The Unity Ruleset: Discussion

[Overswarm]

Kishin's new, give him time.

 

[NickRiddle]

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.

Your neutrals were FD, SV, BF, and PS1, right?

ICs vs. most of the cast isn't terrible.
On FD it is.

So, you just lost one of your neutrals.

 

[Ussi]

Well i guess if you want to be uber strict on the meaning neutral, then BF isn't.. But for a majority of MUs, BF is a middleground. So its the closest stage to being a neutral.

 

[Kishin]

"Kishin's new, give him time."

This doesn't help.

"Your neutrals were FD, SV, BF, and PS1, right?

ICs vs. most of the cast isn't terrible.
On FD it is.

So, you just lost one of your neutrals."

I'm not very familiar with stage balance so I being theoretical. It's not something I have much knowledge about to give my input on so I can't compile what I think the stages should be.

I'm hoping someone can respond to the focus of what I'm attempting to get across here.

 

[infiniteV115]

If you don't like your character on a certain stage then you either get better on that stage or switch characters.

I have trouble understanding how you support this (which makes perfect sense) yet you are against having many stages legal.

If you played on 3 similar stages then you can actually get a better idea of who's the better player.

Not really. FD, SV and BF are fairly similar (relatively speaking of course. FD is far closer to these 2 than it is to say, PS2, Delfino or RC. that's what I'm getting at here), and they are pretty much the best stages for ICs, Falco and Diddy. You could have 2 players of equal skill here, player X using, say, Falco, and player Y using some character that goes even with Falco. All of these stages give the advantage to X, so he could easily 3-0 Y, even though they just played on 3 similar stages and are of roughly equal skill.

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.

This is not true at all. I'll cut you some slack since you claim not to play Brawl anymore, but I really think your lack of playing has left you with an exaggerated sense of how the gameplay changes on these stages. I assure you, the core skills of this game (timing, spacing, reading, knowledge of when to use what move, etc) exist on every stage that is legal in the Unity Ruleset, as well as some that aren't.

 

[Kishin]

Fair enough, I forfeit my case on that aspect of stages. It seems fairly reasonable now with the exception of certain stages like PS 2, but that's another matter.

Now all I have qualms with are:
"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.

 

[Zankoku]

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?

I'm pretty sure this is how a time limit is utilized by a lot of people in many games not called Brawl - attempt to win, but if victory is not in sight and time is running out, then attempt to not lose.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Also, you can always turn off Pause.
If game REALLY needs to stop and gets delayed long enough, TO may can take any special action.

 

[infiniteV115]

How exactly does giving a simple warning for intentional disruptive behavior make them less likely to happen?

It isn't a warning that's given. If you pause, accidentally or not, you lose a stock. If your pause causes your opponent to lose their stock, you lose 2. Of course, in some cases you can pause and if your opponent was fine with it, nothing happens. At my last tournament I paused the game because the sound suddenly stopped working on the tv, we fixed it, I made sure my opponent was ready and we continued the match.

Why wouldn't having harsher rules discourage the behavior?

What Overswarm meant was that putting extreme punishments on things that happen by accident will not prevent people from doing them often.

What about the possible abuse of the rules?

This isn't very realistic. Look at this hypothetical situation:
I'm at 2 stocks. My opponent is at 1 stock. I hit him with a kill move, and pause to screw up his DI and momentum cancelling. I must lose 2 stocks, and since my 2-stock-loss is initiated as soon as he dies, we've both "lost" at the same time. This will go to draw, thus we will have a rematch. I don't think anyone will risk having to do this when they're about to 2-stock their opponent. They'll probably just go for the kill. Same goes for 3-stocking the opponent.

The problem with what you suggested (you pause, you lose, accidental or not) is that if a person is about to 3-stock their opponent and accidentally pauses, they lose the match instead. Accidents are the big issue here.

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.

