Message to the BBR about various things...

Kewkky said:

Ehhh, my point still stands strong, their metagame developed around their rule, and it works for what they wanted it. ShadowLink just inserted his own argument.


And one small thing... You seem to be so bent in believing that Sirlin's write-ups IS the competitive scene. He doesn't dictate what's the "right way" or the "wrong way", he just presents what he believes competitive rules should be. We don't HAVE to follow what he says all the time, he's not an Isaac Newton where his experiments proved that without a shadow of a doubt, he's 100% right, thus turning his theory into law... Just because it makes sense doesn't mean it's correct, just like how geocentrism was viewed back in the old days, or the "flat world" theory which everyone believed to be true. I personally think that since Sirlin is the only one that has done a write-up about competitive aspects that has met with lots of positive reception, everyone takes it as the word, since it's the ONLY word out there, and it's well tied-up... But that doesn't mean it's a law. It's still theory.

Whenever I see "scrub" or "scrubby" or "scrubiness" thrown around as an argument (eg. "that rule is bad because it's scrubby") instead of an ACTUAL argument made to explain it to even the dumbest of people (as simply put as possible's the best way to formulate arguments), I get a major brain aneurysm.

So, come on, Sirlin followers. If you want this community to follow Sirlin as well as you all do, try and explain your points instead of writing up such a conclusive phrase such as "because it's scrubby" at the end of the beginning of an argument. Otherwise you leave them believing you're insulting them and that you're dancing around the subject. Using religion as an example, you guys are just like religious followers whose only explanation of things is "because God is grand" whenever people ask for explanations as to why X is only possible because of God (they could expand their explanations instead of being so small and vague, there's no problem with that religiously-speaking, so the same should be said about the Sirlin followers in that they should expand their explanations).

Click to expand...

I welcome anyone to propose a different precedent.

The reason I follow Sirlin's method is because:
1. It is what the game offers us. We aren't throwing **** out of the game, we're playing the game the way the designers intended for it to be played (otherwise they would've created it differently), without banning or removing anything. Inb4items/time argument
2. An inherent dichotomy between his philosophies and the constructivist philosophy, which leads to 3.
3. The nature of constructivist philosophy to allow any changes you want to the game, to the extent of ridicule. There is no "limit" to constructivist philosophy, nor is there a defined "best". There is only subjectively "better" and "worse". And what is "better" for you might be "worse" for someone else. It allows for almost anything. In an objectivist system, there is an objective "best"-what the game gives us, and this makes a lot of sense to me.
4. The same game played with two different constructivist rulesets has the potential to be a completely different game, almost regardless of which game it is. The same game played with objectivist rulesets is exactly the same game. This leads to less trouble on a national level–compare MLG to the stagelist in your region. Now compare APEX to the stagelist in your region. Now compare MLG to APEX. See what I mean?
5. Virtually every game up until now that has been competitively successful has used originalist philosophy. There are but a few rare examples of constructivist philosophy. This doesn't mean much on its own, but it still speaks for objectivism in the same way that tradition always speaks for a product.

Am I wrong about point 2? This is where I'm slightly worried; that I'm arguing using parallels that aren't there. I wish I had better arguments, but most of the arguments I come up with to support sirlin are circular in nature, and therefore useless.

But really, one of the more important points is the precedent we set. When we say "let's ban this without it being necessary because more people enjoy the game that way", does this stop us from banning, say, ICs or Falco because most people find the game more enjoyable without them and they're gay/cheap? No, in fact, it makes it the logical point of action. And so forth. This is, IMO, a real breaking point-what kind of precedent we set when we make our rules. I'm sure I could find half the community or more that thinks that Metaknight, or Falco, or ICs, or Lylat Cruise, or Rainbow Cruise, or DDD's Chaingrabs, or MK's tornado, or "gay spammy camping" (AKA not running into ****), or any number of other things should be banned because the game is more fun and better that way. However, do they know that the game will be better?

Constructivist theory also leaves a large margin for error. We may think that inserting an arbitrary rule is a good idea at the time, but is it? We don't have the insight into the game that the creators of the game had when they created the **** thing. We also have bias. This post has several important arguments about it. But when we ban, say, ICs because they're so gay, how do we know that the rule was a good thing? How do we know that the game is better because of that? How do we know that the competitive nature of the game was not harmed?

And in cases of rules like this, it's even harder to judge! Sure, many people don't like games going to time. I do. I enjoy watching my opponent squirm as he watches each of his approach options fail against me as the clock counts down to zero, and I love the battle of wits involved. I know I'm not alone. So is this rule better for brawl? When it's inherently a subjective opinion whether time-outs are legitimate or not? It's impossible to tell because it is inherently subjective.

And even more important, the next two questions:
1. What are the criteria for the game being better?
2. How would we go about unbanning them to make sure that we were right? Take PS2 for example. It's not like you could go to an EC TO and ask them "Can you turn on this stage to test it for today? It's a really legit stage that nobody gains a large advantage from." You'd get laughed at, but more importantly it wouldn't happen because they're sure the stage is busted. It's not possible to test if something should be legal, only if something should be banned.


