Raziek
Charging Limit All Day
This.... this is why we don't post drunk.
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
The Unity Ruleset: Discussion
- Thread starter Unity Ruleset Committee
- Start date
Grim Tuesday
Smash Legend
On the plus side, I have a new signature.
Browny
Smash Hater
ADHD
Smash Hero
I've gone other characters in gf's before to sandbag without splitting. They can't ban me based on pure assumptions.
All you guys are just mean and prickly, like a cactus. Or a Teshtus?
ShadowLink84
Smash Hero
Nuff said.
@ADHD: They can, it is the TO's decision and it is their tournament. This is not a court of law where one requires evidence, they can deal out a yellow and hell considering replay hacks, can review it if necessary.
This is not to say they will, but it is to say they can, and I cannot understand as to why you continue posting in the topic going "Oh I'll just split in secret."
At least learn to keep quiet about your intents rather than broadcasting them all over SWF.
John12346
Smash Master
@ Delux
I see what you mean, about how there may be reasonable correlation between ID mandation and attendance rates, and how both would go up with each other... but is it really fair to compare Smash Tournaments to a night out at the bar?
Keep in mind that, unlike alcohol, we don't really want to keep any particular age group away from our game. By making an identification rule, we're suddenly excluding, like, everyone below the age of 16(?) from our game, and that's really bad. Sure, their parents could provide their IDs for them, but what happens when they get a permit of their own, and it turns out they already have some yellow/red flags under their parent's ID?
And in addition to that, we also have to remember that Brawl, overall, has enough dumb game mechanics and ruleset problems already, and seems to have the community on edge already. You need to remember that people go drinking or attend Smash tournaments BOTH to have a good time, but no one really wants to put more effort than necessary into these things.
At a bar, you just have to show your ID and get your age checked, and you're good to go. This isn't really a problem, so people continue to go drink. But at a Smash tournament, your ID will need to be noted and cross-referenced with all existing "blacklisted" IDs, and that may serve as enough of a deterrence to players.
Idk, it just seems kinda risky in my eyes, y'know?
I see what you mean, about how there may be reasonable correlation between ID mandation and attendance rates, and how both would go up with each other... but is it really fair to compare Smash Tournaments to a night out at the bar?
Keep in mind that, unlike alcohol, we don't really want to keep any particular age group away from our game. By making an identification rule, we're suddenly excluding, like, everyone below the age of 16(?) from our game, and that's really bad. Sure, their parents could provide their IDs for them, but what happens when they get a permit of their own, and it turns out they already have some yellow/red flags under their parent's ID?
And in addition to that, we also have to remember that Brawl, overall, has enough dumb game mechanics and ruleset problems already, and seems to have the community on edge already. You need to remember that people go drinking or attend Smash tournaments BOTH to have a good time, but no one really wants to put more effort than necessary into these things.
At a bar, you just have to show your ID and get your age checked, and you're good to go. This isn't really a problem, so people continue to go drink. But at a Smash tournament, your ID will need to be noted and cross-referenced with all existing "blacklisted" IDs, and that may serve as enough of a deterrence to players.
Idk, it just seems kinda risky in my eyes, y'know?
Jack Kieser
Smash Champion
Wait, I had an ID when I was 14; as soon as I hit 9th grade, my high school issued me an ID card. Most high schools do that now, both for security and as a way to track facilities used (for instance, I had to use my ID to check out books at the library). I understand wanting to have inclusionary policies, but where do we draw the line?
We don't make rules that expressly benefit the top players of the game (or at least we shouldn't) because when we make ANY rule, it should be fair to ALL players. We don't cater our rules to a small subset of people for ANY reason. Well, have have to make this new rule, but in order to enforce it, we have to make another rule that only affects people 13 or younger (MAYBE; middle schools can also issue IDs). Are you saying that we shouldn't make the rule because it might adversely affect the 13 and younger crowd, a group that isn't anywhere NEAR a majority of the people who come to tournaments?
Should we make our rules cater to this one group of underage players instead of making a rule that benefits the community as a whole?
As DeLux said, tournament attendance rates may drop in the short term if we have to check ID at the door, but the long term benefits are much more than just attendance (which will stabilize again once people get used to the idea, I assure you). The social legitimacy DeLux mentioned will make it easier for TOs to book venues (and venue managers will feel more comfortable about a tournament that has an ID requirement since they will perceive it as safer), as well as give us a cushion for the inevitable attack by the law (that it hasn't happened yet is a godsend; by all accounts, someone should have sued / arrested someone for hosting a gambling ring years ago).
