Pictochat needs to be legalized for our ruleset to have consistency.

Arcansi said:

I get you, and that's why I'm arguing consistency instead of legality.

Your whole argument applies, albeit less, to a mixture of YI and Halberd(because you can see the possibility of a hazard coming in the claw. nothing is garaunteed.)

Click to expand...

That's why I'm fine with YI being legal while Pictochat being banned.

Halberd isn't even comparable to the other 2. The fact that you can see the claw winding up or the targeting sight well before they attack gives players enough warning to do something about it, compared to YI and Pictochat's instant actions.

Arcansi said:

So maybe if those weren't legal, your argument wouldn't be disproven simply because every scenario you bring up can happen in essence on a different legal stage.

Click to expand...

T-Block said:

-you are at 150% on pictochat, and the opponent throws you with a non-lethal throw that turns lethal because of the plant

Click to expand...

That can happen on YI?

No, you already know whether or not the throw is going to be lethal before it is even performed. YI doesn't turn the throw non-lethal, the throw is either deadly or not at that %.

BSP said:

No, you already know whether or not the throw is going to be lethal before it is even performed. YI doesn't turn the throw non-lethal, the throw is either deadly or not at that %.

Click to expand...

Because it's impossible to tech wolf's dthrow at lethal percents on the platform, right?

Also, see that consistency doesn't care about how much it affects anything, just wether or not it does.

This was gone over in my infinites thread, so I know this is how the URC supports consistency.

Which is why my argument exists.

when the hell is wolf's d-throw ever lethal lol

bsp, you missed my point... i was comparing the situation where pictochat takes your stock with you at 150% to the situation where YI saves your opponent's stock with him at 10%. i argue that the second case actually has a much larger impact on the match.

Arcansi said:

Because it's impossible to tech wolf's dthrow at lethal percents on the platform, right?

Click to expand...

I'll check this at the ledge to see whether or not you can still just tech it on the stage.

But good luck ever finding an example of this. I applaud you if you do.

And to avoid the problem completely, Wolf could just Fthrow. Unlike Pictochat, the Wolf player knows that the platform could show up. He has ONE option to prepare for, and he could act accordingly.

Arcansi said:

Also, see that consistency doesn't care about how much it affects anything, just wether or not it does.

This was gone over in my infinites thread, so I know this is how the URC supports consistency.

Which is why my argument exists.

Click to expand...

Ok, if this is true, I guess you're right for the URC's case. You're better off asking them.

I worry about how much of an effect the stage can have though.

T-block said:

when the hell is wolf's d-throw ever lethal lol

bsp, you missed my point... i was comparing the situation where pictochat takes your stock with you at 150% to the situation where YI saves your opponent's stock with him at 10%. i argue that the second case actually has a much larger impact on the match.

Click to expand...

Actually, I got your point, but I didn't feel like typing out an example situation when you already had it sitting there

And I'm not going to lie, being saved from 10% by the ghost when you would have otherwise died is a big deal (it actually happened to one of my opponents yesterday), but I still see Pictochat as having more potential for messing with the outcome of the match. It can do similar things to what YI can do, but it can also do more, and it's not isolated to two spots.

Here's how I see it:

Yi can save you from a low % gimp - this is huge

Pictochat has a parallel to that situation -- the line gimps you at zero, or ends your stock at a % much earlier than normal due to a hazard

Both of these should be viewed as equally bad (taking stock vs saving stock)

But Pictochat can also have things like this:

[COLLAPSE=examples]
the vertical spikes appear when I have you grabbed - I KO you earlier
The spikes on the sides appear and I can combo you from throw -> spikes -> death
D3 is Dthrowing me and a wall appears - free % for him
The face on the right side appears when I'm recovering - I'm now forced to the ledge to recover
I'm launched vertically, and on my decent, platforms appear - I get a safe landing option now
[/COLLAPSE]

So while YI has one potential huge effect on the match, Picto has a that and more :\ and you can't see any of it coming. I see the isolation of YI (and the ability to avoid all of this by just KO'ing upwards) as a factor that can keep it separate from pictochat.

I'm a melee player and when I saw the title of the thread I thought it referred to actual Pictochat on the DS.

BSP said:

I'll check this at the ledge to see whether or not you can still just tech it on the stage.

But good luck ever finding an example of this. I applaud you if you do.

And to avoid the problem completely, Wolf could just Fthrow. Unlike Pictochat, the Wolf player knows that the platform could show up. He has ONE option to prepare for, and he could act accordingly.

Click to expand...