In short, constructivist theory fails very hard on several counts, and I see no further options beyond Originalist and Contructivist because the moment you stray away from originalist, you become constructivist.

TL;DR: I follow sirlin's ideals because the alternative is broken and doesn't work.

Before I get into a counter to that... are there any stages currently banned due to circle campaing and only that? Like, I understand Temple is banned because of circle camping, but also because of player being able to live forever by teching the roofs. I mean a stage banned solely because of circle camping.

At any rate, why should we care what sirlin says? Just because you agree with his methodolgy doesnt put you in some beneficial position in this argument.

Budget Player Cadet_ said:

1. It is what the game offers us. We aren't throwing **** out of the game, we're playing the game the way the designers intended for it to be played (otherwise they would've created it differently), without banning or removing anything. Inb4items/time argument

Click to expand...

ha
hahah
this is brawl, son

prime candidates for solely circlecamping are pork city and hanenbow i guess?

No stages were banned solely because of circle camping, Browny.


...

Djbrowny? :o

Browny said:

idk who posted, but whoever suggested that if the time goes to 10 minutes, both players are DQ'd (or sent to losers), that actually sounds like a decent idea lol. One could argue that this doesnt favour the player who is winning and wishes to maintain the lead by planking/running away, I'll argue that the person who is winning isnt actually winning a fighting game I mean, when the aim of the game is to kill your opponent, isnt that just the case lol?

Click to expand...

You wanna design a new tournament bracket format that will allow for that?

Browny said:

Before I get into a counter to that... are there any stages currently banned due to circle campaing and only that? Like, I understand Temple is banned because of circle camping, but also because of player being able to live forever by teching the roofs. I mean a stage banned solely because of circle camping.

Click to expand...

Spear Pillar, I believe. Of course, circle camping is directly tied to cave of life effects, soooo... Also potentially Distant Planet, if circle camping happens to be an issue there.

At any rate, why should we care what sirlin says? Just because you agree with his methodolgy doesnt put you in some beneficial position in this argument.

Click to expand...

I just said why it did...

Kewkky said:

<monster post>

Click to expand...

I'll get to this just a little later.

Budget Player Cadet_ said:

BECAUSE IT'S ****ING RIDICULOUS, THAT'S WHY! Anyone can tell you this. Because we don't enter a game and rebalance it or else it becomes a completely different game. I used to see this thread as stupid and pointless, but now I realize it's pretty important. Everyone wants these special rules that have no basis in-game and solve problems that aren't actually problems (this and the suicide rule where the initiator always wins are two prime examples; planking/stalling rules hav no basis in-game but solve problems that need to be solved in order for smash to be competitive). But it doesn't matter if it makes for a better game, it's a completely different game. You guys aren't playing brawl anymore, what you're playing is closer to a hacked game like Balanced Brawl. And if you honestly are so displeased by brawl as a whole that you need to insert rules to make the game more playable (not to dispose of ridiculously broken tactics, but to make the game more fun), you should find a different game to play. I recommend Brawl-.

Click to expand...

So you're more for playing the game as it was meant to be played? Then why do we enforce rules like no items, 3 stocks, 8 minutes, and stage lists with counterpicks and a striking procedure?

Because we prefer the "new" game that emerges when limits are in place, I guess.

Kewkky said:

Oh! Another difference between Brawl and other fighting games, but this one isn't related to its mechanics... Other games get releases of newer revisions, with the re-balancing of old content and addition of new. Brawl is static, it will never be rebalanced or have new content. So, if we find a problem with the game, we either have to make a rule to stop that from being a problem (such as circle camping, IDC's mechanics, scrooging [and maybe planking]), etc), or abandon the game altogether. And as we know, as the community of the game, abandoning the game is out of the question, so the only answer left for us is making a rule against those things...

Click to expand...

Or formulate a system that eliminates them given what we have in the game itself. For example, look at our counterpicking system. Where did that come from?

Actually, funny sidetrack here. Amazing Ampharos actually outlined a very good system for stage selection where you would never have to ban a stage. Yes, I mean "every stage legal".

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=10942650&postcount=58
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=10945038&postcount=68
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=10947891&postcount=83
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=10950553&postcount=87
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=10953338&postcount=97
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=10958326&postcount=102

In short, first characters are chosen double blinded, then revealed, then you strike from the entire stagelist (not "wide legal stagelist"; this includes every stage, although even I'd bar a stage like Warioware from it simply because the results there are so completely random). It rewards characters almost completely accurately to their ability to play on stages in brawl. Yes, you have to strike stages like GHZ and MSI against DDD. Yes, you have to strike stages like Temple and NPC against Fox. But why shouldn't you have to? They have degenerate tactics on those stages, but they don't get to use them. Ever. Unless you're sending them there because you know that you won't **** up there (and only a stupid player would do something like that; think going MSI in the DDD-Olimar matchup). Read AA's posts, it's a pretty interesting suggestion.

