The Unity Ruleset: Discussion

[Grim Tuesday]

But... you can't be the one to say what's blatantly obvious and what isn't.

Especially considering that there are several reasons I could bring up that an infinite ban would hardly affect game depth.

I definitely agree with Sunshade, what happened to you?

 

[ShadowLink84]

Sirlin's principals by the way are simply, "play to win" and "if its not broken, don't ban it". calling support for such basic and simple concepts "meatriding" is like saying that using half of the words in the dictonary is meatriding Shakespeare.

You do realize that Browny won't acknowledge this fact yes?

y obvious here) is, to a certain extent, thoroughly positive for brawl's depth as a game, and therefore its overall competitive merit. "more lieniant"? You've got to be kidding me. I advocate banning DDD's infinites because there is virtually no other element in Brawl that has such a deep impact on a noteworthy matchup. That is, it's one element that makes a matchup go from the 60-40 range to the 90-10 range. It almost single-handedly decides DK's viability as a character.

Now, when you get into the range where you can honestly question "is this really noteworthy for game depth", the strategy falls apart. This is why it should only be used where it is BLATANTLY obvious. **** like DDD's infinite on DK, Pokemon Stadium 2 being legal, and the like.p

Stages=affects all matchups
DDD's infinite=affects 6 matchups

DDD"s infinite is the result of a flaw in DK as a character.
Banning the infinite buffs DK.
This is wrong, very very wrong.
Do you not realize that IC's derp Ganondorf even worse? Why not ban the infinite IC's have on DK?

I am sorry, but your argument is essentially "It's so cheap ban it."

 

[Life]

Thirding Sunshade/GT. (Perhaps a password change is in order?)

BPC, answer my post about MK.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Okay, let me make my stance very clear. I am a pragmatist. I know certain things (larger stage roster being the big one) will make Brawl a better game, and I'm willing to be flexible on the rest, be it on shaky grounds or not. Things like banning DDD's infinite on DK may or may not make the game better. But I'll tell you this: it sure as hell won't hurt Dedede much, but it will make DK so much more viable... I consider that a fair tradeoff on the pragmatic level. On the theoretical level, it's of course ridiculous. I recognize completely that on a theoretical level, a rule like this is stupid. But we don't play on the theoretical level. I'm trying to stay as pragmatic as possible with everything I argue for.

But... you can't be the one to say what's blatantly obvious and what isn't.

Especially considering that there are several reasons I could bring up that an infinite ban would hardly affect game depth.

I definitely agree with Sunshade, what happened to you?

...This is a technique that pretty much destroys DK's competitive viability? Beyond DDD, DK's only "awful" top tier matchup is MK, and despite that, we still have DKs like Will who are Top-8ing tournaments like VC9 (that had 6 MKs in top 8).

It's incredibly hard to find something to compare this to, as this rule just works in a way that most others wouldn't. Comparisons include:
-ICs/Sheik vs. Ganon and/or Snake vs. Jiggs: can't ban effectively, doesn't raise game depth much at all because ganon is still completely inviable, therefore faulty
-Fox vs. Pika/Sheik: could ban effectively, but doesn't seem warranted-it's a bad matchup, not an unwinnable one, and the techniques are avoidable due to their %-based nature, plus fox can outcamp both Sheik and Pikachu, or at least not sit there eating projectiles until he gets too high up to get locked/cg'd. It is very little like the DDD-DK example, and as Fox is only borderline viable in the first place, but top foxes still do very well despite no such rule being in place, I'd honestly doubt that this would severely raise game depth. Faulty comparison.


...Any notables I'm missing?

And while I'm not one to claim "that's obvious", the community as a whole... Meh, it's still bad, but it could be worse. Can you honestly say that depolarizing a matchup using an easily enforced rule, and in doing so virtually making another character viable, is a bad thing?

Stages=affects all matchups
DDD's infinite=affects 6 matchups

DDD"s infinite is the result of a flaw in DK as a character.
Banning the infinite buffs DK.
This is wrong, very very wrong.
Do you not realize that IC's derp Ganondorf even worse? Why not ban the infinite IC's have on DK?

I am sorry, but your argument is essentially "It's so cheap ban it."

See above; also ****ty comparisons. DK actually doesn't do bad against ICs, as far as I have heard. I could be wrong.

Thirding Sunshade/GT. (Perhaps a password change is in order?)

BPC, answer my post about MK.

