When do you think the Sm4sh backroom will be established, if at all?

[ぱみゅ]

okay....
I'm replying to some of johnknight's points. I do not have much time atm so I'll address them in no particular order:

For starters, the BBR consisted mainly of insightful people that were able to analyse the game efficiently, as well as being able to debate, share thoughts, accept others' views, and compromise.
Most TOs and top players fail to do this teamwork part.

The UCR was an independent group besides the BBR.
The damage you describe wasn't because of the URC alone, the division was made because someone making a major decided to use his own rules, and everyone wanting to go followed (besides this major had qualifier events). That is what created a divide in the scene, and it was further deepened when ONE japanese guy said that MK's ban would decrease the chances of more japanese players to attend again to an international event, so everyone kept the Apex Ruleset and ignored the URC, ultimately forcing its disbandment.
Funny enough, there were close to no japanese players for the next Apex.
Point being, NONE OF THIS HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE BBR.

Also, most people who play Melee stick to Melee. Most people that play Brawl shifted to Smash 4. Smash 4 itself is very young to have many new players to arise/be really insightful to it.
I think it's only natural that people who play the game and have experience with analysis are more likely to lead Smash 4's "Backroom".

Now:
-I am personally against a standard/uniform ruleset. I have a number of reasons but I'll elaborate later.
-I would agree to a "Front Room" or a public-read Back Room. There is no need for secrecy, but a discussion where everyone participates doesn't help either, as it is easy to lose track.
-People only gets excluded if they lack credentials. Winning tournaments or winning games are not credentials on themselves , they need to be backed up with an ability of being part of a leading group.

/snip

 

[Sinister Slush]

I feel like it should be mentioned too that while BBR was stuff behind closed doors they didn't completely make their tierlists/charts from their members alone.
The last MU chart had a good portion of both panel leaders and panelists chosen to discuss things. As for influence members outside BBR had on tier lists I don't quite remember how many gave suggestions/a helping hand here or there.

No japan people going to APEX is still funny to me from 2014.

 

[Johnknight1]

For starters, the BBR consisted mainly of insightful people that were able to analyse the game efficiently, as well as being able to debate, share thoughts, accept others' views, and compromise.

Oh I generally agree with how you guys are run now. You guys are much better run now, but I think the damage has been done and will be irreversible for at least another year thanks to the BBR. Obviously the BBR isn't the URC, but I think the blame shifted to the BBR and that wasn't really justified (other than to BBR members who were actively engaged in the URC).

Still, there is a bit of a "boy's only" club mentality in the BBR that damages it. From what I hear there's also some problems with a certain king of mews complaining in a way that stifles discussion!

Most TOs and top players fail to do this teamwork part.

Agreed. That's why networking organizations (especially among TO's) are so important. They keep everything connected and organized. Instead of just resulting in endless complaining about different opinions (like we see here), good leaders among these groups will instead see constructive conversations, criticisms, experimentation, and information sharing.

Also, most people who play Melee stick to Melee. Most people that play Brawl shifted to Smash 4.

Most top voices in the competitive Smash 4 scene were top voices or not too far from that in Brawl. There's nothing wrong with that at all, but it is worth acknowledging, and recognizing any established group in Brawl getting a Smash 4 equivalent will likely have the same folks among its ranks.

I think it's only natural that people who play the game and have experience with analysis are more likely to lead Smash 4's "Backroom".

Agreed. Top players, commentators, data collectors, guide makers, video editors, content producers, TO's, streamers, etc. should all be involved with how things are run. Often many people play many of these roles as well.

Now:
-I am personally against a standard/uniform ruleset. I have a number of reasons but I'll elaborate later.
-I would agree to a "Front Room" or a public-read Back Room. There is no need for secrecy, but a discussion where everyone participates doesn't help either, as it is easy to lose track.
-People only gets excluded if they lack credentials. Winning tournaments or winning games are not credentials on themselves , they need to be backed up with an ability of being part of a leading group.

These are all very agreeable stances. I see no reason why anyone wouldn't be okay with this.

 

[1FC0]

They probably need the secrecy because otherwise they will have to defend their decisions against the community that they are making the decisions for.