Stage selection is very iffy anyways, because it's not that each player chooses a stage and gets to play on it (like with characters). But this method leads to banning absolutely no stages. Which leaves, on the list of things that have to be banned:
-Perfect Planking (debatable; see if you can strike MK to a stage where it won't work permanently) and IDC or Metaknight
-Infinite stalls
-Chain Jacket Freeze Glitch

...I think that's it. It's not ideal for a competitive game, and not fully originalist (by originalist philosophy, if MK manages to get the lead and keep it until he can start IDCing or keep it via perfect planking, he earned the win). However, even the most ridiculous originalist realizes that without those bans, the game simply is not competitive material, at which point, yes, we have a choice: abandon the game or ban these issues. Now logically speaking, you should be as originalist as possible. But realistically speaking, you should be as originalist as possible to allow a good competitive game. It's proven without a doubt that such stalling is broken, so it is a necessary evil. Between that and abandon the game, I'd say it's a pretty easy choice.

However, ban as little as necessary should be the motto. And this is, as far as I'm aware, the least possible. Again, this philosophy (as originalist as realistically possible) is backed up by all of the statements placed against constructivism. The only issue is that what is absolutely necessary to remove to leave the game competitive is subjective. A pity. However, I dare you to go "lower" than this and keep it competitive. Going "higher" goes against the (as shown, better than pure constructivist) philosophy.

But hey, look at what happens when we try and think of rules: we get told it isn't competitive according to Sirlin by other people, so the only door you guys leave open for us is "abandon the game". Why hasn't the argument ever gone both ways, I wonder? If the Sirlin followers don't like the game turning scrubby, why don't THEY abandon the game instead? Just a thought.

Click to expand...

We don't abandon the game because we're right. Justification for that statement is more or less given, I suppose. Or at least, for this purpose, we see it justified to presuppose this statement. If we're wrong, then we wouldn't abandon the game either, but rather our philosophy.

We're trying to make Brawl into a fighting game, when inherently, due to many very different elements when compared to other actual fighting games, Brawl is not one of them. Brawl was also designed so that it wasn't competitive and instead was played for fun, or so people claim Sakurai said. Taking these two things into account... Isn't it possible that for our goal as the competitive Brawl community, to make Brawl competitive when it was the game designers' wish to NOT make it competitive, we'd have to impose one or two "scrubby" rules?

Click to expand...

Funny. Because get this: you can play brawl competitively while only banning one stage out of 40 (more realistically 44 due to Mario World 1-1 and 1-2 and how different the different pokemon on spear pillar are) and either one character and one tactic or just three tactics (one of which is a gamebreaking "glitch").
It may not exactly be a fighting game. But it is still competitive. To claim that designer intent goes against what is actually built into the game is rather silly, isn't it? This isn't like Mario Party, which is simply too random to ever be competitive, or Legend of Zelda, which cannot be made competitive because it's one-player only. You literally need 3 minor rules against broken tactics (and come on, SF2T/HDR, famously one of the most competitive games ever, had to ban a character!). Yes, it's scrubby. But between that and abandoning the game... Meh, I'm sticking with the game.

That doesn't mean it's all right to go around banning everything though. As said above, minimizing constructivist influence should be a goal.

If there was a game that would make a great competitive game, but the designers made it that after every match P1 would win, would we respect the game's decisions, or would we create a rule to bypass this and make this would-be great competitive game, actually playable? It would go against the designer's wishes in that we're not respecting the game's decision, we're altering it into something we want it to be.

I'm sure an example like the one above has been brought up before. It's not broken because it doesn't affect the gameplay nor does it create an overcentralization of tactics. It doesn't make the game unplayable, it's just that P1 always wins. So, the rule of creating new endgame conditions such as "the one with lowest damage when the timer runs out wins", "the one who loses all 3 stocks loses", would end up going against the designer's wishes, and against the game's decisions... A great game is hindered only by this. Would the rule be well-founded? Would it follow Sirlin's suggestions according to his write-ups?

Click to expand...

Yes, it would.
http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/what-should-be-banned.html
ctrl+f "Akuma".

That's the same thing as cultures, politics, differing laws per county, rules for games per group of people (have you ever found an universal hide-and-seek ruleset when you were a kid? It always depended on the ones who played it, yet everyone plays it just fine). And even though there might be no limit to a constructivist's philosophy, there's also the reality that there will always be limits imposed by the constructivists themselves. No constructivist would EVER suggest "shields must be banned because they are too safe", or "Jigglypuff has to take out a total of 2 stocks to win due to her killing power"(and other examples of ridiculous extents), you have to admit that it's true.

Click to expand...

