The Unity Ruleset: Discussion

[Ussi]

Only Seibrik used DDD and was for 2 MUs so the results seem to infer

 

[Nidtendofreak]

Ike too good with no MK.

 

[Ghostbone]

Ike and Ganon are top tier with MK gone obviously.

 

[Tesh]

Lol, people will need to learn more about the matchup than "how to nado them safely".

 

[Metakill]

no love for mexico </3
anyway... here i'm TO and I use unity ruleset... like all the people i'll try a variation of unity... but only in stagelist and i'll ask about stocks and timer.

btw. neutrals should be 3 at Unity 1.5

 

[CT Chia]

I personally do not like those stages but I agree. I mean the WORST that happens is that we show the stages are not that great and ppl want them banned...I mean more data is better.


I think also we should try some stages in doubles/singles only

like norfair and other bigger stages in doubles only

Norfair isn't really a big stage lol, in fact it has one of the smallest ceilings in the game.

I personally don't enjoy using stages in doubles but not singles, but it doesn't hurt to test. Singles and doubles are still the same game, and what can be abused in singles can still mostly be abused in doubles. Not to mention a lot of doubles matches can come down to 1v1s, which are singles matches.

 

[Kuro~]

Norfair isn't really a big stage lol, in fact it has one of the smallest ceilings in the game.

I personally don't enjoy using stages in doubles but not singles, but it doesn't hurt to test. Singles and doubles are still the same game, and what can be abused in singles can still mostly be abused in doubles. Not to mention a lot of doubles matches can come down to 1v1s, which are singles matches.

I'm pretty sure he was referring to space. Not killzones

 

[Deleted member]

I'm pretty sure he was referring to space. Not killzones

The killzones are still going to affect the space you have to move safely in.

 

[Jimmyfosho]

sorta wondering, why would one need an approval from you guys to actually do the experiment?

 

[-Ran]

Any tournaments that do not follow this ruleset will not be eligible for stickies on SWF or featured coverage on AllisBrawl.

That's why. Also, it means that the Unity Rule Set cannot hand out punishments/cards due to actions at your event. The approval system ensures that the amount of the experimental events won't undermine the concept of the Unity Rule Set, which is for players to have a consistent tournament experience.

 

[M@v]

sorta wondering, why would one need an approval from you guys to actually do the experiment?

You need to do so in order to get the BBR-RC perks for your tournament(Sticky, etc.)

Also, its to help us keep track of all tournaments running the experimental rule sets. We want to know so we can get all the data from these tournaments.

 

[ぱみゅ]

no love for mexico </3
anyway... here i'm TO and I use unity ruleset... like all the people i'll try a variation of unity... but only in stagelist and i'll ask about stocks and timer.

btw. neutrals should be 3 at Unity 1.5

There are no Mexican TOs running full-Unity tournaments, iirc.
I might do some by next one or two months... We'll just have to see.

And no, I'm completly against less Starters.

 

[Tin Man]

Mexican TO's: Metakill & kyokoro_pamuyo
Puerto Rico TO's: Twinkie

And then that's everywhere in North America

Interesting

 

[Jimmyfosho]

You need to do so in order to get the BBR-RC perks for your tournament(Sticky, etc.)

Also, its to help us keep track of all tournaments running the experimental rule sets. We want to know so we can get all the data from these tournaments.

so like if they do practically the experimental rule-set but without "approval" you guys wont record it for data?

edit: example like apex, im pretty sure alex strife took off RC and brinstar before this experimental thing occured

 

[WindMajor]

Technically I'm not a TO yet, but I'm already arranging to be one for the near future.

 

[Supreme Dirt]

Tin don't forget, I'm looking to start TOing in the near future.

Just have to get my life sorted out.

 

[Zzuxon]

I think Pitochat and/or Distant planet should be included. Their hazards are easy to avoid unless an opponent knocks you into them. Distant planet is balanced geometrically, and the vast majority of picto chat transformations are balanced.

I forgot to mention pirate ship. The same points apply to it. All 3 should be legalized.

 

[Life]

I would TO but I have neither the charisma nor the age to do it

 

[ElDominio]

Technically I'm not a TO yet, but I'm already arranging to be one for the near future.

Then get to it. I'm still waiting for you to tell me anything related to this.

Mauricio is going to run one in my university, so yeah, I'll be focusing on that one since you never charge your phone.

 

[WindMajor]

Why is it that whenever I do something, you're always right behind me, ready to push me on the spotlight and call me out? v___v

 

[infiniteV115]

I guess that means he's got your back
LOLOL GET IT? Cause you know, like, he's behind you, and, like...ready to push you... and..