Probably I think that if they cannot do that , then they should not be deciding in the first place.

 

[Indigo Jeans]

If a backroom were to happen, after EVO would probably be ideal. We would finally have information on customs in a tourney setting unlike any we have had to this point in time and Mewtwo would (probably hopefully) be released by then, finally wrapping up the cast for the foreseeable future.

I would be for a mostly uniform ruleset. Things like starters and 2stock5minutes vs 3/4stock7/8/9minutes seem imperative to have uniform across regions and major tournaments.

Customs though are pretty tricky. Despite most of the community seemingly in favour for them, the performance of key characters like Villager, Donkey Kong, and Rosalina WILL be a pivotal point in the discourse and the community as a whole. People have suggested customs-on and customs-off metas being independent of each other as a compromise, but the last thing we want is splitting the community in two, especially at such an early point in its projected lifespan. Despite whatever happens, the presence of customs alone will invariably cause a rift. This is something I don't think any sort of backroom will be able to prevent. Even if customs are shown to be non-problematic and a good thing, there will still be TOs and players who will prefer them off. Even if they are shown to be problematic and a bad thing, there will still be TOs and players who will prefer them on.

I wouldn't be totally opposed to separate metagames, though only if that ends up being the flat-out necessary course of action.

All that being said I'm just going to echo what others have already said. A backroom would be a good thing to have sooner rather than later, though PR like never before through a frontroom or whatever will be a must.

 

[Sinister Slush]

Of course! Why has nobody said this before...










Custom doubles or singles for a side event.
Honestly, I do not think I've ever seen this idea pitched. Instead of Vanilla doubles, if the TO feels like it they can do either custom doubles or singles for the side event over vanilla doubles.
Or if doubles have to happen, then instead of side events we had in brawl like Low/mid tier events we just have custom singles or doubles instead or even both if crazy enough since low/mid tier doubles was a thing as well.

 

[Johnknight1]

If a backroom were to happen, after EVO would probably be ideal. We would finally have information on customs in a tourney setting unlike any we have had to this point in time

True, but customs are gonna take a longggggggggggggggggggggggggggg time to have set rules. There's so much micro-ruleset management you may have to do with customs legal. This will take years to "solve," and that takes longer if we have patches to adjust to. That's also discounting universally applied fan mods (like what Brawl's scene adopted to an extent) and how they effect rulesets.

I would be for a mostly uniform ruleset. Things like starters and 2stock5minutes vs 3/4stock7/8/9minutes seem imperative to have uniform across regions and major tournaments.

I think the 5 minute vs. 6 minute debate is a key one for regionals and majors. At FGC majors like EVO or Smash super majors like Smash Con or APEX, I think a 5 minute time limit is a must, since there are huge time constraints and you don't want to be the game that runs late. Despite that, people are still resistant to that, even though all games have to make some time sacrifice at such events.

People have suggested customs-on and customs-off metas being independent of each other as a compromise, but the last thing we want is splitting the community in two, especially at such an early point in its projected lifespan.

I don't think that's a bad thing per say. It can create an environment where a few players only enter tournaments with customs on, a few players (probably more than the previous group) only enter tournaments with customs off, and most people enter both. At majors and regionals we could have singles customs on and off events co-existing the same way we have doubles and singles. The only problem this will cause is time limits and limited spots at tournaments. Still, if people really love their setup, they'll TO and host events for it.

 

[Omni]

I'm well-qualified for Smash 4 Backroom material.
I just don't care to play that tango anymore.
The @ Overswarm vs Omni days wore me out.

 

[1FC0]

I agree Overswarm is amazing do not mess with him and put him into the Smash 4 Frontroom!

 

[SmashChu]

Now, I'm quite sure on how the backrooms came into existence, but from my understanding, they're the group of experienced players and vocal members of the community that are selected to construct the tier list.

Given that most community pooled tierlists seem to be unreliable and a little bit silly, I'd like to know at what point of the metagame is considered "appropriate" for establishing a backroom. Of course, I'm not asking for one RIGHT RIGHT now, but i'm just curious.

