The Unity Ruleset: Discussion

[ぱみゅ]

To reply to these points in order:
- I'm not implying competitive. I believe that was explicitly stated.
- The stages changes when CP'ing BF after SV or Frigate after SV are there, yet aren't nearly as drastic as switching from a standard neutral to RC/Brin/PS2.
- You missed my main point here. I'm not looking at skill. I'm focusing on the concept and design of certain stages themselves, as compared to neutrals.
- Replace 'flat-stage' with neutrals and you're on the mark.


I'm more of a Japanese stagelist supporter with Lylat, and YI legal.

I keep forgetting this ruleset have two lists, lol

Okay, so the problem lies on the order you play stages.
If you keep seeing them as "Neutrals" (which are actually called "starters") and "Counterpicks" you'll obviously think these CPs are too extreme.
I'm pretty sure that if everyone keeps playing in every stage often, nobody would have problems adapting, and then complains about how stages affect results would not be biased towards how different they are from the static play.
Remember, Static =/= Neutral

 

[Supreme Dirt]

japanese stagelist + YI and LC?

Wait what?

So you have... YI and LC... twice?

Japan has CPs.

YI, LC, DP

Also YI is no better than Pictochat.

 

[Marc]

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=321154

 

[Marc]

Reopened for now, per DeLux' request.

 

[DeLux]

Even if the URS isn't officially a SWF supported venture discussion and criticism on the ruleset is appreciated.

At the same time, I intend to continue updating the ruleset via this thread based on the 3.0 system the URC intended to use. After I get off work tonight, I'll go into more explanation how that system works, but I'll say this:

One of the charges against the URC since disbanding has been that they had some sort of coercive power on the community to force a ruleset. The irony is going to be that the system we decided upon will ultimately be able to function without even a central governing committee. That is the level of dedication each member had to the community. Some of the most prominent members of the community that consistently get flack for taking the power were willing to set their ego aside to be part of something more, and were more than happy to do so without being asked yet never got the chance to show it. Based on the work done, the future installments of the URS will be ENTIRELY community driven.

Over time, I hope that people will get past the misconceptions that forced Senate intervention. In the meantime, I'll act as steward of 3.0.

 

[popsofctown]

It was absurd that this topic was locked for any amount of time. I get irked when smash mods do borderline censorship like that.

 

[infiniteV115]

Entirely community driven? Is this going to be done via SWF-wide votes?

 

[Nidtendofreak]

Entirely community driven? Is this going to be done via SWF-flame wars?

Fix'd that for ya.

 

[Supreme Dirt]

Oh joy

Here comes the japanese stagelist.

Good night sweet Brawl.

 

[Nidtendofreak]

The Japanese stage list and MK unbanned and like a 20 LGL with two stocks five minutes.

Followed a month later by everyone wondering why those tournaments are only being played in like, three states tops.

 

[Kuro~]

Subbing

and lolno

Ruleset like that won't ever be standard.

 

[DMG]

it would be 2 stock 6/7 min actually. The point wasn't just having shorter matches, but having more time per stock while not adding to the timer.

 

[ぱみゅ]

it would be 2 stock 6/7 min actually. The point wasn't just having shorter matches, but having more time per stock while not adding to the timer.

From a logistical point of view (considering the most time avaliable), that would be pointless....
5-6 minutes b-o-3 would be fine.

 

[DeLux]

This is the architecture of Unity 3.0:

Step 1: Set a Status Quo for a Ruleset as a baseline - Prior to the Senate intervention, the URC was mostly in favor of using 2.1 as the standard.

Step 2: Keep tabs on what specific rules were being used throughout the country, specifically, at what percentage was the current entity of the URS being used in comparison with tournaments that deviated from the URS.

Step 3: Of the tournaments run, we'd pay attention to the Non-URS tournaments. If a specific rule deviation occurred in Non-URS tournaments at a statistically significant rate, it would merit being optionally added to the ruleset. If a specific deviation was noticed in a majority of Non-URS tournaments over a three month time period, it was considered statistically significant and would merit consideration by the URS.

Step 4: At which point, once the URC identified a statistically significant deviation, it would be optionally added to the ruleset. TO's were free to use either the status quo or the deviating option and still be considered a Unity tournament.