Oh, it's possible. And there's no reason a rule like that would be less valid than, say, "If the timer runs out, the player with the most ground time wins". Absolutely none. Neither addresses a serious concern to the metagame or a tactic that is utterly broken, both aim to rebalance the game towards a certain goal.

They're human with a line of reasoning different than originalists, and that's it: they're not stupider or dumber because hey follow the constructivist's line of thinking, just like conservatives aren't stupider than liberals and vice-versa... It's just different ways of thinking what is best and what isn't.

We're all different, so our views on what's "best" is also different. It doesn't mean others are wrong, it just means that they have different answers for the same situation.

Click to expand...

Our views on the best is also highly subjective. The best game, competitively, however, is not subjective. It's objective. However, it's so ridiculously hard to find that we're better off not mucking around with the original game beyond what we know is heavily broken.

Different rulesets don't create different games, it creates different metagames, which is pretty much as simple as possible, strategies built around their own rulesets, or their community's preferred ways of playing.

Click to expand...

Not really. "Brawl without shielding" is a completely different game from vBrawl. It's a different game in the same sense that Brawl+ is a different game, and how BBrawl is a different game, and how Brawl- is a different game. The metagame is different, but that's because the actual game people are playing is different too. It's the same how "Brawl with stage counterpicking" is a completely different game from "Brawl with full stage striking each match".

Inherently the game's the same, people will still be able to apply everything they know about the game with no problem at all

Click to expand...

You tornado me. What do I do? Shielding is banned, after all.
My typical strategy is "aircamp and play very defensively so that the timer runs out". Now I have to completely revise my game plan because the rules say that that is an illegitimate method to win.

It's not.

(however, rules that change the win conditions of a match are pretty big changes... They should be thought out heavily and debated for a while before being released to the community). The only difference is that metagames change. Players will play differently than others in your region due to they having a different ruleset, and different things to worry about.

Click to expand...

See above.

The BBR's goal is to make a ruleset that's accepted by all so that we don't go through just that: people not used to our rules and used to their own won't have to travel to our tourneys (or us traveling there), only to find out they're being beaten down by something they had rules against in their own region. Whether or not the BBR has been getting better or worse is up for debate (although it favors the latter according to the public view of things, as well as a couple of BBR members themselves); the goal remains the same from when it was founded until today.

Click to expand...

Being accepted by all is important, but it's not gonna happen. The least scrubby ruleset under which competitive brawl is still possible is listed above. How many people are going to glance at that, say "dis ***** iz MAD" and go on banning every stage except for one, three characters, and shieldgrabs? (Yay for hyperbole, but you get my point.) I mean, they basically went out on strike when the BBR decided that PTAD, Green Greens, and the like were viable stages for competitive play.

Those are examples of people who choose not to follow Sirlin's view on what competitive should be, and have found greater success than by following Sirlin's write-ups. Pokemon is one such game, and it actually has quite a large competitive fanbase. I wouldn't say Sirlin's wrong, but this game's competitive scene formed around rules that go against Sirlin's reasoning of what competitive should be, and now their community has grown around them. Changing the rules back to 'originalist' would completely destroy the community, and there would be MANY people against such a drastic change. Would you agree that it's the best thing to do in this situation, destroying an entire competitive community simply to have them follow the "right" way?

Click to expand...

Well they've chosen not to play Pokemon, they've chosen to play a different game.

I wouldn't change it.

Well, you left out an important part here: limitations. Smart constructivists would know when to stop limiting, and what would be going "too far".

Click to expand...

No, because "too far" is completely subjective. If I think that banning every stage except FD and every character above B tier is not "too far", then that opinion is, according to constructivist theory, just as valid as people saying that banning MK/PTAD/aerial stall tactics is "too far".

Banning MK isn't THAT out of the question for example. There's controversy surrounding him, meaning that there's a chance that he might actually be bannable (as well as the opposite), so their banning of MK would actually be reasonable with the right arguments. But when they ban ICs or Falco, what real reason would they have for banning them both?

Click to expand...

Same reason as is clearly present in this rule and several others-"they're gay, we don't like them, they're stupid". Or, more in their words, "Brawl is a better competitive game without them". Which, when going with constructivist theory, is, again, completely subjective. I just got wrecked by this line of thought a little while back, ask Luxor.

EDIT: Found it. http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=282897&highlight=Wrong&page=1

(Or just skip to page 6)

I'm quite sure a hypothetical BBR in a hypothetical constructivist Brawl community would know what to ban and what not to ban, as long as their trigger finger is controlled (which should be). Banning is a last resort for both sides: if something is deemed too extreme, it's gone from the game (Global vs Surgical, they ban different things as solutions to the same problem according to what they think is right)... But only if it's deemed too extreme.

Click to expand...

Nope.

We have originalists, and we have constructivists... Global changes, and surgical changes... Liberals, and conservatives... Devout religious followers, and atheists... Which side is right and which side is wrong is completely up for debate, but I'll tell you something: you can't decide which side IS right without conclusive proof, and proof for these things is impossible to get.