Which one?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

But I'll tell you this: it sure as hell won't hurt Dedede much, but it will make DK so much more viable...

DK's viability is actually unaffected unless you ban chain-grabs against him altogether. As the Dedede can still take a small step forward with each re-grab and it might as well be an infinite.

It's incredibly hard to find something to compare this to, as this rule just works in a way that most others wouldn't. Comparisons include:
-ICs/Sheik vs. Ganon and/or Snake vs. Jiggs: can't ban effectively, doesn't raise game depth much at all because ganon is still completely inviable, therefore faulty
-Fox vs. Pika/Sheik: could ban effectively, but doesn't seem warranted-it's a bad matchup, not an unwinnable one, and the techniques are avoidable due to their %-based nature, plus fox can outcamp both Sheik and Pikachu, or at least not sit there eating projectiles until he gets too high up to get locked/cg'd. It is very little like the DDD-DK example, and as Fox is only borderline viable in the first place, but top foxes still do very well despite no such rule being in place, I'd honestly doubt that this would severely raise game depth. Faulty comparison.

Would you accept a group example? Let's say we disqualify a Meta Knight player whenever he hits with his Shuttle Loop. This would increase the viability of every character below him and could potentially to the same extent as the DK rule. Why would you distinguish between these rules?

Before you bring up the "what if the MK player accidentally hits with it" argument, I'd like to point out that the chance of that happening in top level play is quite slim, that the chance of this happening isn't high enough that MK suddenly becomes unviable and that we already have an example of small mistakes being very heavily punished legal in the game: The Ice Climbers.

And while I'm not one to claim "that's obvious", the community as a whole... Meh, it's still bad, but it could be worse. Can you honestly say that depolarizing a matchup using an easily enforced rule, and in doing so virtually making another character viable, is a bad thing?

No, I think it's a great thing. My problem is that it is equally as great as LOTS of other things and I don't want to discriminate.

 

[Maharba the Mystic]

DK's viability is actually unaffected unless you ban chain-grabs against him altogether. As the Dedede can still take a small step forward with each re-grab and it might as well be an infinite.



Would you accept a group example? Let's say we disqualify a Meta Knight player whenever he hits with his Shuttle Loop. This would increase the viability of every character below him and could potentially to the same extent as the DK rule. Why would you distinguish between these rules?

Before you bring up the "what if the MK player accidentally hits with it" argument, I'd like to point out that the chance of that happening in top level play is quite slim, that the chance of this happening isn't high enough that MK suddenly becomes unviable and that we already have an example of small mistakes being very heavily punished legal in the game: The Ice Climbers.

No, I think it's a great thing. My problem is that it is equally as great as LOTS of other things and I don't want to discriminate.

stop making such ****ty arguements. comparing banning a move that can't lead into itself forever/ridiculously high percentages and does not make any 1 character unviable due to being able to PRACTICALLY AVOID IT WITH SKILL is in NO WAY AT ALL EVER comparable to 1 move that is in a PRACTICAL SENSE UNAVOIDABLE AND 100% DESTROYS MULTIPLE CHARACTERS' VIABILITY IN A COMPETITIVE SCENE (always exclude ganon in these arguements as he is just too poorly designed to even count as a character).

On the case of DDD infiniting DK, it is near impossible not to get grabbed due DDD's amazing grab range and DK's lack of disjoints. that is not even close to comparable at all to shuttle loop being a good move that is punishable and avoidable.

 

[Orion*]

I could make a working competitive ruleset for smash that does not ban anything.

Competitive =/= Good

you can compete in anything, but theres always the question of depth

**** you.

LOOOOL

But... you can't be the one to say what's blatantly obvious and what isn't.

Then who is?

btw LOL at lack of response to temple, I'll take that as you agree

Especially considering that there are several reasons I could bring up that an infinite ban would hardly affect game depth.

You can argue anything, that doesnt mean you will be right

I definitely agree with Sunshade, what happened to you?

He started actually playing the game some instead of just talking about it

 

[MK26]

Sirlin's principals by the way are simply, "play to win" and "if its not broken, don't ban it". calling support for such basic and simple concepts "meatriding" is like saying that using half of the words in the dictonary is meatriding Shakespeare.

BAHAHAHAHA

too good lol

 

[Alphicans]

I;ve never read Sirlin's work, but from what I gather, every supporter of his ideology all share the same opinion that making surgical changes to the game is a scrub thing to do, which is pretty weak logic, at least imo. Sometimes it's just necessary for a game to be both competitive and fun.