Step 5: Over the next three months, the URC would track usage of either the status quo or the option. If the URC noticed a specific trend towards a national standard (say 75% tournament usage of either status quo OR the tournament option), it would be adopted into the ruleset in full with optional clauses removed. If over three months, no standard develops and the community remained split, the optional clause in the ruleset would remain.

Step 6: In the event a rule was left optional for over 9 months, the URC would step in to make a decision on the options to help move towards a national standard. At that time, the goal was to have recruited a large group of committee members from across the country with the next flexible 3.0 system. However, the URC was split on whether to adopt this as a tie breaking method or whether to allow optional clauses to remain indefinite. As there is no more URC, the optional clauses will remain indefinite until decided by community vindication.

Step 7: URC members would be able to suggest optional clauses to the ruleset for use as part of Unity. This privilege was to increase incentive to join the URC as well as a means to modify the ruleset in case an event required swifter reaction than the three month time frame of statistical changes. Given that there is now no URC, this step will also be omitted.

Ramifications:

If followed to its logical conclusion, this would allow for a more flexible TO option based ruleset that over time worked towards a national standard within a year time frame. Given I was going to update the ruleset, the first wave of options would have been the following:

- Roughly 58% of tournaments used the URS
- Brinstar is Optionally Banned (75% of Non-URS tournaments)
- Rainbow Cruise is Optionally Banned (75% of Non-URS tournaments)
- Pokemon Stadium 2 is Optionally Banned (75% of Non-URS tournaments)
- Castle Siege is optionally a counter pick stage (75% of Non-URS tournaments)
- Pokemon Stadium is optionally a counter pick stage (75% of Non-URS tournaments)
- Metaknight is optionally legal (60% of Non-URS tournaments)

However, those totals were only through the end of February and only included SWF posted results. If anyone would like to help keep tabs on this project and monitor rules with me please PM me. I'll do an accurate count up until recent times when I get the chance before I make things official in the original post of this thread.

I would also note that people that say that the community is split 50/50 on the MK Ban are statistically incorrect based on tournament attendance. Even including Apex with its enormous attendance, more people have attended MK Banned events than have attended MK Legal Events. This is partly because there have been substantially more MK Banned Events hosted than MK Legal Events. At the same time, the number floating around of 30% Unity usage is a rather conservative estimate based on the height of anti-URC sentiment. However, this might have changed in the month's of March and April, so I'm holding off officially declaring either way until I count.

 

[Arcansi]

I would also note that people that say that the community is split 50/50 on the MK Ban are statistically incorrect based on tournament attendance. Even including Apex with its enormous attendance, more people have attended MK Banned events than have attended MK Legal Events. This is partly because there have been substantially more MK Banned Events hosted than MK Legal Events. At the same time, the number floating around of 30% Unity usage is a rather conservative estimate based on the height of anti-URC sentiment. However, this might have changed in the month's of March and April, so I'm holding off officially declaring either way until I count.

Attendance doesn't equal support.

I would still attend MK-Legal events if they were the only thing in my area, for example.

If you're going to get numbers you need something better.

Also, with your current changing formula it seems nothing controversial will ever change, and the ruleset will become less of a ruleset and more of a barrel of options over time.

Possibly.

 

[DeLux]

On the topic of "barrel of options"

Rational Decision Making Theory and Policy Implementation Case Studies from an interdisciplinary approach would say your possibility most likely won't occur by an overwhelmingly large probability.

Even if it did end up where an option existed here and there, we can address it when we get there if we even want to. Options aren't necessarily a bad thing if it's divisive enough to split the community for a year time frame.


On the topic of attendance:

But if you take it as face value of approximately 68% of tournaments hosted were MK Banned, the SWF poll showed approximately 70% in favor of ban, the survey of top 100 showed approximately 64?% in favor of ban, the number split as attendees as a whole around 63% for MK Banned compared to MK legal, a pattern starts to form. I mean, you can make the argument these numbers don't mean necessarily the MK Ban has support, but at some point the numbers point towards something.

Attendance/event totals does equal support in rules for the purposes of application and meaning. If you have an issue with the ruleset, feel free to run a different tournament with the ruleset YOU want. Going on SWF and arguing over things, which is divisive, does not matter to me as much as growing the community with greater event exposure.