Sorry

 

[Tin Man]

Twinkie, get some tourneys up and hosted when you can. Make sure SWF is the main place you post the tourney and results threads.

 

[ElDominio]

Why is it that whenever I do something, you're always right behind me, ready to push me on the spotlight and call me out? v___v

Is it not obvious that the only reason I have an account is to troll you to death?

 

[Supreme Dirt]

And to get MK banned, don't forget that El.

 

[ElDominio]

And to get MK banned, don't forget that El.

I also have a stalker 0_0

And to tell people dat sawnik da bess

 

[Kishin]

What is the purpose of having a time limit?

Why are there so many stages to choose from? Wouldn't it be better to just have the neutrals as the only stages?

 

[Overswarm]

What is the purpose of having a time limit?

Why are there so many stages to choose from? Wouldn't it be better to just have the neutrals as the only stages?

There's no such thing as a "neutral". Each stage gives advantages and disadvantages to different characters; limiting stages arbitrarily hurts certain characters and playstyles.

 

[infiniteV115]

Time limits are needed for managing tournaments. Don't know what else they're needed for.

Why are there so many stages to choose from? Wouldn't it be better to just have the neutrals as the only stages?

No.
More stages --> more variables to take into account --> players need to adapt to more --> higher skill cap --> game becomes more competitive.

They're "starters", not "neutrals". And there could be debate over whether certain stages should be starters/CPs. Generally, if there is no reason found to ban a certain stage, it will be legal. Whether it becomes a starter/CP depends on how it affects matchups, what kind of gameplay it provokes, etc. Although there ARE people who prefer having a smaller stagelist, I don't know what their reasoning is.

I would personally prefer that the stage list be split into legal/banned rather than starter/cp/banned. If someone ends up on a stage they don't like after striking, they did it wrong. And if the first match is going to be MK vs G&W and they'd both like to go to Brinstar, why shouldn't they be allowed to? But it's not a big deal, I'm quite happy with this ruleset.

Edit: Ninja'd

 

[~ Gheb ~]

I think the distinction between "starter" stages and "counterpick" stages is 100% superfluous and I would love to see it disappear from all rulesets in the future.

 

[Kishin]

Fair enough, but the non "neutrals" tend to give drastic advantages and disadvantages to certain characters. Some characters are bad, some are good. That's a fact. I don't see the need to give any character an advantage or disadvantage. What's the point?

If planking is still an issue, the only way I see to "balance" it is to make it unreasonably difficult to do. An 8 minute timer is nothing. Close matches generally last around 7 minutes so 8 minutes is way too quick. Why not set the time limit to 15 or 20 minutes? Running out the timer is really just a poor way to win and shouldn't be a viable strategy at all, in my opinion.

Also, why are rules 2 and 11 of the conduct rules so lenient? Why not just an automatic loss who pauses mid-match and disqualification for intentional disruption?

If you pause, you lose, accident or not. The button doesn't push itself and it's the individual's fault either way. I don't see a reason to be so nice about something like this, especially since the rule can be abused in a scenario where one person is on 3 stocks while the other is on 1 and the first player pauses and screws the other guy over. Based on the rule, he would still win the match.

I don't see why someone should get a warning first for intentionally getting the other guy to lose. Seriously, it's horrible sportsmanship as well as a health concern. Based on the rule, if someone really needed a win, they could just scream in the other guy's ear in an important moment, win, and only get a warning?

EDIT: Having a time limit just for managing tournaments... doesn't seem right. It's up to TOs to do that. And having such a short time limit encourages longer games imo.

I also don't agree that more stages = higher skill. There's a high enough skill ceiling as it is without so many stages; having them over complicates the game. I'd personally see a couple stages like SV, FD, BF, PS:M be the only stages with each person getting a single ban or something.

I think that less stages = higher skill because then you focus on a small set of stages to improve your play.

 

[Overswarm]

Fair enough, but the non "neutrals" tend to give drastic advantages and disadvantages to certain characters. Some characters are bad, some are good. That's a fact. I don't see the need to give any character an advantage or disadvantage. What's the point?

The point is you can't NOT do that. If you go to FD, then you find characters like ICs do much better overall. Sometimes it is matchup specific; many characters with poor recoveries love Smashville because their recovery is aided so much by the platform. The solution is to have MANY stages, not just one, or one type.

If planking is still an issue, the only way I see to "balance" it is to make it unreasonably difficult to do. An 8 minute timer is nothing. Close matches generally last around 7 minutes so 8 minutes is way too quick. Why not set the time limit to 15 or 20 minutes? Running out the timer is really just a poor way to win and shouldn't be a viable strategy at all, in my opinion.