Click to expand...

Global, Liberals, Atheists, Originalists. Get@me.

Comparing Originalism to such debates is faulty, mostly because there is a right answer. From a purely ideological standpoint, originalism is better. From a pragmatic standpoint, as originalist as realistically possible is the best position.

EDIT: Oh yeah and this thread has a lot of the best arguments in it. It also tells me I'm misinterpreting originalism, or OS made the same mistake I did.

EDIT2: And then he tells me it's gonna take a while for his response because he has some travelling to do. Phooey. Anyone else wanna take a shot?

Budget Player Cadet_ said:

Our views on the best is also highly subjective. The best game, competitively, however, is not subjective. It's objective. However, it's so ridiculously hard to find that we're better off not mucking around with the original game beyond what we know is heavily broken.

Click to expand...

I am not going to respond to an entire wall of texts that's orgigonalist ideals. HOWEVER I WILL RESPOND THIS



Um Best IS subjective. In fact it ALWAYS is UNLESS its data. Unfortunately who's preference (or subjective opinion) for what makes the game more competitive is what will be determined as "best". Any ultimatum will be subjective.

Also I am reminding you before hand that the only thing that is OBJECTIVE about playing to win is you should do everything legal in your power that increases your chances of winning and that your opponent should be doing the same. Anything past that is debate on what makes a game more COMPETITIVE theory not strictly "playing to win".

once again Bpc this thread is meant for other Pro players, avid tournament players, Tournament Organizers, and BBR members.

You keep saying completely irrelevant things such as let's ban falco's cg along with D3's, let's also ban mk's tornado. If you actually had any knowledge/expierence on the matters at high level play you wouldn't even begin to write up such trivial things. As they are all able to be avoided, in fact there are ways to defend nado to a point where you never even get shield poked by it.... not to add in the fact that EVERY character has a move to beat out tornado, it can also be DI'd out of on the first hit so you can just jump out. There are also ways to get around the other stuff you posted but It'd be a waste of time to tell you, for it's NOT the topic of the thread

this is why I've asked you to refrain from posting here, you aren't an avid tournament player so by default you really shouldn't be in this conversation at all. It's like a Communist/any other government party trying to have a say on who they feel should be the best canidate for president in our democratic republic.

as much as that was the purpose of this thread kadaj it is unfair to request someone not to post on a public forum on that basis alone. After all you posted it here for EVERYONE to see and comment on. As much as it is somewhat like the Government thing you also DID post this thread so they WILL have their say on it but the DEMOCRATIC government will STILL make the final decision which the foreign government will have no ultimate say over

So uh.. If the main issue is timing out, why was 3 stock chosen anyways? Competitive Brawl has shown that it's hardly fast enough to end a 3 stock match in eight entire minutes. Melee is 4, and doesn't have the same issue. Why not just like, lower stock to 2? It's dumb, but lolcamp. I bet less matches will run 8 minutes long.

Seems better than forcing every tournament to be an entire hour longer.

..Or we could just ban Metaknight. But that still won't solve the entire issue.

Raziek said:

Kadaj, you realize that unless you plank, everything you just said works against Timing out, yet you choose to weaken it just because you don't like it.

It doesn't take a genius to see that the philosophy behind this ruleset is FLAWED, and is really only adopted because his community likes it. That doesn't make it the wrong choice for HIS community, but it does make it logically flawed in the field of debate.

I'm also getting sick of people dismissing BPC because he lacks tournament experience. Most of what he argues against is just LOGIC, which you don't have to attend a tournament to be able to disprove.

I attend and host tournaments, and I still disagree with this ruleset for pretty much the same reasons.

Click to expand...

If he was also less rude with his posts and belittling others in every post people might listen more.

I have a few questions,

1) What is the goal of this new ruleset?

2) What are the pros and cons to it in theory?

3.) Do you see the tier list and meta game changing because of it alone?

I want answers from people really supporting this rule set, because I can't support it unless I see real legit reasoning.

The BOLD REQUIREMENT MUST BE MET 1st!!!!

Sirloin may as well have been law. He never said what the ideals of a competitive fighter are. His only assertion of a competitive game was one that is skill based enough that the "best" players can consistently win.

Its pretty easy to understand that you take the game as it comes. If you want to play ultimate fighter you wait for it to come out or create it yourself. Things such as adding the time limit and using stocks instead of bonus rules and no items are the agreed upon best game ruleset. Nothing more, nothing less.

The game should be left completely as it came and additional rules that govern the way in which players play it are ONLY necessary when it destroys the competitive integrity of the game. What this means:

-A technique that is soooo good, it is virtually unbeatable and the only way to beat it is to use the same technique but do it better.
-An aspect of the game that at top levels of exploitation make the game unplayable.
-In rare occasions things can be considered "overpowered". This is more subjective than the other two but its usually agreed upon by the community.