 

[DRDN]

I wouldn't suggest running a tourney with the rules you want because if it doesn't conform to what a majority wants you get a thread full of hate and apperantly there's nothing a TO can do about that. That then pushes for said TOs to want to quit lowering our scene

Also people who attend MK banned don't necessarily support it, I've seen Gio (who's VERY against the ban) go to tourneys because he likes to hang out with the people

 

[DeLux]

Why would you want to run a ruleset that nobody comes to and gives you a thread full of hate? >_>

You can say whatever contingent factors that make people go to a tourney, but by going you support the tourney. For the purpose of metrics, the attendance doesn't matter to me since it's supposed to cover localities. However, number of events does.

 

[DRDN]

I'm on my phone or id link you to DRDNs Worlds thread

It got tons of hate but still had a deecent tournout from a bunch of new people who weren't on the boards frequently

 

[Strong Badam]

Attendance doesn't equal support.

I would still attend MK-Legal events if they were the only thing in my area, for example.

Guess you don't really care much about your cause, then? I myself refuse to attend any MK banned tournaments.

 

[DeLux]

I'm on my phone or id link you to DRDNs Worlds thread

It got tons of hate but still had a deecent tournout from a bunch of new people who weren't on the boards frequently

So by definition, you didn't run a tournament nobody went to >_>

 

[Bizkit047]

Nice to see you still moving forward with this Delux. Will be interesting to see how it pans out over time.

 

[MegaRobMan]

Why would you want to run a ruleset that nobody comes to and gives you a thread full of hate? >_>

You can say whatever contingent factors that make people go to a tourney, but by going you support the tourney. For the purpose of metrics, the attendance doesn't matter to me since it's supposed to cover localities. However, number of events does.

Lux did support my right to ban Sheiks F-tilt for a local. Those were the best rules ever...where'd that thread go.

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=311683

GOD I WISH I WOULDN'T HAVE CHANGED THE INITIAL RULES. They were so comical.

 

[DRDN]

I didn't say noone went just the thread was full of hate

 

[popsofctown]

Guess you don't really care much about your cause, then? I myself refuse to attend any MK banned tournaments.

The difference is Arcansi likes Brawl.

 

[Strong Badam]

not really relevant; I will never attend a Melee tournament that bans any character nor will I attend one with Corneria legal. If you want a TO to change his ruleset, stop supporting his tournaments. If the ruleset isn't hurting attendance there is no incentive for a TO to change anything.

 

[Bizkit047]

not really relevant; I will never attend a Melee tournament that bans any character nor will I attend one with Corneria legal. If you want a TO to change his ruleset, stop supporting his tournaments. If the ruleset isn't hurting attendance there is no incentive for a TO to change anything.

Not only is it rather sickening that you believe your only alternative to getting a TO to change a ruleset is to borderline boycott their tourney, but it actually does not work. A good real example is Lord Xavier from New England. He's a completely ******* idiot of a TO when it comes to rulesets and actually running tourneys, and not all of us regs go to them either. But we don't boycott his tourney because he won't cater his ruleset to what we want. Doing so only hurts the community and shows how disrespectful of a member of your community you are.

Unless, of course, you just say "I'm not going because MK is banned", as opposed to "I'M NOT GOING BECAUSE MK IS BANNED, STUPID TOURNEY AND STUPID TO NO ONE SHOULD GO". Then forget the part about being a disrespectful fool, but my point still stands about how stupid it is to believe a TO will just change his ruleset if the turnout isn't as big. It would be different if a vast majority of the turnout was gone because they didn't like a ruleset, but a few cry babies not getting their way is just too bad for them. And if their response is to try to rally people against the TO, who goes out of their way to put together an event for the community to come together for sometimes more than just a Brawl event, then **** those people.

 

[MegaRobMan]

whoops, accidental post

 

[DRDN]

I liked that post and was going to quote it with my complaints

 

[MegaRobMan]

Oh. Well, then here it is. http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=14142918&postcount=2

 

[infiniteV115]

So you made Picto legal AND added a stage ban...but you took out Brinstar, Frigate and CS?
Uh.........why?

 

[Flayl]

Because Wolf

 

[DRDN]

Keep the stage list a normal small size?

 

[infiniteV115]

Keep the stage list a normal small size?

Uh.......why?
I don't see why the size of the stage list should matter. If the stage is fit for competitive play then there's no reason to ban it, and I don't see why Frigate/CS/Brinstar aren't fit for competitive play.

I mean if MK is legal I guess you can justify getting rid of Brinstar...but there are 2 stage bans in that ruleset so Brinstar shouldn't make a difference XD

 

[MegaRobMan]

So you made Picto legal AND added a stage ban...but you took out Brinstar, Frigate and CS?
Uh.........why?