The back room concept was always silly. Decisions about the game that affect everyone shouldn't be made by a almost secret organization. It should be made by, well, the community.

 

[AccountsDept]

okay so this thread happened to spiral in a direction that i did not at all expect it to, so let me put my two cents in: (not that anybody gives a ****)

The idea of a central ruleset making authority is an interesting one, and given that Smash's father company (Nintendo) doesn't really support tournaments (excluding, like, /the one/) we're left to our own to fabricate a ruleset. So, given all the massive disputes revolving around rulesets and bans and the like, having a place like this is wildly beneficial. Here's something that I've observed community leaders and top players do when they need to argue about something :

> ***** about it on twitter/facebook
> have giant arguments on twitter/facebook, and because of the nature of social media, things get misinterpreted.
> since there's no way to follow the madness, nothing gets done.

On Smashboards, a very useful argumentative tool, I see wonderful, fruitful arguments being debated and presented, and said arguments are able to be explained in greater depth, than, say, 140 characters. Twitter, and most other social media sites, are as good for debate as 4chan is. They simply really aren't made for that.

So, the solution then becomes to come to SWF! Which, is indeed a step! A lot of top players and community leaders forget we exist for some reason, which is really strange, since basically all of them have accounts. But they don't bother to look. I remember certain players making videos about customs completely oblivious to the Custom Move project early on - and that would have been fixed by literally taking three seconds to look at Smashboards. But even if they all did and had a bigger medium to explain themselves, I don't think that them simply being here would be enough.

A "backroom" is a systematic approach. To the outside, it's a machine that produces coherent, readable results, something harder to do when everything is open and everyone's yelling in a debate thread. A question is posed to it and something comes out. But, as we've established, having a completely private backroom is silly. However, just because that is silly, doesn't mean that the idea itself needs to be thrown out.

So, let's start from the beginning. We want to make a backroom! Let's start with question one :

1. Who do we recruit?

Well, This part is the hardest. Getting the founding members can be a bit tricky. But it's not like we don't have solid contenders already. Said contenders (specifically the first) would be prime candidates for finding other members of the same caliber, because Ampharos has spent his fair share of time scavenging around in pretty much every board for research.

But again, just arbitrarily naming people can get very dangerous very quick. I really don't have a clear cut solution for this one; that doesn't mean there isn't one, however.

2. How do they debate?

Give them a topic. A deadline. For example, "Ban Explosive Ballons + Counter Timber?" Give them a few weeks to debate. When the debate ends, they have a vote.

It's very beneficial for us to give them binary questions (not only binary questions mind you, but for a lot of things, yes.). It makes it easier to divide votes; however, that does not mean they have to return binary answers. If we pose to them: "2Stock vs. 3Stock", it should be okay for them to go "3Stock, but we're going to have a debate about the time limit next because that's also important for this decision." If we require them only give us binary answers, it can cause them to make decisions that some of them very well don't want to make entirely, but settling for less because they're out of options.

Visibility? There's three things we could do here.

> Have the backroom completely public. All posts are visible.
> Have the backroom private. When the results are showed, along with showing the consensus, have each member write a conlcusion on what side they took and why.
> Have the backroom completely private. When the consensus is presented, provide a short summary of the discourse and the opinions that went on inside the backroom.

I prefer the second option. It provides a nice middle ground, and gives the members a better way to convey the whole of their argument rather than having the public look upon it bit by bit.

3. How are members added?

This very well may be the easiest solution. Three things :

> The public selects a person through voting towards their SWF account. Given the list of potential (and willing) nomineees, the current BR decides which nominee is added.
> The public selects a person through voting towards their SWF account. That's it. The BR isn't given a choice.
> The BR elects nominees, and the public votes on them.

I prefer the first option. It allows the public to have a large degree of control without having the actual BR dead in the water.


So, that's basically the ideas I had. Hopefully the BR idea looks slightly more appealing.

 

[Sinister Slush]

All three are bad cause letting the public vote is just not a good decision at all.
Though the cons behind BR members only choosing good candidates would make people continue thinking it's just a big circlejerk where BR members currently in already are only letting their friends in, which isn't the case all the time.

