" is subjective.

So not supporting an infinite ban and a LGL is not objectively wrong. Which is exactly what I was trying to say.

Why is my argument poor if it perfectly proved my point? Somepony wants an explanation

 

[John12346]

Banning both does make the target character more viable. That is true.

I'm trying to take the point a bit further by trying to make a distinction between the amount of viability gained by each character, as well as difficulty barriers, risk/reward, overall fairness, and yes, as Orion said, the fact that one is a move and the other is a tactic, of which one is impossible to do by accident.

And Snake only being DQ'd if he hits with Utilt doesn't make sense. He still won't use it at all at risk of hitting Jiggly.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

It makes sense, as it stops him from being DQ'd by accidentally doing an Up Tilt in the majority of situations (where it will whiff).

And I definitely agree with your distinction, I was just saying that whether they should be banned or not is subjective, as there is not a clear-cut answer to "how much depth is worth adding a rule for?"

 

[John12346]

Well, we apparently use a pretty high cutoff. The Pika-Fox CG gives ~100% and sometimes death, and we even allow that(which I'm fine with, btw, even though it is complete booty).

I think the main cutoff is when you have a move that's easy to land, kills the opponent every time, and they can't do **** about it when it happens.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I don't see the point in the infinite rule anyway, Dedede can just take a single step forward with each grab and it is still a horrid match-up.

 

[John12346]

Well, some people would debate the small step to be a subset of the infinite, and henceforth should be banned along with it.

But I'll leave the arguing of that to those such people.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

But... taking a step forwards means that it isn't an infinite, lol.

The only way to make the match-up viable for DK is banning the chain-grab altogether I'm pretty sure.

 

[Maharba the Mystic]

almost every tourney that has DDD's infinite banned also had small step chaingrabbing banned (WG4, WHOBO3, TAG...). only the normal way was allowed.

 

[Sinister Slush]

Infinites Allowed is both Good for some characters, and Bad for Others.
But come on, How many times do you think you'll ever see a D3 VS Ness/Lucas anyways?
The most you'll ever see in tournament is maybe DK/Wolf VS D3 since they can actually get out of the first 5 rounds of A tournament.
While something like... Yoshi VS Wario isn't all that bad as long as the player tries not to do stupid **** and get grabbed by doing a laggy move or thinking they can approach when they believe it's safe.

PoundV had all infinites legal and nobody said a word


get off the bandwagon people

Maybe cause everyone was busy with the fact Noone recieved their winnings.
It was basically just a Huge international Smashfest.

 

[Maharba the Mystic]

wow really?! NO ONE got their winnings? huh who hosted that tournament? when that kind of crap goes down sure make's whoever it was look like a scamming *****. ill be sure not to go to their tournies anymore

 

[AuraStUrm]

wow really?! NO ONE got their winnings? huh who hosted that tournament? when that kind of crap goes down sure make's whoever it was look like a scamming *****. ill be sure not to go to their tournies anymore

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=299180

Plank wasn't trying to steal, he was trying to run a decent event; I guess that not enough people showed up for him to be able to pay for both the event and the prizes.

 

[Supreme Dirt]

Let's not get into the whole Plank thing again...

 

[Maharba the Mystic]

oh didn't know the situation at all. that's too bad that there wasn't enough entrants to cover all the fees AND prize money. oh well, i guess that just means more people need to go next time.

anyways, could some1 explain to me something about lgl. when both players have exceeded their lgl and the match times out, is the winner the one with the lower lgl or is it based on percent? because i would think since they both exceeded their limit it would go to percent right?

one more question,
for port priority determination, if you use a wii-mote or classic pro or watever, for port priority, since the goal is just to get the lower port, if you win rock paper scissors or watever will that force the other player to plug into port 1 so that the wireless user get player 2 and thus gets the lower port he won even tho he has no cord?

 

[Overswarm]

It's a pretty sweet rule. MLG made the SSB community look terrible in the eSports world.

No, the SSB community made ITSELF look terrible in the eSports world. This "unity ruleset" isn't helping either.

 

[Orion*]

So what's up with Rule #5? Can we define "intentional forfeiting"?

Not unless you can read minds

I know this is an old post... but wow what an elitist post.

Even though I agree with you I understand where Xyro is coming from

Let's say that Ally beats M2K and Anti, while Anti beats M2K.

Mew2king and Ally are in Winners Finals while Anti is in Losers Finals, waiting. Intentionally forfeiting would be that Ally literally forfeits (Like, "I don't wanna play M2K, put me in Losers Finals) so that Ally would play Anti, beat him, and reach Grand Finals with Mew2king.

Another good example is between Fatal and Koolaid. They took turns forfeiting to each other in tournament, and that would be punishable by the TO.

We cannot tell if somebody is sandbagging with their character (To cause the desired outcome) but we want to stop manipulation of the bracket as much as possible.

Im against splitting for the most part, but the rule seems pretty hard to enforce lol.

Like I have no problem with you guys putting there its more just like, lol @ it ever being used

EFFECTIVENESS IF ****ING IRRELEVANT CONSIDERING THAT THE ONLY THING I WAS TRYING TO PROVE IS THAT THEY ARE BOTH EQUAL IN THE SENSE THAT REMOVING THEM MAKES A CHARACTER MORE VIABLE!

Well then I could argue that removing rainbow cruise in matches where the player wants to use DK is the same thing as banning the infinite because it makes DK more viable.

Except I wouldnt because that sounds ****ing ********

Well then your argument is just a poor one.

I thought this but was just going to not post roflmao

The only way to make the match-up viable for DK is banning the chain-grab altogether I'm pretty sure.

If d3 can has to dash inbetween dthrows the matchup is quite viable lmfao.