I honestly didn't mean to post that as I said, I was just copying the list for my friend but he told me to make alterations for his tournament.

I am a TO for my community. I had a poll for my last tournament and people voted to have Pirate Ship legal. But after having it in a tournament and with MK returning to Nebraska, we don't want it unless we do a seperate list for doubles.

Pictochat was asked for by a lot of people. Should probably be a neutral.

Brinstar is hated by our Samus main to the point of boycott.

Everyone and their mom hates Frigate in Nebraska.

CS is also equally bad, but kind of split.

As far as the extra stage ban, there are so many bad stages (11) in this game that are legal here, as opposed to melee (6/7), it makes sense to have an extra ban.

Because Wolf

eyelold

When I ran an event to cater to my own stages, it was 7/8 stages, but 2 bans.

If I was doing this for my own benefit, I would have banned PS1/PS2 as well because **** those stages and their ledges, but I got CP'd by our #3 PR'd player to both of those stages and I do not want to ruin any advantage I had given him.

I want my community to grow and stuff.

Keep the stage list a normal small size?

Yeah, I like small stages, will probably go back to a 9 stage list next tournament but idk what ones will go.

Uh.......why?
I don't see why the size of the stage list should matter. If the stage is fit for competitive play then there's no reason to ban it, and I don't see why Frigate/CS/Brinstar aren't fit for competitive play.

I mean if MK is legal I guess you can justify getting rid of Brinstar...but there are 2 stage bans in that ruleset so Brinstar shouldn't make a difference XD

Most of the top players in my area would prefer

SV/BF/YI
and then maybe like 3 stages for CP's.

But we play Melee in Nebraska mostly.

The stages I banned aren't competitive, no matter how you want to define your term.

People don't like them/competitive.
They give characters big advantages and people don't like them/competitive.

Note that they give characters an advantage isn't as important as people not liking them.

Also, people saying that having 2 stage bans makes having a stage legal okay is false. The same theory works for FD. Those two stages are bad, but for different reasons.

I think FD is more of a CP because of the ledge and the camping and the lack of platforms. But I have to ban that stage every time because my character gets ****ed by FD in certain (i.e. 90% of them) matchups.

If you allow multiple stages that "It's okay if we let that in, you can just ban it!", you are forcing people to potentially play on stages that are really bad and have no business being on a realistic competitive arena.

 

[infiniteV115]

Oh, so you were just doing it for your region. I guess that makes sense.
There's nothing wrong with stages giving characters advantages, that's the entire point of having multiple stages and that's the point of counterpicks. There's no point in having multiple stages legal if none of them affect the match differently from one another.

People complaining about Frigate, CS, PS1 and PS2, but they ASK for Pirate Ship and Pictochat?
Picto should be a neutral?
FD is a CP because of the ledge?
Wtf is wrong with you people lmao

Oh, and my point wasn't that it's okay you add X bad stages as long as you provide X additional stage bans, Brinstar isn't a bad stage at all (MK is the only problem with Brinstar.)

 

[Jack Kieser]

Jesus christ, I turn my back for a few months and everything goes to hell? Man, when is SSB4 coming out again? We need a serious community re-roll, stat.

 

[WindMajor]

Jack, this is why you should never leave. =P

On the bright side, at least the Unity ruleset looks like it's not dying yet, thanks to DeLux.

 

[DeLux]

I plan on doing a detailed count on Sunday btw. That way we can have accurate stats to work from.

If anyone wants to help, PM me please

 

[MegaRobMan]

People complaining about Frigate, CS, PS1 and PS2, but they ASK for Pirate Ship and Pictochat?
Picto should be a neutral?
FD is a CP because of the ledge?
Wtf is wrong with you people lmao

Oh, and my point wasn't that it's okay you add X bad stages as long as you provide X additional stage bans, Brinstar isn't a bad stage at all (MK is the only problem with Brinstar.)

I'm really the only one who hates on PS1, but doesn't everyone hate PS2 other than the crazy folk that think it should be a neutral?

FD is a CP because of the polarization of it, but most n00bs love FD so whatever, that's the point of this tourney rules set.

I plan on doing a detailed count on Sunday btw. That way we can have accurate stats to work from.

If anyone wants to help, PM me please

incandescent