Another problem that often occurs-You need to be able to isolate the issue. So you cant say camping is banned for example. You cant prove camping intent and you cant define it well enough as an isolated incident.

Whatever you guys are trying to do with this rule thing is flawed from its logical principals. You have not Proven or even proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the techniques you want to ban are broken. Its very very hard to put external rules on a game than govern live gameplay. MOST(like 98%) cases its unwarranted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kadaj-Its been said multiple times. BCP doesnt need knowledge about the game past a very basic level to logically attack your proposed ruleset.

Over and over and over again ppl keep coming up with things they want to take out the game because they are hard to beat. Most of the time these things stem from MK or at least he is one of the best(at everything lmao). IMHO the best solution other than manning up and playing the game without politics is to ban MK. I dont support that either.

You guys are really unhappy with brawl but to stubborn to admit it.

B4 you make any rule changes you need to have the discussion on why X technique is TOO good/Broken/unbeatable. You are going to need tournament results that prove that x strategy is too good. And even then, you are gonna need to go past this is just the BEST way to play the game. Playing mad gay sounds like the best way to play brawl, because its a gay game. You cant turn apples into oranges unless you are sakurai. This is the 3rd game in the series and my 2nd favorite, but competitively the one with the most controversy surrounding its rulesets.

You need to put your reason for banning a particular technique in the OP. So far your reasons are it forces ppl to fight, ppl will have less incentive to timeout(completely untrue), makes some characters more viable(by actually politically limiting some of the options the best character have).

That is all HIGHLY subjective and isnt supported by any sort of actual logic whatsoever. Yes it would make the game more favorable, but its not your call to make to determine how the game SHOULD be played. MK is the best character but time and time again he is proven he can be beaten. So work on proving the brokenness of what you are trying to ban first. Otherwise this discussion is pointless.

_kadaj_ said:

once again Bpc this thread is meant for other Pro players, avid tournament players, Tournament Organizers, and BBR members.

Click to expand...

Well, ya got me. Tough ****. I told you my condition for leaving the thread, and it's completely reasonable (and you and TKD would each get a coupon for one free blowjob as an added bonus)-you just haven't fulfilled it.

You keep saying completely irrelevant things such as let's ban falco's cg along with D3's, let's also ban mk's tornado. If you actually had any knowledge/expierence on the matters at high level play you wouldn't even begin to write up such trivial things.

Click to expand...

Are you even reading what I'm saying? I'm NOT saying to ban those things. I'm saying that adding such rules are just as arbitrary and just as ridiculous as the rule you are proposing. It's essentially taking a facet of the game you don't like and yet is not broken or a real problem (aerial camping and timing out, in this case) and deciding, "Yep, let's get rid of this". It's a completely subjective decision, and just as valid as banning a random character who we just don't like because we don't like them.

If aircamping was actually a broken strategy, or if with the current ruleset we had aircamping characters timing people out left and right (I set the bar around 50% of all high-level matches ending in a timeout due above all to excessive aircamping, which is fairly reasonable when you're going to deem that a tactic is broken; MK has around that and he's definitely legal), then you'd have something of a leg to stand on, but it isn't, so you don't.

As they are all able to be avoided, in fact there are ways to defend nado to a point where you never even get shield poked by it.... not to add in the fact that EVERY character has a move to beat out tornado, it can also be DI'd out of on the first hit so you can just jump out. There are also ways to get around the other stuff you posted but It'd be a waste of time to tell you, for it's NOT the topic of the thread

Click to expand...

Again, you merely missed the point of the arguments. The point was not to actually ban those things (a ludicrous idea). The point was to compare things that are equally ludicrous, and which would be perfectly fine with the precedent set by this rule.

this is why I've asked you to refrain from posting here, you aren't an avid tournament player so by default you really shouldn't be in this conversation at all. It's like a Communist/any other government party trying to have a say on who they feel should be the best canidate for president in our democratic republic.

Click to expand...

You shouldn't post here because you aren't paying attention to what I'm saying. And no, your comparison is bad. It's like a well-informed immigrant citizen who hopes to soon be able to vote commenting on the best candidate. I plan to go to tournaments as soon as I am capable of it/things happen near me. I play serious wifi, at least as serious as you can get on wifi. I am sincerely interested in the state of brawl, as it affects me partially (if this rule gets pushed, how long until it spreads to wifi tards who think it's a good idea?), and I'm hoping it will not affect a group I hope to become a part of.

Raziek said:

I'm also getting sick of people dismissing BPC because he lacks tournament experience. Most of what he argues against is just LOGIC, which you don't have to attend a tournament to be able to disprove.

Click to expand...

You and me both, buddy.

This thread is getting nuts. We have no need for all these rules if we just ban mk. It would be so simple.

Like BPC, I'm not a tournament player, but I never will be. I'm coming in to comment on this because I feel like I have to get involved. Oh, and feel free to attack my validity.

