Studstill, you should stop writing off other peoples' posts as 'opinion' or personal belief, especially ones where you have the passive-aggressive subtext of implying others have no respect for other players at the tournament. It's rather detrimental to your position and falls right into the 'appeal to emotion' fallacy that I'm sure has been brought up already. Also, please stop asking for 'evidence'. You are making unreasonable requests of a small community that has done many fairly successful things based on theory. This is not because we want to, it is because we lack the tournament data to do so. It is an unfair request and isn't one that warrants years of experimental ruleset trials to satisfy.
You two are Smash 64 players, no? Just like everyone else. You have what, 6-8 years of 'tourney experience' between you; this grants no expert status or special objectivity. Defend your points on their merit and quit telling everyone else "how it is."Also, why do you all sound so negative? If you can`t be bothered to "sit through" another players match, then go home. This is the most ridiculous aspect of the "matches should be short" argument. I don`t understand it. They should be long. And glorious. As long and glorious as possible. These are monthlies, and big events to a lot of people, and you all are spoiled in the NA East and somehow view these things as "too long" and want to modify the STAGES to accomodate your apparent desire to get in and out. Thank you.
We live in a real world governed by deadlines and time limits, and 'Smash Bros is glorious' is not a reason to facilitate matches going forever. This does not please venue owners. This does not please security detail. And most importantly, this does not please anyone who has to play games the next day, especially if bracket is on a different day to pools. This is fine for friendlies, but people who hold up a bracket and are still fine within the confines of a ruleset are really quite a problem, because at best you will be penalising them by subjective judgement, and that in itself is very objectionable.
The problematic thing is that there is no reason to actually condemn the player's behaviour. The ruleset allows for this situation, and it is indeed the situation where they are most likely to gain a winning position, so you cannot justify penalising the player for playing by the ruleset. In that vein, the ruleset needs to change, and if it makes matches go at a reasonable pace, we can omit Hyrule, Saffron, Sector Z and Yoshi's Island. It is far too hard and far too questionable to allow any given TO authority to decide who to disqualify, especially because there is no way to implement an objective timing system. I say this as someone who never advocated banning Hyrule for any reason other than logistics, and as someone who continues to play as many friendlies on Hyrule as he can.
Please justify why large stages are bad, in the context of them being large, i.e how it affects gameplay, not match length.
Staying in a safe position under the ship's fin leads to a stalemate, where one player has a definite advantage over the other. This leads to undesirable gameplay with poor quality of interactions due to reduction in number of options on one player's side (if not both). And, no matter how much you want to ignore it, match length is an issue that needs addressing, for many practical reasons, some of which are detailed in the thread already.
Please provide some evidence that Arwings are not more or less as detrimental as the other stage hazards. There is a lot of hazard demonizing, without reason.
There is no evidence needed. Hazards are generally random. Arwings have a strong attack that may cause death in a scenario where death would not have happened, had the Arwing not been present. Any factor that is both random and significant enough to influence the outcome of a match, no matter how statistically improbable, is undesirable. Being able to play around random things is not a skill that compares to being able to outplay your opponent in a match with no significant random elements. We are not playing Mario Party, we are playing a fighting game. This is the same reason nobody plays with items in a competitive setting.
The only actual data I`ve seen on Tournament Match length was from mixa, and with over 400 matches it shows an average increase of 1 minute. Period. This is not even close to a legitimate grievance against Hyrule, or Sector Z. Again, I fail to understand the desire for quick matches. It runs counter to the depthful gameplay that SSB64 provides. Personally, I think it is a disgrace that the game has essentially been crippled down to one tiny stage, with 3 tiny platforms crowding it. SSB64 has so much more than DL.
As much as I want to herald this data as a reason to play Hyrule, I know that the vast majority of matches on Hyrule will be between people who do not know how to properly camp, do not want to properly camp, or who believe that an offensive strategy is better. The data is flawed and of a small sample size. Your claim of 'depthful' gameplay does absolutely nothing for the notion of long matches being better. Shorter matches can show depth. Twelve minutes of Isai and Gerson feeling each other out with U-Airs is not clearly more representative of depth than a three minute Falcon ditto on Dreamland.
Please explain why in actual terms. If you think Arwings or Tornadoes have an incredibly detrimental and random effect on matches ESPECIALLY at the highest levels of play, please provide any evidence of that. PErsonally, I have very rarely been caught "unawares" by a stage hazard, at since you play very well I find it hard to believe you can demonstrate the effects on that you claim hazards ahve on the game. Again, why they are DETRIMENTAL, being 'random' alone is not a reason to strip game content.
The rest of this is a big pile of gibberish, but I`m going to parse it out so you can see exactly what I mean re: using empty phrases instead of merit based reason and logic. The community deserves better than you halfassing a response form a false authoritative postiion. If you made the argument previous, jsut quote or link will suffice.