Running out the timer is a viable strategy; that is where your issue lies. It's been used in every sport before us, no reason to stop now.

If you pause, you lose, accident or not. The button doesn't push itself and it's the individual's fault either way. I don't see a reason to be so nice about something like this, especially since the rule can be abused in a scenario where one person is on 3 stocks while the other is on 1 and the first player pauses and screws the other guy over. Based on the rule, he would still win the match.

Draconian rules can be useful and I'm all for them in many circumstances, but actively punishing people to the extreme for accidents doesn't make them less likely to happen in the future, which is the intent of these rules.

EDIT: Having a time limit just for managing tournaments... doesn't seem right. It's up to TOs to do that. And having such a short time limit encourages longer games imo.

We work with the reality we're given. People have schedules, and venues have time limits.

I also don't agree that more stages = higher skill. There's a high enough skill ceiling as it is without so many stages; having them over complicates the game. I'd personally see a couple stages like SV, FD, BF, PS:M be the only stages with each person getting a single ban or something.

You'd have an incredibly dull, biased, and self-serving game then.

I think that less stages = higher skill because then you focus on a small set of stages to improve your play.

This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. How is learning LESS more skillful than learning MORE?

"I can play every character in the game perfectly on any stage" is not lesser than "I can play ICs on FD perfectly"

 

[WindMajor]

I also don't agree that more stages = higher skill. There's a high enough skill ceiling as it is without so many stages; having them over complicates the game. I'd personally see a couple stages like SV, FD, BF, PS:M be the only stages with each person getting a single ban or something.

I think that less stages = higher skill because then you focus on a small set of stages to improve your play.

According to you, less stages = higher skill because more stages would just over complicate things.

...

If you're over complicating things, wouldn't that make things more difficult, hence, more demanding of different skills?

When working with a small subset of stages, you're only working with a fraction of a whole, and it takes a certain amount of skill to be able to work with that subset of stages (those skills being more focused on learning your character, interacting with your opponent, and interacting with static/slightly dynamic stages).

When you add more stages to that small subset of stages, you're working with an even bigger fraction of a single whole. Since you're working with more stages, that means that you also have to learn the mechanics on those extra stages, and how to interact with your opponent on them, which adds to the skill cap.

With a smaller subset of stages, you're simply focusing on certain skills more than others (learn how to fight your opponent with no interference), not expanding the amount of overall skill involved. With more stages, you're expanding on the overall amount of skill involved.

 

[infiniteV115]

I think that less stages = higher skill because then you focus on a small set of stages to improve your play.

I think that less stages = lower skill because then you focus on a small set of stages to improve your play.

 

[DeLux]

In terms of the stage striking procedure/counterpick system, what are the underlying values that the current system is trying to maintain?

Right now the core value is probably Stage Diversity. But if there's something else that's important let me know.

I'm working on an augmented stage striking/counter pick procedure that will favor:
- stage diversity
- competitive depth in terms of options
- neutrality
- the decentralization of the importance of winning game one and refocusing importance on game 3/5

 

[Supreme Dirt]

The idea behind a set that most people seem to miss is that because of the nature of stages affecting matchups, we try to play 3 games to balance that out.

Game 1 the stage should give no distinct advantage to either character, and no distinct disadvantage. If it gives advantages to both characters that's pretty much fine, but if the advantage a stage gives is too much that becomes problematic.

Game 2 should be on a stage that gives one player's character the advantage, whether through disadvantaging the opponent - such as counterpicking Brinstar against a fairly decent amount of the cast - or helping oneself with a stage, such as Norfair for numerous campy characters and particularly lower-tiered characters who love platforms and large stages, such as Mario and Ganondorf.

Game 3 is the same, to balance out Game 2.

In bo5, Games 4 and 5 also follow this principle.

This is because in Smash, there is no default stage. Argue all you want about banning all these stages, but even in the most conservative of conservative stagelists, you still have multiple stages. If what constituted a default stage was so obvious, we would only have one stage. Character are allowed to have an advantage on their CP. Oh no Falco is good on Japes when he CPs it. That's the point.

If you can't beat them on an unbiased stage and a stage that you are advantaged on, maybe you don't deserve to win.

 

[Kishin]

"The point is you can't NOT do that. If you go to FD, then you find characters like ICs do much better overall. Sometimes it is matchup specific; many characters with poor recoveries love Smashville because their recovery is aided so much by the platform. The solution is to have MANY stages, not just one, or one type."

Is there anything wrong with ICs doing better overall?