No, the SSB community made ITSELF look terrible in the eSports world.

This

 

[T-block]

EFFECTIVENESS IF ****ING IRRELEVANT CONSIDERING THAT THE ONLY THING I WAS TRYING TO PROVE IS THAT THEY ARE BOTH EQUAL IN THE SENSE THAT REMOVING THEM MAKES A CHARACTER MORE VIABLE!

People don't understand this logic, Grim... they zero in on specifics instead of looking at the bigger picture =x

 

[Alphicans]

Well then I could argue that removing rainbow cruise in matches where the player wants to use DK is the same thing as banning the infinite because it makes DK more viable.

Except I wouldnt because that sounds ****ing ********

Not 100% on Grim's argument, but I think this is exactly his point lol.

 

[Orion*]

Not 100% on Grim's argument, but I think this is exactly his point lol.

I could also argue that we allow the DK user to get to sit closer to the screen and if he's playing an mk user he has to sit 3 feet away and kneel facing a 45 degree angle away from the screen and has to turn his head to look because it subjectively makes DK more viable.

 

[T-block]

Yes...but we don't do that.

So why are we making DK subjectively more viable by removing the Dedede infinite?...

 

[Orion*]

My problem has nothing to do with the infinite at this point but more of the fact that the way the argument being used is awful

There are ways to argue subjectivity without relating it to garbage roflmao

 

[Alphicans]

I could also argue that we allow the DK user to get to sit closer to the screen and if he's playing an mk user he has to sit 3 feet away and kneel facing a 45 degree angle away from the screen and has to turn his head to look because it subjectively makes DK more viable.

You're just making his argument stronger at this point.

If this idea of making the MK sit further away and what not sounds ridiculous.... It's because it is. It is an arbitrary fix to make another character more viable, and he's simply equating it with banning an infinite.

 

[Maharba the Mystic]

oh didn't know the situation at all. that's too bad that there wasn't enough entrants to cover all the fees AND prize money. oh well, i guess that just means more people need to go next time.

anyways, could some1 explain to me something about lgl. when both players have exceeded their lgl and the match times out, is the winner the one with the lower lgl or is it based on percent? because i would think since they both exceeded their limit it would go to percent right?

one more question,
for port priority determination, if you use a wii-mote or classic pro or watever, for port priority, since the goal is just to get the lower port, if you win rock paper scissors or watever will that force the other player to plug into port 1 so that the wireless user get player 2 and thus gets the lower port he won even tho he has no cord?

could some1 actually address my questions instead of arguing wat is a pointless arguement because this viability thing is only subjective and the arguement supporting it is just outright terrible and because of that it makes discussing it further pointless because it is just going to a constant circle of "i argue this point on viability by making a ******** comparison" vs "i argue that this is a ******** comparison but agree that viability is a subjective arguement".

so could i get info from some1 who, u know, has knowledge of this game and can interpret the ruleset?

 

[T-block]

oh didn't know the situation at all. that's too bad that there wasn't enough entrants to cover all the fees AND prize money. oh well, i guess that just means more people need to go next time.

anyways, could some1 explain to me something about lgl. when both players have exceeded their lgl and the match times out, is the winner the one with the lower lgl or is it based on percent? because i would think since they both exceeded their limit it would go to percent right?

one more question,
for port priority determination, if you use a wii-mote or classic pro or watever, for port priority, since the goal is just to get the lower port, if you win rock paper scissors or watever will that force the other player to plug into port 1 so that the wireless user get player 2 and thus gets the lower port he won even tho he has no cord?

LGL only matters if the match goes to time.
If the match does go to time, the ledge grabs for both players are checked. If neither player exceeds the limit, the match is determined by percent. If both players exceed the limit, the match is determined by percent. If one and only one player exceeds the limit, he is given the loss.

The port priority should be obvious -_- The winner of RPS gets to determine which player slot he gets.

 

[Maharba the Mystic]

but i mean since he has a wireless control he can't pick a slot whereas the other guy still has all four slots available. since the guy with the wireless can't plug into a lower port what im saying is will that FORCE the other guy to plug in his corded control to port 1 as opposed to just plugging into any of the other four slots since the guy with the wireless can't take the lower port on his own.

and thx for the lgl clarification

 

[Orion*]

Its relative in that they are both actually arbitrary, however whats actually happening is so far fetched that its just an awful comparison if you want to ACTUALLY do something about it.

 

[Reizilla]

People don't understand this logic, Grim... they zero in on specifics instead of looking at the bigger picture =x

Since you love this argument so much, on the bigger picture, all planking does is make some matchups near impossible to win. All DDDs infinite does is make some matchups near impossible to win.

 

[T-block]

This is true... so?

 

[Maharba the Mystic]

both infinites and planking legal, except for mk's lgl because that should stay, or planking against those with infinites on your character allowed MK EXCLUDED KEEPING HIS LGL.

edit

in b4 grim says jiggs has no lgl against snake cause of utilt

 

[Reizilla]

So then you agree we should ban infinites along with LGL, or ban neither, correct?

 

[T-block]

Yes =P

I generally do not support the LGL.

 

[[FBC] ESAM]

You guys have to remember having an LGL helps the potential of us being sponsored. If a potential sponsor watched RB vs Will, there would be no way they would endorse the game.

 

[Reizilla]

Ah, very well then, at least you agree to that, but you just supported someone who didn't. Unless I read that wrong x)

Sponsored... by who? I would be just as turned off if I saw Atomsk sitting on Will for 5 minutes.

 

[Supreme Dirt]

I'm sorry, there was plenty that Rich Brown could have done. I don't buy this "he couldn't do anything" BS. DK planking is plenty beatable on YI:B. He can get better or pick up a secondary.