Well, do you have any better suggestions?
Besides, I think I read somewhere that roughly 1% of matches go to time. I

Really, if the match doesn't involve Toon Link, isn't played on PS1, PS2 or Delfino, and neither player is trying to time the other out, the match will likely be under 5 minutes long. XD

Edit: Yeah, what kyokoro said. The ruleset specifically says that if either player requests that in-game pausing be taken off, the request CANNOT be denied.

 

[Kishin]

"It isn't a warning that's given. If you pause, accidentally or not, you lose a stock. If your pause causes your opponent to lose their stock, you lose 2. Of course, in some cases you can pause and if your opponent was fine with it, nothing happens. At my last tournament I paused the game because the sound suddenly stopped working on the tv, we fixed it, I made sure my opponent was ready and we continued the match."

I was rather ambiguous with the wording there. What I meant by intentional disruption in that circumstance is what the rule had as an example of screaming in someone's ear. I still don't see how doing that shouldn't be an instant ban or whatever.

"This isn't very realistic. Look at this hypothetical situation:
I'm at 2 stocks. My opponent is at 1 stock. I hit him with a kill move, and pause to screw up his DI and momentum cancelling. I must lose 2 stocks, and since my 2-stock-loss is initiated as soon as he dies, we've both "lost" at the same time. This will go to draw, thus we will have a rematch. I don't think anyone will risk having to do this when they're about to 2-stock their opponent. They'll probably just go for the kill. Same goes for 3-stocking the opponent.

The problem with what you suggested (you pause, you lose, accidental or not) is that if a person is about to 3-stock their opponent and accidentally pauses, they lose the match instead. Accidents are the big issue here."

Alright, the rule seems much more reasonable now with that clarification. Do you know how often the pause-off thing is usually requested? I'm just curious if this is utilized often in matches since I see it as something I would always request to be off.

"Well, do you have any better suggestions?"

I'm not sure if TO's are doing this already, but I think just limiting the number of participants to an event and having more events and having players be able to stack points throughout a time period like what MLG does might be good to try. I'm not at any way knowledgeable on this sort of thing but I'd be surprised if there weren't any solutions than a timer.

"Besides, I think I read somewhere that roughly 1% of matches go to time."
Is planking no longer an issue then? It still seems rather easy to do with such a short time limit and I'm not sure if the ledge grab limit is working.

Another question: How often is the no tripping code being implemented? I know that some tournaments don't use it. Any reason why it isn't implemented in those tournaments?

 

[ぱみゅ]

Adressing the last question: Because hacking a game should not be the standard. EVER.

 

[infiniteV115]

Yeah, I don't think disruption should get a warning if it was obviously intentional. But some people just have short tempers and will scream or jump or throw their controller down during the match, so the warnings are probably for people like this. Personally, I wouldn't give warnings, but I would tell people beforehand to keep their voices down.

Don't know how often pause is taken off.

Don't know anything about the MLG point system either.

Planking seems to have been mitigated a bit, it still exists though. What we really need is a rule on scrooging, because MK can stall quite well on both SV and RC via scrooging and he won't really build up ledge grabs. The problem with a scrooging rule is its enforcibility, which may be why it doesn't exist yet.

No-trip models are not allowed in this ruleset. Coincidentally, I found a thread on this topic today.
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=309529

 

[Judo777]

Valid Argument: BF is the best stage. So it must be neutral! lol

 

[ぱみゅ]

I heard Pikachu does not like BF (Jolts/Thunder shenanigans and stuff) Just sayin'....

 

[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

I want to bring this up again because it got lost in the whole "what is the definition of a starter" debate.

I really want feed back from the community so I can formulate a good proposal in the RC Forum

 

[Tin Man]

The only thing I can think of that supports all of those points is if you stage strike the neutrals everytime the game count is equal.

Example:

Game 1: Strike to Smashville
Game 2: losing player CP's
Game 3: set count is now 1-1, so instead of having the losing player from game 2 CP, both players strike neutrals again, but due to DSR, your striking 6 (or 5 depending on the game 2 CP) neutrals since they were played on already.