 

[Flayl]

Surgical changes often lead to double standards

 

[Alphicans]

Yeah a lot of the time they do, but double standards are inevitable in all aspects of life. However it is possible to make a ruleset without them.

 

[Overswarm]

Yeah a lot of the time they do, but double standards are inevitable in all aspects of life. However it is possible to make a ruleset without them.

Double standards aren't inevitable.

 

[Maharba the Mystic]

hey guys, i don't mean to steer away from the topic at hand, but i just noticed something.

could some1 pleeease explain to me the logic behind having an LGL in doubles? that doesn't make sense except when the team is double MK. but if you LGL that team, why would any other team have a ledge grab limit. 2 characters vs 1 planking is absolutely beatable i don't care who is planking. even mk can't plank 2 characters. sure he may get one of them, mayb even gimp them, but in that time said player's partner should be more than capable of timing a punish of some sort to get MK off the ledge and if he is really skilled he can probably save his partner in the process. or at least that's what i expect of top level players. also that would force the other partner to step in and then they could just double up on him until the *insert plank character here* gets off the ledge to help him out

does any1 else think there should be no LGL in doubles except on team double MK?

 

[Alphicans]

Double standards aren't inevitable.

Yes they are. You probably don't go a die in your life without encountering some sort of double standard.

This is slightly off topic though.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Okay, let me make my stance very clear. I am a pragmatist. I know certain things (larger stage roster being the big one) will make Brawl a better game,[/qote]

MvC2

and I'm willing to be flexible on the rest, be it on shaky grounds or not. Things like banning DDD's infinite on DK may or may not make the game better. But I'll tell you this: it sure as hell won't hurt Dedede much, but it will make DK so much more viable... I consider that a fair tradeoff on the pragmatic level. On the theoretical level, it's of course ridiculous. I recognize completely that on a theoretical level, a rule like this is stupid. But we don't play on the theoretical level. I'm trying to stay as pragmatic as possible with everything I argue for.

DOES
NOT
MATTER.
You are buffing a SINGLE FRIGGIN MATCH UP.
Why not buff other horrific matchups?

See above; also ****ty comparisons. DK actually doesn't do bad against ICs, as far as I have heard. I could be wrong.

See above when I typed that, I meant to say Ganondorf vs IC's.
Not DK.
A derp on my part.

 

[Overswarm]

Yes they are. You probably don't go a die in your life without encountering some sort of double standard.

This is slightly off topic though.

No, they aren't. This isn't an old idea, it's been disproven as an inevitability since the Greek philosophers started.

 

[Maharba the Mystic]

hey guys, i don't mean to steer away from the topic at hand, but i just noticed something.

could some1 pleeease explain to me the logic behind having an LGL in doubles? that doesn't make sense except when the team is double MK. but if you LGL that team, why would any other team have a ledge grab limit. 2 characters vs 1 planking is absolutely beatable i don't care who is planking. even mk can't plank 2 characters. sure he may get one of them, mayb even gimp them, but in that time said player's partner should be more than capable of timing a punish of some sort to get MK off the ledge and if he is really skilled he can probably save his partner in the process. or at least that's what i expect of top level players. also that would force the other partner to step in and then they could just double up on him until the *insert plank character here* gets off the ledge to help him out

does any1 else think there should be no LGL in doubles except on team double MK?

i forgot too say if possible orion i would like your thoughts on this as you actually play this game

 

[Deleted member]

I really don't like it that only tournaments with the Unity Ruleset can be featured. That's pretty unfair to TO's.

 

[MK26]

most of the tournaments that would get featured (ie the large tournaments whose TOs are already endorsing Unity) would get featured either way

 

[-Googs]

shieks ftilt should be banned cause its a bad mu for ganon

wait

no one cares.

stop womping.

 

[Supreme Dirt]

If we ban infinites of any kind, we must ban all of them. This includes the ICs infinites.

Also, Ganon ICs is only one example. Ganon has 4 virtually unwinnable (90:10 or worse) MUs.

Metaknight, Falco, Ice Climbers, Sheik.

So let's ban MK's A moves, Falco's lasers, Ice Climbers from using Blizzard or Squall, and Sheik from using Chain or FTilt. After all, we've just improved a character's viability, haven't we?