Besides, if somebody has been in the smash community for around 5+ years they're bound to have a good portion of notable people as friends anyways, so you can't really call out the whole bias towards friends only nominated thing. Not their fault they happened to make friends from the inside.

 

[Timbers]

It is a shame barely anyone outside of California watches their streams, though. The Nor Cal Smash 4 group right now has pretty good streams, podcasts, etc., as well as very unique and high level play amongst its' players. Despite that, East Coast smashers don't watch West Coast streams apparently. I can't figure out why, since honestly West Coast is universally more aggressive across basically all Smash titles and generally higher level in play on stream, and that generally makes for a better viewer experience.

- all of norcal tournaments end earliest at 12am (3AM EST), on a Friday morning. Not expecting any EC to stay up that late.
-The norcal streams run by showdownsmash (Foundry) gets 200-300 people viewing at peak. That's actually very good, especially for a weekly. It's not on a level of TL, CT, VGBC streams...but I can't think of any other Smash 4 channel that gets hundreds of viewers for their weeklies.
-norcal players are actually not that great compared to other regions. There's probably 5 players in socal that can go to norcal and beat everyone. east coast definitely has more players that are a national threat = more stream exposure = more hype.

 

[Indigo Jeans]

Letting the public circlejerk someone into the backroom is a lot worse than letting the private circlejerk someone into the backroom. Not that circlejerking isnt a bad way to let people into positions of power, but like Slush pointed out, it isnt usually the way things go (at least thats how it seemed to me me with the BBR, as someone from the outside). And there isnt any denying that members of the public are generally more uninformed and, well, to be frank, unintelligent than members like AA, thinkaman, Shaya, etc.

 

[AccountsDept]

Letting the public circlejerk someone into the backroom is a lot worse than letting the private circlejerk someone into the backroom. Not that circlejerking isnt a bad way to let people into positions of power, but like Slush pointed out, it isnt usually the way things go (at least thats how it seemed to me me with the BBR, as someone from the outside). And there isnt any denying that members of the public are generally more uninformed and, well, to be frank, unintelligent than members like AA, thinkaman, Shaya, etc.

So, of the options i stated, which would be best? Or are all of them **** and we need to start from square one on the recruitment front?

 

[Luco]

Hmm, I've belonged to a smash speculation group for quite some time now. The way we add new members is that the members of our group are supposed to be roaming around the smash 4 boards looking for smart posters that debate thoughtfully and contribute to discussion well. The group at this point in time has over 60 members, so not everyone knows the people that are being nominated.

Unfortunately the falling through of our group is that not everyone is active, so we can't be there to verify that someone is a particularly amazing poster and most people will just say "oh that person is probably fine, I trust you guys on it." It works for us because it's a relatively lax group these days and the people who are looking do their best to look out for good posters. I think we have rejected brothers of existing members though, so that's something.

Anyway, the ideal form of this system would be that people who nominate potential BR-ers quote a bunch of posts from them and/or the others in the BR go and investigate the posts of this person themselves. Then what happens is, much like our system, you collect all the nominees and have a 'yes' / 'no' voting system, where say, the 3 nominees with the most 'yes' votes are accepted for that period of time. In our case it's every month.

Not sure if there's any part of this system that could be extrapolated and used, but if it helps that's how we do it. =)

 

[LiteralGrill]

Could anyone answer for me why people WANT a backroom so badly right now? I'm legitimately unsure why people want one so badly after it seemed like so many people didn't want one in the past.

 

[1FC0]

I do not want a backroom.

 

[Overswarm]

Could anyone answer for me why people WANT a backroom so badly right now? I'm legitimately unsure why people want one so badly after it seemed like so many people didn't want one in the past.

Because both have huge issues.

Have you followed what Zero has said? The guy is a grade A scrub as far as mentality goes.

"We should use 2 stock because that's what For Glory uses"

"We should ban custom moves, it's too early in the metagame"

He's good at smash but has no place in creating any sort of ruleset. He is a "community leader" and has influence in large events.