Would decentralize the importance of game 1 but I doubt this would be well received xD

 

[ぱみゅ]

That's giving a strong advantage to the one who won game 1...
Alternatively, we could re-strike, giving more strike opportunities to the loser of the previous match... Or allow him to add stages to strike... IDK, I'm mostly merely brainstorming atm...

 

[Arcansi]

Adressing the last question: Because hacking a game should not be the standard. EVER.

The difference between hacking and playing the game the way you want (ignoring SD) is?

 

[ぱみゅ]

That's a cute way to miss the point.
"Altering any in-game mechanic (anything non-cosmetic) shoud not be the standard. EVER."

Does that sound any better?

 

[DeLux]

From what I understand, SWF can't endorse a policy that endorses hacking of Wii's on an official level.

 

[Arcansi]

That's a cute way to miss the point.
"Altering any in-game mechanic (anything non-cosmetic) shoud not be the standard. EVER."

Does that sound any better?

Your putting me down is cool.

But wait, do you mean items?

Perhaps time?

Or Win Condition? (Stock, Coins, etc.)

From what I understand, SWF can't endorse a policy that endorses hacking of Wii's on an official level.

I would be cool with this if this was the reason.

EDIT: Where does this come from, exactly?

 

[ぱみゅ]

SWF is kinda vague about cans and cannots about game modifying/hacking.

It should not be talked about, yet, we have a Workshop and Developers. In the end, it is spoken freely anywhere on the site. Not saying anybody is doing their job wrong, is actually great being able to discuss those topics; is just pointing the vagueness about that...


@Arcansi: changing game settings or win conditions =/= altering mechanics....
and altering mechanics =/= Special Brawl (lol)

Any change that the game itself allows can be considered for a new standard (and I think it was analyzed before, with no new results).
Manually altering mechanics (via coding, re-arranging ISO files, etc) should not.

 

[Arcansi]

@Arcansi: changing game settings or win conditions =/= altering mechanics....
and altering mechanics =/= Special Brawl (lol)

Any change that the game itself allows can be considered for a new standard (and I think it was analyzed before, with no new results).
Manually altering mechanics (via coding, re-arranging ISO files, etc) should not.

The difference between hacking and playing the game the way you want (ignoring SD) is?

I would appreciate it if you would answer my original question.

But just to restate it.

What. Is. The. Difference?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

There is no difference, but you have to look at double standards when changing the game. We've already set a standard that changing the game surgically is A-Ok, but we do still have standards...

For example, if we add a no tripping code, double standards are introduced: "If we are going to remove random tripping, why don't we make G&W's hammer non-random as well?"

If we add, for example, a 300% cap on infinites to prevent stalling + a ban on IDC/other stalling methods, we aren't introducing any double standards.

On the other hand, with the recent introduction of double standard rules like ledge-grab limits and infinite bans, my argument doesn't make sense.

 

[Arcansi]

my argument doesn't make sense.

Cool.

Anyone with a point? (No Offence Grim, I want some discussion going.)

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I was just rambling, continue with your discussion.

 

[Supreme Dirt]

Just mentioning something.

Battlefield is a bad stage for Ness.

Though I suppose it DOES BUFF PK FLASH

WHICH IS CLEARLY NESS'S BEST SPECIAL

CLEARLY.


Also there is a very large difference between altering the settings which the devs allow us to alter, and altering the coding which was NOT intended for us to edit.

After all, where do we stop?

Why not just play Balanced Brawl instead of regular Brawl? If we're going to change the game and remove tripping, why don't we go a step further and balance the game? Weaken MK, buff Ganon, fix stages.

It is NO DIFFERENT from changing the game to remove tripping. You are altering the games CODING, as opposed to its SETTINGS.


Also to a post a while back, Tin if you implement that at a tourney I'm not going. Can explain it to you in person next time I see you.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

He wasn't talking about game settings, he was talking about our surgical rules like Ledge-grab limits.

 

[Supreme Dirt]

Ah, missed that.