 

[Luigi player]

hey guys, i don't mean to steer away from the topic at hand, but i just noticed something.

could some1 pleeease explain to me the logic behind having an LGL in doubles? that doesn't make sense except when the team is double MK. but if you LGL that team, why would any other team have a ledge grab limit. 2 characters vs 1 planking is absolutely beatable i don't care who is planking. even mk can't plank 2 characters. sure he may get one of them, mayb even gimp them, but in that time said player's partner should be more than capable of timing a punish of some sort to get MK off the ledge and if he is really skilled he can probably save his partner in the process. or at least that's what i expect of top level players. also that would force the other partner to step in and then they could just double up on him until the *insert plank character here* gets off the ledge to help him out

does any1 else think there should be no LGL in doubles except on team double MK?

lol you're crazy. "thats what I expect from top players"

If one of them get's put offstage and the other tries to save him then they could both get gimped you know. Esp if the planker is an MK (other characters planking probably wouldn't be a problem).
And not everyone is an MK with such a great recovery that can go offstage through an attacking opponent and then help his partner recover and recover himself too.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

stop making such ****ty arguements. comparing banning a move that can't lead into itself forever/ridiculously high percentages and does not make any 1 character unviable due to being able to PRACTICALLY AVOID IT WITH SKILL is in NO WAY AT ALL EVER comparable to 1 move that is in a PRACTICAL SENSE UNAVOIDABLE AND 100% DESTROYS MULTIPLE CHARACTERS' VIABILITY IN A COMPETITIVE SCENE (always exclude ganon in these arguements as he is just too poorly designed to even count as a character).

com·pa·ra·ble   
–adjective
1.
capable of being compared; having features in common with something else to permit or suggest comparison: He considered the Roman and British empires to be comparable.

Would you say that the Roman and British empires are identical? Me neither.

All of the characters who get affected by the infinite are **** anyway, excluding Donkey Kong.

Don't just look at it as "Lol, this move does 10% and this one does 100%", do you have ANY idea how good Shuttle Loop is? Getting rid of it would increase the viability of every character below MK slightly, leading to a LARGE increase in viability overall comparable with an infinite ban.

EDIT: Thanks Supreme Dirt.

Then who is?

No one, that's what I don't make rule-sets based on subjectivity if I can avoid it.

btw LOL at lack of response to temple, I'll take that as you agree

I thought someone else responded to it.

apparently everything is LOL

It depends on why Temple was banned. There was never any concrete data or testing done we just assume from melee it would be used for circle camping =/= cave of life. So first I would like to see that if you want to do this seriously.

Basically, my evidence is this thing called common sense. Common sense shows that there are 3 separate circles on the stage which allow the faster character to become untouchable after landing a hit.

However there still has to be interaction for circle camping to even happen. Why would we subjectively nerf characters such as sonic who after landing the initial hit could potentially run the timer?

Because doing so makes the game more competitive. If the stage was legal, every player would basically be equally good. Seeing as the point of competition is to determine the better player, this becomes impossible with Temple legal.

The same way why would we subjectively nerf characters like dedede who could potentially get a stock off of a grab.

This rule is UNNECESSARY, as excluding it won't harm how competitive the game is, even if including it helps it.

You can argue anything, that doesnt mean you will be right

Well how about the argument that an "unwinnable" match-up promotes the use of a secondary, increasing character diversity and depth overall.

Or the fact that no match-up is actually unwinnable, and it takes an extreme amount of skill for the DK player to overcome his flaws and beat the D3 player, which makes up for the low amount of skill necessary for the D3 to win.

I'm not going to claim either of these are necessarily true, but it should show that such a ban isn't "obviously" good, at the very least.

 

[John12346]

Well how about the argument that an "unwinnable" match-up promotes the use of a secondary, increasing character diversity and depth overall.

You do know that most of these "secondaries" are gonna be Metaknight, right? I wouldn't exactly call that diverse...

Or the fact that no match-up is actually unwinnable, and it takes an extreme amount of skill for the DK player to overcome his flaws and beat the D3 player, which makes up for the low amount of skill necessary for the D3 to win.

Others(who aren't me) are going to argue that such a matchup where one player can mindlessly use a character like that and win, despite a potentially enormous skill gap, is not a good thing for the game.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Exactly my point, John. Even if I'm not right, the decision is still arguable. Not so obvious, eh, BPC?