There are literally no good reasons that ID checking wouldn't work or wouldn't benefit the community, especially in the long term. Not a single good counterargument has been brought up.
@ John, I just want to say, dude, I was being sarcastic. No one thinks that Google's facial recognition tech is going to destroy internet anonymity because it's an opt-in service (meaning it can't scan your face info unless you tell Google it's ok first). The point was that people are blowing the privacy thing out of proportion. For instance, you just said:
That's literally all that would need to be done at a tournament. That's hardly "cross-referencing".
We don't make rules that expressly benefit the top players of the game (or at least we shouldn't) because when we make ANY rule, it should be fair to ALL players. We don't cater our rules to a small subset of people for ANY reason. Well, have have to make this new rule, but in order to enforce it, we have to make another rule that only affects people 13 or younger (MAYBE; middle schools can also issue IDs). Are you saying that we shouldn't make the rule because it might adversely affect the 13 and younger crowd, a group that isn't anywhere NEAR a majority of the people who come to tournaments?
Should we make our rules cater to this one group of underage players instead of making a rule that benefits the community as a whole?
As DeLux said, tournament attendance rates may drop in the short term if we have to check ID at the door, but the long term benefits are much more than just attendance (which will stabilize again once people get used to the idea, I assure you). The social legitimacy DeLux mentioned will make it easier for TOs to book venues (and venue managers will feel more comfortable about a tournament that has an ID requirement since they will perceive it as safer), as well as give us a cushion for the inevitable attack by the law (that it hasn't happened yet is a godsend; by all accounts, someone should have sued / arrested someone for hosting a gambling ring years ago).
There are literally no good reasons that ID checking wouldn't work or wouldn't benefit the community, especially in the long term. Not a single good counterargument has been brought up.
@ John, I just want to say, dude, I was being sarcastic. No one thinks that Google's facial recognition tech is going to destroy internet anonymity because it's an opt-in service (meaning it can't scan your face info unless you tell Google it's ok first). The point was that people are blowing the privacy thing out of proportion. For instance, you just said:
And that's just disingenous. You're misrepresenting (possibly though misunderstanding) how it would work. We'd have a list of registered offenders, players with already-issued Yellow or Red Cards, and when we check ID, we'd literally just look at that list and see if any names match the name on the ID in hand. The list would be so small, we probably wouldn't even need to use Ctrl+F. Nothing track, nothing "cross-referenced". As an exercise, take out a piece of paper and write 12 random names on it. 12 totally random names. Then, go get your wallet. Take out your ID and look at the name on it. Then look at the list. Do any names on the list match your name? If so, you wouldn't be able to enter (if you have a Red Card). If not, put your ID back in your wallet.John12346 said:
That's literally all that would need to be done at a tournament. That's hardly "cross-referencing".
John12346
Smash Master
@ the last paragraph
Yeah, all of that had came to my mind when I was out today... I was like, "Wait, that actually is okay, isn't it...?"
My bad...
@ the second the last paragraph
So, wait, then IS there anything wrong with just using photographs of the offenders? Because that would definitely be the cleanest solution by far and would likely hit attendance rates the least, if at all, y'know?
Yeah, all of that had came to my mind when I was out today... I was like, "Wait, that actually is okay, isn't it...?"
My bad...
@ the second the last paragraph
So, wait, then IS there anything wrong with just using photographs of the offenders? Because that would definitely be the cleanest solution by far and would likely hit attendance rates the least, if at all, y'know?
MK26
Smash Master
I actually chuckled out loud when reading this. Well played, Jack. Well played.
Supreme Dirt
King of the Railway
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 7,336
Oh my god, the last two pages of this thread.
Bookmarked forever.
Just too good. TOO GOOD.
Bookmarked forever.
Just too good. TOO GOOD.
Raziek
Charging Limit All Day
As much as he annoys me, gonna have to agree.
John12346
Smash Master
He reminds me of Demyx from KH2
DeLux
Player that used to be Lux
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2010
- Messages
- 9,303
John#s - just a note on the disenfranchising people that are too young because they need an ID. Technically, at that age they would need need legal consent from their parents to participate in a tournament with cash entry/prizes. So a signed parental waiver witnessed by the TO would prevent that from being an issue.