Have you seen MVD and ESAM's comments on Pika's heavy skull bash? ESAM is fun as hell to be around but he theorycrafted himself into a situation where he believes that HSB is a 'broken' move. It took every day redditors all of 5 seconds to watch the match between them and say "why does MVD keep landing point blank in front of ESAM" because pika's HSB has mediocre knockback once you are just a small bit away. ESAM's usage of it was great, but it was very much a "MVD has no idea what he's doing" situation. Regardless, ESAM's comments on HSB are added to the pile when it comes to custom moves.

That's the result of "no back room" -- "insert name" determines rules.

I made two videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whAmI2HdBqw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQH_LUdkfkY

Both a bit under 10k in views, neither posted on the smash front page, and I'd image around 9,000 of the people viewing those videos have no idea who I am. Of the people that do know me, they have no idea what my tournament placements are. I just... made videos.

After those videos were created, I noticed people parroting my exact sentiments. This is no better than Zero spouting off random stuff or ESAM letting his own expertise make him feel like he can accurately judge the move on a national scale after one event. There's no counter to it, it's just whoever can put in the time and use their connections to make their voices heard. Omni's had like 4 or 5 things on the front page -- there's no reason for this. As far as Smash 4 is concerned, he's a nobody. I am too. We can be right and we can be wrong, but there's no checks and balances and no rules to follow. It's "shout loudly".

When we had a back room, the biggest problem was people not wanting to take their medicine. Someone like Zero would decide that 2 stock was best, but the back room would be full of experienced people who know that banning something, anything, means its the status quo. You don't add things back in. You wouldn't go back to 3 stocks once it became the norm. The back room would also know that more stock = better. The back room would say "3 stocks is the standard, we're collecting data". If too many tournaments ran over then we'd say "this sucks, but we have to" but if they didn't it'd just stay 3. People would complain, and loudly, and anything that went wrong would be blamed on the BBR rather than acknowledged as a normal part of creating a ruleset.

Someone like ESAM would find a stage, character, tactic, move, whatever, and be able to abuse it locally (or have someone do it against them) and believe it should be banned. The back room, being full of experienced people, would inevitably say "we need more data, we're not going to recommend nationally banning something because it looks janky". Over time it'd either become dominant or people would find a way around it. I would say that normally people would blame the BBR if something went wrong, but this has never happened. Literally 0 times in the history of smash has the back room said "we shouldn't ban this, we'd need more data" and then it become a huge issue that meant random people could hop in and wreck face in tournaments. Not once has this ever happened.

But the back room has issues too. In addition to people not wanting to take their medicine, people want in. The Brawl back room had a ton of people that shouldn't have been in there. Like a lot. JV, Marc, and Hylian and Alpha Zealot were the leaders of the BBR -- I was too for a time but I was too mean to people so they made me not a leader. JV was only there during MLG times, AZ has always been awesome, but Marc and Hylian really had no place doing anything related to the BBR leadership. Hylian would be a member for sure. Marc could be a member, but being in Europe his outlook was different than everyone else's, but he was still helping shape the american ruleset. It was all trickle down from there -- for a long period of time the largest voices were people who didn't play very often and the people that were added were added because they were popular in the public or because they were "top players".


Having a back room or not having a back room, you have problems. A back room is undeniably better if you have a better selection of people inside of it, but to do that you need to have some sort of incentive-based situation and have to know what your goals are. If Zero and I were in a back room together and Zero's goal is "I want to be the top smasher in a financially lucrative game that is interesting for spectators and has lots of huge tournaments" and my goal is "I want to play competitively without traveling outside of my scene and want to create a solid, tournament-proven ruleset that discriminates against no one and puts the game first and helps grassroots tournaments grow", we will clash. We both might have the best of intentions, but we would clash because our goal is the same. He might want 2 stock for viewers, I'd say 3 stock because it's better for the game. He might want a more conservative ruleset that doesn't have as many variables, I'm wanting to leave every stage possible in.

