Jack Kieser
Smash Champion
Ok, I finally got some sleep, so here's my full reply to your post, AA. I hope it's to your liking, and I'll elaborate on anything you feel needs it. Enjoy. ^_^
AA's reasoning is that stages can be banned because stages can be picked by the player, more specifically, because they can be picked to the advantage of a player, much in the same way that a character can. Playing against IC's? Pick Rainbow Cruise. Using Falco? Try going to Japes. HOWEVER, the REASON this is the case is because of our counterpick system, something that ISN'T inherent to Brawl! You see, in the course of a vanilla match, one that is devoid of ANY of our rules, a match could be played on any stage, picked or NOT picked. Picking stages is not actually inherent to anything, since you could just set the game to pick all stages randomly anyway. Our reliance on picking stages to help during a matchup is just as much a metagamed ruleset choice as playing stock matches.
Now, how does this relate to items? Simple. We WANTED stages to matter in our matches, simply, because stages are inherent to Brawl; no other fighting game (at least that I know of) has stages that affect the outcome of a match the same way that Brawl's stages do, so we created the stage counterpick system to preserve the use of stages in our competitive metagame. Why did we need to do this? Because some stages are just too influential to keep around, and as soon as we realized we needed a way to remove certain stages, we realized that we ALSO needed a way to CATALOG certain stages based on amount of influence on the match... hence, the N/CP/B system of stage selection that we have now.
Items COULD (and, based on the findings of the ISP thread(s), DO) work on the same premise. Items are a facet of Brawl that are unique to our game's experience. No other fighters, save for maybe weapon-based fighters, like Soul Calibur, have a mechanic as unique as items that spawn mid-match. In the interest of preserving the original integrity of the game, as well as in the interest of only banning things when necessary, it would be in our best interest to keep them in the game. Oh! But, lo and behold, there are some items that are just TOO influential. Now, we realize that we need a way to remove certain items, and also a way to CATALOG certain items based on amount of influence on the match... hence, a N/CP/B system of ITEM selection that COULD have been implemented in the Melee days, had containers been able to be turned off, and had we been less heavy-handed.
In ANY competitive game, hell, in ANY game at all, EVERY SETTING IS ARBITRARY. That's actually the POINT of game design! Create an arbitrary construct of rules and conditions, and let people compete to see who is the best at completing the challenge of conquering the set of rules. Who, essentially, can push the buttons the way Sakurai says to in the best way? Who is the best lab rat? The fact that we have FUN is irrelevant; we are competiting rats, vyying for the same stimulus response as Pavlov's dogs. Which buttons we push to make us salivate is, at the end of the day, meaningless.
Ok, an interesting notion. Let me look at that to make sure I agree, since it's at the core of your post. In order for this to be true, the CONVERSE must also be true; if something is not banned, it is free to be chosen by the player. This infers some interesting points, as we could easily say that metagame can create bans that our ruleset does not simply by disallowing choice; for instance, we could say that the threat of D3 effectively bans DK. This brings up other problems in semantics (such as the fact that DK is SELECTABLE on the screen, you just should never pick him against a D3), though. Suffice it to say that I think your supposition is sound enough for this post, but I do not agree that it is 100% accurate; plenty of things, both player created and not, disallow choice, and simply disallowing a choice isn't, in and of itself, a bad thing.
Since most of this relates to the first section, I'll leave it as-is. My thoughts on stage bans (well, bans in general) are well-documented in this thread, and others.
Ah, ha! The meat of the post. Here is where I'll discuss your thoughts on stages. "Why here, and not the section of the post that DEALS with stages?" you might ask. "Why talk about stages in the section about items?" Well, AA has tried to reconsile our policies for stage bans by explaining why EXACTLY stages can be considered banned or not, but that reason is a METAGAME reason, not a reason inherent to BRAWL itself, as it was designed. Let me elaborate.
AA's reasoning is that stages can be banned because stages can be picked by the player, more specifically, because they can be picked to the advantage of a player, much in the same way that a character can. Playing against IC's? Pick Rainbow Cruise. Using Falco? Try going to Japes. HOWEVER, the REASON this is the case is because of our counterpick system, something that ISN'T inherent to Brawl! You see, in the course of a vanilla match, one that is devoid of ANY of our rules, a match could be played on any stage, picked or NOT picked. Picking stages is not actually inherent to anything, since you could just set the game to pick all stages randomly anyway. Our reliance on picking stages to help during a matchup is just as much a metagamed ruleset choice as playing stock matches.
Now, how does this relate to items? Simple. We WANTED stages to matter in our matches, simply, because stages are inherent to Brawl; no other fighting game (at least that I know of) has stages that affect the outcome of a match the same way that Brawl's stages do, so we created the stage counterpick system to preserve the use of stages in our competitive metagame. Why did we need to do this? Because some stages are just too influential to keep around, and as soon as we realized we needed a way to remove certain stages, we realized that we ALSO needed a way to CATALOG certain stages based on amount of influence on the match... hence, the N/CP/B system of stage selection that we have now.