"Running out the timer is a viable strategy; that is where your issue lies. It's been used in every sport before us, no reason to stop now."

The point is, I think, that it's a viable strategy if the match gets long enough. You have matches where neither player attempts to stall and are both last stock 100%+. The clock is running out and players get added pressure. Isn't it stupid to have a scenario like that and have it end with a person running away for the last 10 seconds instead of waiting for that killing blow? Balance wise, planking makes some characters essentially useless. The ledge grab limit rule is an attempt to solve that but doesn't seem necessary.

"Draconian rules can be useful and I'm all for them in many circumstances, but actively punishing people to the extreme for accidents doesn't make them less likely to happen in the future, which is the intent of these rules."

How exactly does giving a simple warning for intentional disruptive behavior make them less likely to happen? Why wouldn't having harsher rules discourage the behavior? What about the possible abuse of the rules?

"We work with the reality we're given. People have schedules, and venues have time limits."

I understand that, but I don't see why implementing a rule that directly affects the game is the best way to go about it.

"You'd have an incredibly dull, biased, and self-serving game then."

Elaborate? Street fighter has multiple stages but they're all essentially the same. It's fairly opposite of what you've described.

"This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. How is learning LESS more skillful than learning MORE?"

The purpose of having so many stages seems in my eyes to be an attempt at balance. If you lose then you can pick a stage that swings the match-up in your favor right? Some characters are better than others so why try and change that with stages?


"With a smaller subset of stages, you're simply focusing on certain skills more than others (learn how to fight your opponent with no interference), not expanding the amount of overall skill involved. With more stages, you're expanding on the overall amount of skill involved."

Why not focus on certain skills more than others I ask? By limiting the skills you need to succeed, you can improve upon those areas for success. Right now it's not even "who's a better player" who wins a set but "who's a better at these 2 stages but crap on this one." If you played on 3 similar stages then you can actually get a better idea of who's the better player. You can argue that learning how to deal with certain stages improves skill, sure, but that takes away some of the core skills of the game like spacing, reading, and such because you're playing more the stage, and less the other player. For those who say you need to increase the overall skill because brawl doesn't have a high enough skill ceiling to be competitive, I want to know why you think that because I disagree.

A little bit of a background: I used to play brawl a bit, be competitive, try and get good, etc., but after the whole Plank ordeal I lost faith in the community and quit. So in place, I explored other competitive communities and broadened my knowledge. Now, with the recent success of others games like SSFIV, SC2, and Dota2 with prize pools of over $1 million USD and hundreds of players, I've come back to find out and see exactly why brawl hasn't garnered the success of its neighbors in the competitive scene. Is it the rules? The community? The lack of Nintendo support? So far I think it's a combination.

I like brawl. I'd be happy to see it succeed like the others. I think it'd be great if players could pay rent strictly through streaming matches. I want to know why it isn't and why you can't though.

EDIT: I'm not to keen on how to quote portions of a post, so sorry for the terrible structure.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Fair enough, but the non "neutrals" tend to give drastic advantages and disadvantages to certain characters. Some characters are bad, some are good. That's a fact. I don't see the need to give any character an advantage or disadvantage. What's the point?

Okay, name me one stage which is neutral. Just one.

I also don't agree that more stages = higher skill. There's a high enough skill ceiling as it is without so many stages; having them over complicates the game.

Okay, but what's bad about overcomplication in such cases?

I think that less stages = higher skill because then you focus on a small set of stages to improve your play.

Nonsense, this doesn't follow.

 

[Ussi]

Battlefield is neutral i would say. No character is bad on it. Lots of characters and players love the stage.

 

[Juushichi]

What about the people/character combinations that don't like it?

I love BF, but I wouldn't take certain characters/players to it. When I played Mario, BF is one of my early strikes against GnW and like MK. A lot of my characters have weak spots below them and especially with ledge slip mechanics, why do I want to be put in a situation like that from the likes of Falco's, DK's, DDD's and whatnot?

There is even a DDD in my area that hates BF more than anything and strikes it against me 100% of the time. It's not a "neutral" stage in our matchup (regardless of if I'm playing Sheik, Pit or even Mario against him). Places like PS1, Lylat and sometimes SV are stages that we strike to.

 

[Kishin]

Picking which character to play is solely your decision. If you don't like your character on a certain stage then you either get better on that stage or switch characters.

As stated in my post before, I haven't been up to date on the current smash terminology and such so perhaps neutrals isn't the best word. X character might do better than Y character on say, SV, but X character won't do that much better against Y character on BF. However, X character might do terrible against Y character on Rainbow Cruise. I would consider "neutrals" to be stages that aren't extremely match-up changing.