And for those not reading my earlier posts, even if you finally DO create a back room with a goal shared by all members, all it takes to throw a wrench in everything is a few loudmouths saying "I'M HOSTING THE BIGGEST AND BEST EVENT IN THE WORLD" and their ruleset becomes the status quo. Apex has been a crappily run tournament like every year but one (for reasons of TO, organization, or acts of God) but it still holds weight. Now EVO and CEO are cashing in on the popularity we've built up for Smash and people are using them as a metric now.

There is a solution -- pick a very small group of people, agree on a goal, and have some sort of financial aspect that allows them to either host their own tournaments or add cash bonuses. But most of the people that play smash don't have money and those that do are now entering their 30s and look at first place smash winnings as paltry, so unless you can crowd fund like a beast... good luck.

 

[BestTeaMaker]

There is a solution -- pick a very small group of people, agree on a goal, and have some sort of financial aspect that allows them to either host their own tournaments or add cash bonuses. But most of the people that play smash don't have money and those that do are now entering their 30s and look at first place smash winnings as paltry, so unless you can crowd fund like a beast... good luck.

Pretty much this is what our group, Hypest, is doing. We met and decided to host tournaments for Smash 4 based on what we collectively agree is a good and fair ruleset. We started with online tournaments because they require no venue to host and could draw people in who don't have the ability to physically go to a live tournament. Over time, we caught the attention of the /r/SmashBros subreddit and joined the team as the official TOs of the online events, where we expanded to hosting monthly 64, Melee, Brawl, PM, and SSF2 tournaments.

Every week, we've debated, theorycrafted, and tested different rulesets for 3DS and Wii U until we found something that worked to what we believed would create a great Smash Bros 4 tournament. And you know what? The fact that we are attracting over a hundred people every week now means that we must've done something right with our format, so we're continuing these tournaments to this day.

I decided to host the very first live event under Hypest rules. I found a venue, talked to the guys there, secured a working relationship, and started to host my first event here. I apparently was the first guy to run 3 stock, 8 minutes. I got a surprising number of people to come and even bring setups, and people had a great time. And now people are looking forward to the tournaments I host. We're now also trying our best to spread locals among the people in the group.

And, that's the thing. There's nothing wrong with hosting your own ruleset. The idea that you need to have some sort of high superior organization or group to decide how you play is ridiculous. Everyone has their idea of what makes the game competitive. The only thing that matters is that you host an event that people will enjoy. Turns out, when people are playing, no one gives a **** what the rules are as long as the tournament is running smoothly.

 

[Indigo Jeans]

So, of the options i stated, which would be best? Or are all of them **** and we need to start from square one on the recruitment front?

TO be honest (and I don't mean any sort of offense by this, I actually respect you because of your well thought-out and detailed posts), I don't like any of the options you presented. Again, I'm going to say suggest it be done with a similar methodology to what the Smash Lab used, which is the existing members picking out, reviewing, and recommending possible candidates.

I already addressed the issue of this making it seem like a circlejerk. The only backroom I've ever been in was the Smash Lab, and it is that and my own views of BBR membership that doesn't make me think that would be a problem. To keep it short, Smash Lab admissions were normally done through an application thread (much like BBR admissions). People would say and show what sort of labby stuff they've done, following structured questions, then people already in the lab would review each application and we would give our input on whether or not we thought they were lab material. Sometimes we would recommend non-applicants or actually ask them to apply if we saw that they had a lot to bring to the table, but aside from that, nothing else factored into the admission decision making process. In fact, most people in the lab didn't know each other before the matter; it was once they came together in the lab that people would become "friends" or acquaintances. So no, we didn't pick our friends, we didn't pick mods, we didn't pick BBRoomers (as a matter of fact I can only remember four BBRoomers that were also researchers; AA, Isatis, Delux, and Yikarur), and we certainly didn't pick "popular" people. And as an outsider looking in with the BBR, it seemed like that as well.

tl;dr I would think that an application thread opened by the S4BR, monitored by the S4BR, and whats applications within reviewed by the S4BR in order to admit members would probably be the best way to do it. I may be only one person, and maybe not seeing a circlejerk isn't the most common thing, but when peoples' applications are out there in the open for everyone to see, it should in theory leave little for people to protest against when members are admitted. If someone makes a good application, and the public sees it, and they are admitted, I see no problem there.