Items COULD (and, based on the findings of the ISP thread(s), DO) work on the same premise. Items are a facet of Brawl that are unique to our game's experience. No other fighters, save for maybe weapon-based fighters, like Soul Calibur, have a mechanic as unique as items that spawn mid-match. In the interest of preserving the original integrity of the game, as well as in the interest of only banning things when necessary, it would be in our best interest to keep them in the game. Oh! But, lo and behold, there are some items that are just TOO influential. Now, we realize that we need a way to remove certain items, and also a way to CATALOG certain items based on amount of influence on the match... hence, a N/CP/B system of ITEM selection that COULD have been implemented in the Melee days, had containers been able to be turned off, and had we been less heavy-handed.
That is true... to an extent. When you ACTUALLY sit down and think about the rules that are implemented, EVERYTHING we make is arbitrary. Why 8 minutes, and not 7? Why 4 stock, or 3 stock? Why 2-out-of-3? Why double-elim? Why do we use Dave's Stupid Rule? Why DON'T we use stamina? And that's JUST the settings WE can control! Why did Sakurai choose this move to have 15 BKB? Why not 16? Why is the angle of one move 120 deg.? Why not 121?
In ANY competitive game, hell, in ANY game at all, EVERY SETTING IS ARBITRARY. That's actually the POINT of game design! Create an arbitrary construct of rules and conditions, and let people compete to see who is the best at completing the challenge of conquering the set of rules. Who, essentially, can push the buttons the way Sakurai says to in the best way? Who is the best lab rat? The fact that we have FUN is irrelevant; we are competiting rats, vyying for the same stimulus response as Pavlov's dogs. Which buttons we push to make us salivate is, at the end of the day, meaningless.
And here is the crux of the discussion. Out of the, literally, MILLIONS of potential combinations of rules and settings that are allowed in Brawl, which combination is the one that we deem most important, or most balanced, or most ANYTHING? Again, my thoughts are well-documented: that is not OUR place, as players, to decide. Those with a stake in winning the game have a conflict of interest with the rules themselves, and so they can never be able to decide such things. For a more DETAILED, and more relevant, explanation, however... you'll have to wait for my post in BPC's thread in Brawl Tactical, entitled "What IS competitive Smash?" which should be done sometime... soon? (^_-)
I will respond to each in kind.
Interesting, considering our STAGE counterpick system is VERY hard for first-time players to understand, especially the part on WHY, exactly, we are giving an advantage to the LOSER of a match. Many of Brawl's current rules are plenty difficult to explain. I imagine all of the facets of high-level Ryu play are hard for first-time SFIV players, too. Just because the rule is COMPLEX doesn't mean it isn't a GOOD rule; the converse, of course, is also true.
Irrelevant. Players are biased, and what they "feel" should have NO bearing on the rules. If they don't like Brawl for what it is, they should play another game. If I am in the mood to play a tactical turn-based RPG, I'll play Fire Emblem, not Tales of Symphonia, and it's wrong of me to berate Tales as a bad game just because it's not what I'm looking for.
Also irrelevant. First of all, we can never KNOW what choices of rules make the "best" game, and that's also not for us to decide. We play the game we are GIVEN, and if we don't like it, we play another game. Telling this to the co-creator of Balanced Brawl, this might be a little lost on you (as OBVIOUSLY you disagree; if you agreed with this sentiment, you wouldn't have made a total-conversion mod), however. By the way, I haven't played ANYTHING but Balanced Brawl outside of a tournament setting ever since your first release. ^_^ It's all that's ever active on my copy of Brawl. You and Thinkaman have done a TREMENDOUS job, and I salute you both; your hard work makes my days of Brawling better.
We know NOTHING about the true nature of the game with these settings. With these settings, the game is campier, and much slower. Also, tactics such as PPlanking are OBVIOUSLY the best; if we don't make rules to stop it, I think it would be hard to argue that a tactic that has 1 (if even THAT) frame of vulnerability ISN'T the best.
Respectfully, I'll agree to disagree. Obviously, the reasons are outlined in full above. It is my personal thought that when a game is presented to you, you play it and change as little as necessary, if it ever BECOMES necessary. With that in mind, regardless of the inherent biases that we come with after playing Smash the same way for over 7 years, changing as few settings as possible is the best outcome, and with that, it means that turning off 15 items is better than turning them all off. Same with stages, and obviously with characters. If we are to ever have the hope of justifying to ourselves to turn off as few stages as possible, then we would only be hypocrites if we ever thought that turning off all items automatically would be a justified action.
Well, that's all political stuff, so I won't comment. With level-headed people such as yourself in the room, I can't say I'm too worried... however, as I said, any system that uses players to make rulesets is inherently flawed. The BBR has done good work in the past, but I cannot accept a system that allows a conflict of interest like THAT to rest at its heart. And, that's all I'll say about that.