KAOSTAR said:

Over and over and over again ppl keep coming up with things they want to take out the game because they are hard to beat. Most of the time these things stem from MK or at least he is one of the best(at everything lmao). IMHO the best solution other than manning up and playing the game without politics is to ban MK. I dont support that either.

You guys are really unhappy with brawl but to stubborn to admit it.

Click to expand...

And this is what pisses me off with the Brawl community. Have people gotten so lazy these days that they aren't trying to figure out what's wrong with their game or figure out how to get around a problem in general? Another thing that ticks me off is that the best way to play, "gay", is looked so down upon that it's ridiculous. If you want to play a more offensive game, go play Melee or BlazBlue, the game itself penalizes doing nothing but running away.

All this rule is really doing, to me at least, is just running away from the game's problems. I can only imagine what it would be like had chess been released in this day and age. Then again, I found this quote:

People would patch chess now adays if it had just been invented. "pawns are so weak" "Queens are OP! There better than the King!" please fix!

Click to expand...

BPC has never insulted you guys. If you get insulted for being beaten in a polite debate, then please don't argue at all.

Ahvena, see page one. I did insult them. Then I realized the incredulous, knee-jerk "ARE YOU ****ING STUPID" tack wasn't working (shame really), so I decided to try logical arguments against the rule.

Well TBH no matter what we say or do here this rule won't be used. It's like the MK ban discussion, nothing ever happens. It's pointless but yet we cannot resist.

Ahvena said:

BPC has never insulted you guys. If you get insulted for being beaten in a polite debate, then please don't argue at all.

Click to expand...

lol, you've GOT to be trolling now.

Well he had a good reason to do it when you guys ***** about him

MK must be laughing somewhere in some parallel dimension at this. I really think he gets off on it.

Ahvena said:

Well he had a good reason to do it when you guys ***** about him

Click to expand...

lol, you can go back to the first page and see him start insulting everyone before anyone even notices him.
And most of the people "*****ing about him" in this thread are BECAUSE he insults everyone. Not the other way around.

You're not a very good troll.

Whatever, show me some quotes.

Are you illiterate?

Serious question.

Nope, just lazy.

Ahvena said:

Whatever, show me some quotes.

Click to expand...

Budget Player Cadet_ said:

Are you ****ing INSANE? If you read that blog, you read the comments. It appears you are honestly supporting the "if time runs out, whoever has the most ground time wins" rule. If you are not, then I apologize; if you are however, then you officially just lost all credibility as far as creating competitive rulesets go. That rule is a slap in the fact to originalists (there are plenty of them; look around), and a slap in the face to both campy play by characters that aren't falco, ICs, or Diddy and safe play by anyone who enjoys the air as a safer location. The rule has been pretty soundly destroyed. In general, there's virtually no argument beyond "BAWWW MK IS 2 GUD" for the rule, and even then there are countless scenarios where it can be shown that it doesn't solves the issue, and that the cons heavily outweigh the pros if you are in it to abuse the rule. It's a ****ing ******** rule, this has been explained in depth before.
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=10545837&postcount=33
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=10546244&postcount=36
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=10723773&postcount=78

Regarding the timer:
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=10728193&postcount=86

STOP ACTING LIKE THE GAME GOING TO TIME IS A BAD THING.

Click to expand...

His first post I might add, #3 post in the thread.

Col. Stauffenberg said:

lol, you've GOT to be trolling now.

Click to expand...

I don't agree with insulting people in an intelligent debate.

but scrubby **** was going down. based on my understanding of the word, alot of people have scrub mentalities. again, has NOTHING to do with skill.

stop being sensitive. you should have just disproved his argument instead of Q_Q.

his insults didn't make his argument any less valid. imo just poor use of loaded language, I don't think his intent was to offend or hurt anyone's feelings.(he should apologize)

seems like some members need to hit puberty. brawlers are sometimes on the younger side and maybe lack the mental capacity or maturity for these kinds of debates.

no offense to anyone (seriously)

Saying are you ****ing insane is no insulting. It's just his reaction towards something and the next thing he explains why. Also calling a rule ******** is no less of an insult than you saying 75m is ********.

TKD said:

The word you're looking for is "different". And this "different" version of the game is more balanced and entertaining. Besides that I don't have strong enough arguments to change your already set game-play dynamics. TJ doesn't have a reason to change back to win by % either, which to me doesn't mean the other rule's stupid.

Click to expand...

Entertaining is subjective.
More balanced? Snake ends up top tier, so does DD, Sonic gets a boost, MK falls, marth falls, Falco gets a boost.
THIS ISNT BALANCED AT ALL!
YOU WANT BALANCED!> PLAY SC OR GG.

If there is NOTHING WRONG with a rule, why in the hell would you change it?
This is what I have been asking repeatedly.

WHYYYYYYYYYYYYY.

Very few matches go to time, so it obviously isn't overcentralizing.
Stop crying because you don't like a tactic and play the friggin game.