 

[Overswarm]

The problem is that when I read your post, I instinctively groaned because you're not solving a problem -- you're adding your name to the list of random people influencing rulesets.

The reason a "high superior organization or group" is typically the one to make the ruleset is because having uniformity is key. When it comes to being uniform, if we just have a group of random rulesets crammed together the conservative lists always win because they complain the most.

Unless your ruleset is actually the best because each and every stage banned or aspect of the tournament changed is a direct result of significant tournament evidence, you're just another name on the pile. This isn't meant to be offensive, it's just how things go.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

When you mentioned applying to be in a back room I thought of this Hitchhiker's Guide quote:

The major problem — one of the major problems, for there are several — one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.

To summarize: it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.

Perhaps I have a rather dim view of this sort of thing in general but I'd be at least slightly leery of the sort who would apply on the sole basis that they applied at all.

 

[Sinister Slush]

You forgot Tblock.

 

[Indigo Jeans]

The problem is that when I read your post, I instinctively groaned because you're not solving a problem -- you're adding your name to the list of random people influencing rulesets.

The reason a "high superior organization or group" is typically the one to make the ruleset is because having uniformity is key. When it comes to being uniform, if we just have a group of random rulesets crammed together the conservative lists always win because they complain the most.

Unless your ruleset is actually the best because each and every stage banned or aspect of the tournament changed is a direct result of significant tournament evidence, you're just another name on the pile. This isn't meant to be offensive, it's just how things go.

When you mentioned applying to be in a back room I thought of this Hitchhiker's Guide quote:



Perhaps I have a rather dim view of this sort of thing in general but I'd be at least slightly leery of the sort who would apply on the sole basis that they applied at all.

I will admit that I'm being overly optimistic; oftentimes I find myself believing the best in people, and in that sort of situation I would expect that those who apply and those who are "adding their names to a list" are doing so because they genuinely want to improve the tournament experience. I'm not saying I'm right though. I just need to remember that this is rarely if ever the case, and you both are right; most people who apply will probably be doing so for the status and "prestige", not necessarily because they are fit for it.

I suppose all that considered, an open admissions process is actually detrimental to the objective (which, whether it is to compete in a financially lucrative game or compete in a competitively sound game, I believe is always wanting an enhanced competing experience). I want to say that in that case the initial group of members just pick people they think are fit, though that just opens the possibility of picking favourites and those who you know will support your agenda.

You forgot Tblock.

You are correct.

 

[DeLux]

Reflex too

 

[Indigo Jeans]

I actually don't think I was around for when Reflex was in the lab. Or I was and I just don't remember him at all for some reason.

Edit: now that I think about it I think Raziek might be another person I missed

 

[Sinister Slush]

I think K Prime was part of the lab too.

Perhaps I have a rather dim view of this sort of thing in general but I'd be at least slightly leery of the sort who would apply on the sole basis that they applied at all.

The kind of people that apply just cause they want too, even if they have a decent app, usually never get in. You also can't say in the title of the thread "only people with an eligible background is allowed to apply" everyone should have a chance. It'll be more work threading the needle through the tons of apps and picking the good ones, but oh well.

For me as an example, the first 2 I believe I just felt like doing it and was denied as I should've been thankfully. Last two I actually tried but was still denied, though as they did want outside help they asked me and many others not in to help with one of the last projects they did before just stopping BBR apps and all that completely.

Point being even if there's people who do the app without caring much and just wanna do it cause it's there are very likely not getting in.

 

[BestTeaMaker]

My point wasn't about influencing rulesets that other people hold. My point was that we were able to come up with a ruleset that works for the events that we host. If in the event that our ruleset offends or discourages people so much that attendance numbers dwindle significantly, then that's when there's a need to consider a change and see how other events are running.

I understand the idea about there being confusion about what the "official" ruleset is since people have their own ideas and agenda concerning this game. As you said earlier, people don't really care to listen to the backroom, they just go with what they think is the most popular or most relevant.

Personally, I'm just collecting data and seeing how people play the game. And I'll continue to support events that we host and just make sure people that do come out enjoy the game. I probably won't be getting huge numbers coming out, but I'll do my damn best to help them have the best time when they do attend.