Well, I can see why people left the argument. This is an unreasonable request that uses unsubstantiated anecdotal evidence in the same paragraph as a demand for objective sourced evidence. Labelling arguments 'empty' and calling someone's position 'false' is no way to keep a debate going, especially when your position is contrary to the majority's. There are no mistaken points here because there are no valid points, period.
Please do 'mention the big influences that random factors" have, because it is a ridiculous assertion, both that "tornadoes and arwings" have a "big influence", but also that 'randomness' is this the enemy of competition or fairness. This is the single wrongest assertion that the community makes in regards to characters, stages, items, and hazards.
It doesn't need to be an enormous influence. I'm not even representing my own position here. Why should we condone the mere possibility of a random occurrence to determine match outcome? The answer is: if that same possibility is the established downside of allowing an addition element of balanced gameplay. In this instance, it would have been that Hyrule was a balanced counterpick for characters who are not favoured on Dreamland. This assumption has since fallen out of favour, so you cannot use this argument by itself to fight for Hyrule's legality.
What a load of crap. I`m sorry for my tone, but this is ridiculous. I don`t give a damn about Street Fighter, Meta-Knight, or any other fighting game. Most fighting games that even allow for the depth of 'high-level play' are PRE-DATED BY SSB64, and regardless are absolutely irrelevant and have NO bearing on SSB64 gameplay, rules, or procedures. Period. If you feel otherwise, than write a book on "How all fighting games are basically the same."
I don't even want to address this point. Why shouldn't we take hints from more modernised and competitively-designed fighting games?
Stalling = Stalling. Not approaching, baiting, or simply moving to another area of the stage.
Extreme Stalling = There is only ONE situation in the entirety of the game that should be recognized as "extreme stalling/disruptive gameplay"
The top platform of Hyrule.
Any other accusation of camping/hiding/standing is almost certainly ********. Your opponent is under no obligation to allow you to hit them. They are however, required to attempt to hit you, to attempt to kill you, to attempt to win the match. To act otherwise is not only terrible sportsmanship, but runs counter to the very idea of a tournament.
Specifically,
"engaging in a manner of play that shows no willingness to fight, no aggression towards the opponent, or otherwise to no short-term strategic advantage in an attempt to meaninglessly prolong the match is forbidden"
You know I wrote the original ruleset. I thought about the definition of stalling for the longest time. I still don't have a satisfactory definition in the context of smash. In that vein, your definition seems to be based on your idealised vision of Smash Bros, which is a frenetic spacing-based melee where each player reads the other's next move and makes a perfect read, going to-and-fro in an aggressive clash of wits and dexterity. That's merely your definition. Yes, I'm putting words in your mouth, but I don't think it's entirely unjustified, given how poorly you seem to regard by-the-book defensive play.
How do you determine if someone has no willingness to fight, short of them dropping a controller entirely? A 'lack of aggression' is certainly not something that should be penalised. Additioally, almost any action in a fighting game can be constituted to have a short-term advantage, whether it be in the game, preying on a player's known lack of techskill, or something psychological. There should be no way for a TO to subjectively penalise somebody for playing defensively and without aggression.
The idea that this isn`t needed coming out of your mouth ASTONISHES ME, as I have borne witness to you, with 0% damage and a 3-1 stock lead, refuse to leave the top platform of Hyrule, in order to attack your opponent, who had 118% damage on their last life. There is no valid defense, 'competitive' 'defensive''play to win' 'high level' NONE AT ALL, that justifies that behavior.
There are a couple that immediately spring to mind, actually. Risk vs. reward. Why expose yourself to something when there is no need to? You have the indomitable lead, there is no reason to allow your opponent any route back into the game. This is the ultimate play-to-win style, and is perfectly valid. I hate to say this, but the fact that you don't think so basically illustrates your level as a player.
Psychological tactics. Doing something as safe as this against someone who feels they are pretty much on their last legs will infuriate them, which is never a good state of mind to be in, and another method to clinch victory.
What's wrong with these? Nothing. Play to win.
Further, in the blatantly not true category, is that this rule "is unenforceable."
That statement is offensive to both TO`s and fellow players, the latter most likely and the former CERTAINLY able to judge any and all violations of the rules, in a completely SUBJECTIVE manner, thus is the job of TO.
One (or even a few) player`s ravings on 'high-level defensive strategy' are meaningless compared to the TO`s obligation to the tournament at large.
This is the role of TO, to make these difficult subjective decisions, in order to keep in line the despicable players who value "winning" over "winning by playing the game." They might as well pull a fire alarm if losing a set, wiht that attitude.
As somebody who has actually had to penalise stallers, I can tell you that this is by no means as clear-cut as you make it sound (and no matter how subjective or pained you make the process sound, it is ultimately a yes-no answer as to whether a player is stalling). I wouldn't trust any TO to make that decision, myself included. If you ever have to intervene with somebody like this, you are already impinging on how they play, and nothing gives you that clear-cut privilege.