If they're sneaking off to a tournament without parental consent, then they are a legal risk to the TO's and should be discouraged from attending on prinicple imo. We'd essentially kill two birds with one stone
If they're sneaking off to a tournament without parental consent, then they are a legal risk to the TO's and should be discouraged from attending on prinicple imo. We'd essentially kill two birds with one stone
MK26
Smash Master
Ok, theoretical scenario:
Teams game goes to time. P1 and P2 are on team 1, p1 with 1 stock 40% and P2 2 stock 100%. P3 and P4 are on the other team, p3 at 1 stock 80% and p4 2 stock 140%. Both p2 and p3 are above their ledge grab limits, so under unity rules the lgl is ignored when deciding a winner and team 1 wins.
My question is, should the stock of all players above the ledge grab limit be forfeit if both teams have at least one player above the limit? If so, only p1 and p4's stock would be considered, making team 2 the winner.
Teams game goes to time. P1 and P2 are on team 1, p1 with 1 stock 40% and P2 2 stock 100%. P3 and P4 are on the other team, p3 at 1 stock 80% and p4 2 stock 140%. Both p2 and p3 are above their ledge grab limits, so under unity rules the lgl is ignored when deciding a winner and team 1 wins.
My question is, should the stock of all players above the ledge grab limit be forfeit if both teams have at least one player above the limit? If so, only p1 and p4's stock would be considered, making team 2 the winner.
John12346
Smash Master
Well, I'd like to just discuss whether there are any drawbacks to just having pictures of the offenders only. Because, like I said, that would most definitely be the best solution out of all possible plans for enforcement of the yellow/red card rules.
And Delux, about the identification plan, read the last few posts of the last page... I realized it's a not so bad idea, so there you go.
And Delux, about the identification plan, read the last few posts of the last page... I realized it's a not so bad idea, so there you go.
Jack Kieser
Smash Champion
Well, the largest drawback is people claiming that the pictures don't match. I know I sometimes get weird looks when I show my ID since I've changed a lot since my picture was taken, and when I actually shave down with a straight razor, I look like I'm 15... >_< Pictures are incomplete matches due to changing appearances, while a name matching is either all or nothing; as long as the spellings match, it's a match.
Of course, names have the problem of sometimes being generic; if we have to infract someone with the name "Dave Jones", we might be screwed, since there is a TON of people with that name. That's why IDs use names AND pictures, of course; we might have to do the same, we might not. It depends on the level of accuracy the BBR-RC wants when tracking infracted players. That's a decision they will have to make.
Of course, names have the problem of sometimes being generic; if we have to infract someone with the name "Dave Jones", we might be screwed, since there is a TON of people with that name. That's why IDs use names AND pictures, of course; we might have to do the same, we might not. It depends on the level of accuracy the BBR-RC wants when tracking infracted players. That's a decision they will have to make.
ADHD
Smash Hero
No they don't
John12346
Smash Master
Guys seriously
Their faces
Their faces
Sage JoWii
Smash Champion
Supreme Dirt
King of the Railway
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 7,336
Have to agree with Sage when it comes to a lot of things said.
Especially my more stupid posts.
Especially my more stupid posts.
Budget Player Cadet_
Smash Hero
Read my posts in that thread. They'll convince you otherwise. Jowii is ********, lol.
Keep discussion on track, guys.
ADHD
Smash Hero
Budget Player Cadet_
Smash Hero
Has there been any rediscussion of FD as a starter since the MLG matchslip data came out? I mean, we all know that FD is a strong counterpick... But the results from MLG were quite frankly ridiculous.
You might as well give up BPC, between the fact that most people feel static=starter and the fact that FD isn't REALLY as bad for aerial characters as Brinstar/RC for ground characters. It really is fine in a 9 stage starter list, or even *cringe* a 7 stage starter list.
You really should be pushing for a greater inclusion, rather than exclusion.
Smashville is a pretty damn good stage though. If we stay with a 5 stage starter list, they need to take out FD for Ps1. Its still pretty ground heavy, but Ps1 is a more fair neutral fighting ground than FD.
You really should be pushing for a greater inclusion, rather than exclusion.
Smashville is a pretty damn good stage though. If we stay with a 5 stage starter list, they need to take out FD for Ps1. Its still pretty ground heavy, but Ps1 is a more fair neutral fighting ground than FD.