 

[SphericalCrusher]

Whenever it is established, I would very much like to be apart of it. I'm no pro player by any means, but I've been playing Smash since 64, I host a lot of tournaments, and I do a lot of streaming and online battles/tech talk on my Twitch channel. I do a lot of analyzing as well. I want to help this game continue to grow competitively.

 

[Shaya]

I'm so glad you exist Overswarm.

Personally if I were to push forward any sort of "Back Room" it would be two groups.
1. Work Group: People who love discourse, envisioning/managing "projects". Not about making decisions but figuring out the best formats for discussion.
2. Community Leadership: A cartel of TOs and Streamers. Working together purely for the expansion of the game as an eSport. i.e. supporting each other as we're all for the betterment of Smash4, irrespective of regions/rulesets/philosophies.

Neither of which should ever give the implication of "deciding things behind the scenes".
The workgroup would -maybe- "decide" on how a tier list project would be executed, but not for the voting / discussion of it.

At this stage a 'workgroup' could start to form. We already have projects like the Custom presets which worked out in a similar way we'd hope any similar projects would. In the future MU Chart projects, tournament data collecting, etc etc could be "this group". "Smash Lab" would be apart of it as well.

Community leadership stuff is constantly happening, facebook group invites are the best. Similar names in all of them, but they all last like a few weeks at most. Attempts to be bringing consensus on rules but its not what I'd want to see from said group if it was Smashboards based (that's what makes it all fall apart anyway).

 

[Zage]

I'm praying for a Back Room at this point because I find myself ignoring 90% of other users posts and only taking into account the ones who have proven to knowledgeable and insightful. Everyone wants to have their say and thinks that because they have an opinion, that they are automatically right. The game will never development if this trend continues.

 

[Earthboundy]

The event hubs tier list is an absolute joke. Pac-Man at 39?! Luigi at 23?!?! I'm still new to the community so I am somewhat neutral to backrooms. I see the importance of a unified tier list. I think I've seen like 20 for Smash Wii U so far that all claim to be the real deal. I can see why they would be bad though. A huge hierarchy in a community is bad. We're supposed to be a community, not a government. Maybe we should try and figure out some alternative to a back room. Something that would get people more involved in Smash 4. Who knows, it could help the competitive scene grow.

 

[Overswarm]

I'm so glad you exist Overswarm.

Is it because of my scrappy nature and boyish charm

 

[New_Dumal]

I want a "Back Room" , "Front Room" , I don't care.
What I think is that people who know truly about this game (and not people who play better) need to at least create a group and "suggest" a ruleset and finally project a tier list.
The game is not old, but we're a bit lost.
There's just no explanation for the current shifting "ruleset".
I can't understand why officially determine things would be bad for Smash 4 community. It's a lot worse simply swim in chaos.
We need a Official tier list project, the start of MU charts, and we REALLY NEED a ruleset. Rules are a signal of organization sometimes, you know ?

I just hate play 2-stocks, but if that's smash 4 destiny, needs to be decided once and for all.
And about custom moves, I'm okay with waiting for EVO to decide... but please community,what about a decision right after this tourney ?

 

[Overswarm]

Making decisions quickly is how you cut things off at the knees. Remember that there has been a tournament with Rosalina banned on the west coast and "omega version only" tournaments.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Remember that there has been a tournament with Rosalina banned on the west coast

Wat. She's not even the best character and loses to the actual best character.

Some of these people make no sense.

 

[Jaxas]

Remember that there has been a tournament with Rosalina banned on the west coast

There's been what?! Where was that?

 

[Sinister Slush]

To be fair, Japan's ruleset consists of SV BF and FD + Omega FD's only.
Most japan players just go SV or FD. So an Omega's only tournament doesn't seem too out there for me at least, albeit I will say it's silly.

 

[Earthboundy]

Making decisions quickly is how you cut things off at the knees. Remember that there has been a tournament with Rosalina

lolwut?
I thought we all agreed that no characters were OP enough to be bannable. Guess I was wrong.