The only time rules should be changed is in the event that there is an actual issue.
If only 10% of all matches go to time, then the issue isn't timeouts.
Timeouts are a legitimate method of winning.

I forgot this thread was called, "How BPC insults people."

Seriously, stay on topic. Find something to talk about that isn't about BPC and how he posts. If it's a really big deal to you, just ignore him, but don't repetitively point it out.

KAOSTAR said:

I don't agree with insulting people in an intelligent debate.

but scrubby **** was going down. based on my understanding of the word, alot of people have scrub mentalities. again, has NOTHING to do with skill.

stop being sensitive. you should have just disproved his argument instead of Q_Q.

his insults didn't make his argument any less valid. imo just poor use of loaded language, I don't think his intent was to offend or hurt anyone's feelings.(he should apologize)

seems like some members need to hit puberty. brawlers are sometimes on the younger side and maybe lack the mental capacity or maturity for these kinds of debates.

no offense to anyone (seriously)

Click to expand...

You're still trolling here too?

Christ, it never ends.

Calling someone insane is an insult.

Budget Player Cadet_ said:

Okay first of all I'm not even arguing against the stagelist here. I'm arguing the ground time rule which is beyond ********. Anyone who doesn't see that is equally ********. The fact that so much of our community is that scrubby, and that this includes massive regions and top players says a lot about brawl as a game. It's ****ing disgusting!

inb4umad, yes, I'm mad. Just how ridiculously scrubby this community is is gross. I love the smash games, but honesty, if I wanted a sane community, I'd go for just about any other game. I severely doubt that any competitive game has a community that is this scrubby. Even if their normals are this scrubby, their ****ing higher-ups and pros aren't. The posters here and on AiB are the SRK equivalent of a ****wad *****ing about Zangief buffering 360s out of everything and winning every match who wants zangief banned because he's cheap. That's what you guys are, and it sickens me to my ****ing core. I mean, I could see **** like this coming from scrubs with 2-3 posts who are bad at the game *****ing about metaknight. But from THE VERY TOP OF THE LADDER IN THIS COMMUNITY?????? ****ing weak. ****ING. WEAK.

Click to expand...

Sounds like he's insulting our community, wither it's justified or not is not the issue.

Budget Player Cadet_ said:

Are you ****ing INSANE? If you read that blog, you read the comments. It appears you are honestly supporting the "if time runs out, whoever has the most ground time wins" rule. If you are not, then I apologize; if you are however, then you officially just lost all credibility as far as creating competitive rulesets go. That rule is a slap in the fact to originalists (there are plenty of them; look around), and a slap in the face to both campy play by characters that aren't falco, ICs, or Diddy and safe play by anyone who enjoys the air as a safer location. The rule has been pretty soundly destroyed. In general, there's virtually no argument beyond "BAWWW MK IS 2 GUD" for the rule, and even then there are countless scenarios where it can be shown that it doesn't solves the issue, and that the cons heavily outweigh the pros if you are in it to abuse the rule. It's a ****ing ******** rule, this has been explained in depth before.
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=10545837&postcount=33
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=10546244&postcount=36
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=10723773&postcount=78

Regarding the timer:
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=10728193&postcount=86

STOP ACTING LIKE THE GAME GOING TO TIME IS A BAD THING.

Click to expand...

Budget Player Cadet_ said:

Okay first of all I'm not even arguing against the stagelist here. I'm arguing the ground time rule which is beyond ********. Anyone who doesn't see that is equally ********. The fact that so much of our community is that scrubby, and that this includes massive regions and top players says a lot about brawl as a game. It's ****ing disgusting!

inb4umad, yes, I'm mad. Just how ridiculously scrubby this community is is gross. I love the smash games, but honesty, if I wanted a sane community, I'd go for just about any other game. I severely doubt that any competitive game has a community that is this scrubby. Even if their normals are this scrubby, their ****ing higher-ups and pros aren't. The posters here and on AiB are the SRK equivalent of a ****wad *****ing about Zangief buffering 360s out of everything and winning every match who wants zangief banned because he's cheap. That's what you guys are, and it sickens me to my ****ing core. I mean, I could see **** like this coming from scrubs with 2-3 posts who are bad at the game *****ing about metaknight. But from THE VERY TOP OF THE LADDER IN THIS COMMUNITY?????? ****ing weak. ****ING. WEAK.

Click to expand...

This is just one post out of many laden with profanity, I might consider going to the BBR rulest thread if I want to find more. People will not take posts seriously if they are antagonistic

You are being very harsh at BPC, he speaks for the truth and backs up his arguments. You fail to prove him wrong so you resort to flaming. Well this the internet, only like 2 ppl can argue for real.

serious question:

Do people legitimately think im trolling? am I not bringing up valid points?

FYI-"are you insane?" is a question derived from his impression of you. its not an insult. he didn't call you insane. you can take it as an insult but thats on you.

the other ones tho....lol

So when ADHD seriously trolled/insulted/whatever BPC it was legit because he goes to tournies.