Tarmogoyf
Smash Master
SO MUCH THIS
most people don't see starters as "Median of Bias", they see it as "Least dynamic". Makes no sense, but there you have it
Castle Siege would work too.
Tarmogoyf
Smash Master
I totally understand where they are coming from. Based on preference, I'd only play on like 7 stages.
But personal preference shouldn't affect an entrie rulesset lol
CS is really balanced IMO. There really isn't any problems with it, since each transformation favors specific characters a bit, but not too much, and it constantly changes.
A lot like PS2 IMO
Jack Kieser
Smash Champion
Um... maybe I'm missing the point, but isn't part of the purpose of the Unity ruleset to re-create the aura of MLG: "these are the largest, most influential TOs running the largest, most important tournaments; this is the ruleset, so deal with it"? MLG got away with, frankly, game-changing ruleset decisions precisely because of its size, scope, and influence; you could be a whiny ***** about one or two stages if you wanted, but then you'd be missing out on the biggest tournaments of the season, which would make you stupid if your aim is to be the best Brawler.
The UR allows the TOs to have that kind of gravitas because they are creating, essentially, the same kind of "series" that MLG had: a unified series of events with the same huge scale / scope and rules. Even if a few players complain about one or two of the stages, or heaven forbid FD not being a starter, do these TOs really think that players aren't going to come to the biggest events of the year?
They took it for MLG, they'll take it for these events, too.
The UR allows the TOs to have that kind of gravitas because they are creating, essentially, the same kind of "series" that MLG had: a unified series of events with the same huge scale / scope and rules. Even if a few players complain about one or two of the stages, or heaven forbid FD not being a starter, do these TOs really think that players aren't going to come to the biggest events of the year?
They took it for MLG, they'll take it for these events, too.
DeLux
Player that used to be Lux
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2010
- Messages
- 9,303
With all the FD talk, I did a full stagelist striking best of 1 pools in my last tournament I TO'd. FD was easily the most commonly struck-to stage from the unity rulesset.
It's a small sample size, but I think the general community consensus is that they like FD where it is. Logical or not (I think it should be a counterpick based on logical data interpretation and stage ban tendencies, but I play ICs so I'm biased), it would be fairly radical to make FD a counterpick at this point.
It's a small sample size, but I think the general community consensus is that they like FD where it is. Logical or not (I think it should be a counterpick based on logical data interpretation and stage ban tendencies, but I play ICs so I'm biased), it would be fairly radical to make FD a counterpick at this point.
![[FBC] ESAM](/data/avatars/l/92/92614.jpg?1365783210){kind=avatar}
[FBC] ESAM
Smash Legend
You guys are also dumb.
Almost every single MK banned FD almost every single time. (Remember, times played is multiple times per set)
Every single time somebody played an IC/Diddy/D3 main, they banned FD.
So yeah, shut up about that.
Almost every single MK banned FD almost every single time. (Remember, times played is multiple times per set)
Every single time somebody played an IC/Diddy/D3 main, they banned FD.
So yeah, shut up about that.
Tarmogoyf
Smash Master
Esam, you're forgetting Playing against Falco.
And if it's the best stage of half of top tier, why is neutral?
Maybe Top tiers get too much of a free pass game 1?
And if it's the best stage of half of top tier, why is neutral?
Maybe Top tiers get too much of a free pass game 1?
Player-1
Smash Legend
how do they get a free pass? You can just strike it
Tarmogoyf
Smash Master
I exaggerated a bit.
What I mean is, FD is so good for them, that their opponent is basically forced to strike it, thus effectively giving them 1 less strike than you
Added on to the fact that it's the 3 best stages for grounded characters for neutrals
What I mean is, FD is so good for them, that their opponent is basically forced to strike it, thus effectively giving them 1 less strike than you
Added on to the fact that it's the 3 best stages for grounded characters for neutrals
Player-1
Smash Legend
not really, ICs/Falco/Diddy/Snake don't get any unwinnable MUs that they didn't already have before
Tarmogoyf
Smash Master
Unwinnable? no. In their favor? yes.
Ics vs GaW is the best example. They **** him on BF/FD/SV, but it's nearly even on even stages like Halberd/delphino.
This applies to most of these characters somewhere. They get MUs that would be normally around even in their favor because of the starter list
Ics vs GaW is the best example. They **** him on BF/FD/SV, but it's nearly even on even stages like Halberd/delphino.
This applies to most of these characters somewhere. They get MUs that would be normally around even in their favor because of the starter list