And the secondaries being Meta Knight isn't a problem with the infinite... >_>

 

[John12346]

Well of course. Everyone has their own opinions on what the ruleset should be. The BRC, and hopefully to some extent, us normal members, are responsible for determining what the best possible ruleset selection is, even if we all don't necessarily agree on it.

I find debate a good means of finding out the best solutions to things like these.

And the secondaries being Meta Knight isn't a problem with the infinite... >_>

What does this mean? The wording is weird...

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Oh, yeah, just realized the screwy wording.

I mean that the problem in that situation is Meta Knight, not D3's infinite being legal.

 

[sunshade]

Others(who aren't me) are going to argue that such a matchup where one player can mindlessly use a character like that and win, despite a potentially enormous skill gap, is not a good thing for the game.

Those people must hate ganondorf with a passion.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Surgical changes often lead to double standards

IT'S NOT THE END OF THE ****IN' WORLD.

Okay, let me make my stance very clear. I am a pragmatist. I know certain things (larger stage roster being the big one) will make Brawl a better game,[/qote]

MvC2

DOES
NOT
MATTER.
You are buffing a SINGLE FRIGGIN MATCH UP.
Why not buff other horrific matchups?

GOOD QUESTION. Find me a good, legitimate, easy to implement, not blatantly ridiculous method of buffing... Ganon vs. Sheik. You're a moron.

See above when I typed that, I meant to say Ganondorf vs IC's.
Not DK.
A derp on my part.

Yeah, you know how much that increases depth? NONE. Because Ganon still ****ing sucks. He's still completely inviable.

I'm getting really sick of this. Now I understand how people like Orion feel... ****ing theorybrawlers. >.< Als o before anyone asks yes I am very drunk

 

[John12346]

Oh, yeah, just realized the screwy wording.

I mean that the problem in that situation is Meta Knight, not D3's infinite being legal.

Of course. It was just against your character diversity argument.

Although that wasn't even your main argument, which was that many arguments exist from both sides, which can keep a debate on any rule going for a long time. I'm personally fine with debating, because we discover new information and ideas along the way, but there also needs to be a perceivable end to it, otherwise it just becomes monotonous after a while.

Which is, of course, the main reason why I argue that we hurry up and get the BRC's approval on creating rule-specific topics and get them to approve and accept the result of a community poll on each such controversial rule(after a set, hopefully long period of time for debate, of course!).

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Lol at drunk BPC.

I'm not even going to bother responding until he stops (presumably) vomiting on the keyboard.

 

[Yikarur]

I'm getting really sick of this. Now I understand how people like Orion feel... ****ing theorybrawlers. >.< Als o before anyone asks yes I am very drunk

wiiiiin
after such a long time, we've finally won!

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Lol at drunk BPC.

I'm not even going to bother responding until he stops (presumably) vomiting on the keyboard.

My post is still better than most of yours. Get @ me
@GT: Go to a tournament, you might understand it.


DAMN THAT FEELS GOOD

 

[sunshade]

IT'S NOT THE END OF THE ****IN' WORLD.

Neither is DK not being viable. Nor is anything else discussed in this thread. Whats your point?

GOOD QUESTION. Find me a good, legitimate, easy to implement, not blatantly ridiculous method of buffing... Ganon vs. Sheik. You're a moron.

The best way is not to decide that we don't like the way the game is and not to implement arbitrary, subjective, double standard ridden, rules.

I'm getting really sick of this. Now I understand how people like Orion feel... ****ing theorybrawlers. >.< Als o before anyone asks yes I am very drunk

Lol BPC must dream of being Orion. He plays MK as gay as he can, complains about theorybrawlers, and posts drunk.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

***** I'm not the only one. Right? Cuz winning ****loads of money at international tournaments is definitely cool.

EDIT: Staco wishes he was orion
get@me

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Also this thread is going to look like a train wreck until I slump over on my keyboard for whatever reason. A HILARIOUS train wreck.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I wonder if he was driven to this drunkeness because of this thread, that'd be hilarious.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

No, that would be being a ****ing loser who couldn't get a girl to save his life or if he was ****ing BILL KAULITZ. ALSO THE TOPIC.

Yeah uh 2 stage bans, 9 starters, legalize JJ

discuss

 

[Lord Chair]

I must say that drunken posting is fine.

I have no clue why we wouldn't do it all the time.

brb drinking my scotch

 

[Supreme Dirt]

New smashboards rule.

No posting unless you are this drunk.

It very well may increase the intelligence of some of the posts.