Well I don't support surgical rules, so w/e.
That includes the rule banning IDC.

 

[Overswarm]

I am so glad surgical/global caught on. So glad.

 

[John12346]

Banning/limiting infinites(IDC or infinite grabs) isn't a surgical nerf, it's really a mandatory nerf
Ledge grab limits is probably a global surgical nerf
And MK's purposely lowered LGL is a direct surgical nerf

My take on the matter.

 

[Maharba the Mystic]

so is there any important topics being discussed atm that involve stages or something? i ain't posted here in a while

 

[Overswarm]

Banning/limiting infinites(IDC or infinite grabs) isn't a surgical nerf, it's really a mandatory nerf
Ledge grab limits is probably a global surgical nerf
And MK's purposely lowered LGL is a direct surgical nerf

My take on the matter.

I'm also incredibly upset to see posts like this, where they don't know what either terms mean.

 

[Zankoku]

Ledge grab limits will be tested on the Brawl 1.2 PTR server, and official changes will be rolled out in the coming months.

 

[King Funk]

"Global surgical nerf"

 

[Maharba the Mystic]

you know why eliminating ledge grab limits (minus MK) wouldn't be all that bad? it's because while yes any character can semi abuse a ledge, most top tier characters atm (and which would still be popular) don't have a planking game that matters. for example, nobody thinks "oh no a planking falco." they think, "oh ya, this dude is dead riiiiiight, NOW." and hit him and gimp him and be ****ed because he has to use his second jump when planking so the hit finishes him (unless he has the best DI. but even that is questionable). however, a lot of lower than the top 5 tiered characters could potentially gain an option that is very powerful, however there is no unbeatable planking, it's just hard to beat. characters like pit and g&w and rob and even TL with all that bomb planking jerm does (**** you jerm, i will win a MM with you someday bro), hell DK and to an extent samus, these characters potentially jump tiers with their now unlimited powerful option on the ledge, planking, is allowed. pit and g&w could easily be top 12, others would move up to mid, lower high, and low mid (i know i listed it out of order, don't care) just because it's an option, and it forces the opponent to mess up and let you back or just gimp them for their mistake. when i play to time out, i abuse air (and platform) and ledge camping to save up my ledge grabs and plank to chip damage. they then usually will mess up and miss DI uair and allow me to get onstage and edgeguard them, who have to get up due to inferior ledge game.
and due to constant damage and punish, with the occasional gimp (like WOI-ing snakes c4 and wind spiking him in c4stun, you know it's hot) and then using pit's guarding game to get you a good stage position to earn some fast damage or just better positioning to maybe get in more damage, hopefully starting a juggle.
now for ROB g&w and the others, i don't really know the dynamics of it, but i know they can all do some good ledge traps (pantyraider, your g&w bro), so that is something to consider.

im kinda high so tell if that makes sense and if not ill try to reword it.

 

[WindMajor]

Toon Link doesn't plank with bombs to waste time.

Toon Link planks with bombs because he has an extremely difficult time getting on the stage without them. All of his ledge recovery options are very sketchy, so he basically has to pick from an arsenal of bad options and see which one will randomly work. He literally gets trapped on ledges against characters like Marth, and can't do anything other than pick up bombs and try to restrict his opponent's movements (in other words, push them away from the ledge, or prevent them from dropping down and hitting TL as he picks up another bomb).

In short, it's not so much that he WANTS to plank, it's that he's basically forced to or else he'll eat a lot of damage, which is why an LGL on TL is very unfair. It nerfs him for staying in an area he's not even good at in the first place.

 

[Maharba the Mystic]

thank you for proving my point, if only you had that option of patience right?

 

[DeLux]

The BBR RC is having a full committee meeting tonight on skype.

After the meeting, I'll be giving a generalized summary of what we covered (what I can reasonably get away with without violating the leaking policy) and field questions as well

 

[John12346]

Posts like the last one I made are perfect reasons for why people shouldn't post within 30 minutes of waking up... Sorry about that.