So what your saying is... Don't [down throw] when that [ghost] is about to pop up even though you won't know it's the one?
Bizkit047 1 year ago 5

About me asking the URC. This is basically what this thread does. Nationals and most regionals are basically garaunteed to be running Unity, so it's usually best to ask the public.

I flagged down DeLux earlier today, though.

I don't understand how having Yoshi's Island Legal is reason to have Pictochat legal on the consistency argument.
They are not the same stage >_>

DeLux said:

I don't understand how having Yoshi's Island Legal is reason to have Pictochat legal on the consistency argument.
They are not the same stage >_>

Click to expand...

Unavoidable randomness directly affecting the outcome of a match = Unavoidable randomness directly affecting the outcome of a match.

Statistically speaking, Yoshi's Island Brawl is used nearly universally. I can only remember on tournament since I've been keeping tabs on rule usage that didn't have YIB as a legal stage.

Pictochat on the other hand, is almost universally banned. It is banned in the URS which we'll disregard for the sake of the argument and merely consider non-URS tournaments. Pictochat was legal in less than 15% of non-URS tournaments, which is 15% of a 45% group of tournaments that were non-URS in comparison to the 55% URS.

From a consistency standpoint, adopting Pictochat as a stage in the standard ruleset would be inconsistent since it's one of the stages that is nearly universally banned throughout standard tournament play. This is compared in direct contrast to Yoshi's Island Brawl which is nearly universally accepted.

Edit: Actually, 15% might be a loose number. I was mentioning tournaments with expanded stage lists. I might actually be smaller than 15 since it's Pictochat specifically and not an expanded stage list.

DeLux said:

Statistically speaking, Yoshi's Island Brawl is used nearly universally. I can only remember on tournament since I've been keeping tabs on rule usage that didn't have YIB as a legal stage.

Pictochat on the other hand, is almost universally banned.[other reiteration stuff]

Click to expand...

Ok, true. But by the same token that removing one low risk high reward combo would lead to inconsistency issues unless you didn't remove them all, removing one random game changing disruption of a match leads to inconsistencies if you don't remove them all.

The argument still holds that a majority of tournaments have infinites legal, both URS and non-URS tournaments. The rate at which stand infinites were banned was somewhere around the same 15% of the 45% of non-URS tournaments.

Don't get me wrong, I'm totally circumventing your argument because I'd actually agree with you based on how you define consistency. However, the definition of consistency is subjectively up for debate and in terms of actions with the URC, I think mine is the best way to go about forming a national standard for rules without forcing whatever ideology down someone else's throat.

Arcansi said:

So what your saying is... Don't [down throw] when that [ghost] is about to pop up even though you won't know it's the one?
Bizkit047 1 year ago 5

Click to expand...

No, that's not what I'm saying.

You know exactly what could happen when you're wolf and you're about to throw your opponent on YI. You know the ghost could come, it's the only possibility. Thus, you don't dthrow because you know what could happen.

On pictochat, you don't know what's coming next, and you could be wrong. And what's worse, when you take action to avoid the hazard that you're guessing is coming, you can get punished.

BSP said:

You know exactly what could happen when you're wolf and you're about to throw your opponent on YI. You know the ghost could come, it's the only possibility. Thus, you don't dthrow because you know what could happen.

Click to expand...

wait wait, you know it could happen, but that's not the only possibility. The other possibilities are that it comes up on the other side, or doesn't come up at all.

BSP said:

On pictochat, you don't know what's coming next, and you could be wrong. And what's worse, when you take action to avoid the hazard that you're guessing is coming, you can get punished.

Click to expand...

You don't know which side it's going to come up on, and you could be wrong.

When wolf fthrows instead of dthrows because of ghost, he is definitely getting punished. He's not getting maximum damage out of the situation.

DeLux said:

The argument still holds that a majority of tournaments have infinites legal, both URS and non-URS tournaments. The rate at which stand infinites were banned was somewhere around the same 15% of the 45% of non-URS tournaments.

Click to expand...

ok.

DeLux said:

Don't get me wrong, I'm totally circumventing your argument because I'd actually agree with you based on how you define consistency. However, the definition of consistency is subjectively up for debate and in terms of actions with the URC, I think mine is the best way to go about forming a national standard for rules without forcing whatever ideology down someone else's throat.

Click to expand...

So what your saying is, the URC doesn't care about competitiveness, and only does what the public wants, because they want it. Legitimately, I could probably either get the stage legalized in my area or cut my area in two in the process. But it wouldn't matter, because of how you guys seem to operate, which is ok.

However, your post is seriously messed up. As far as I know, the definition of consisitency is: con·sist·en·cy
   [kuhn-sis-tuhn-see]
noun, plural -cies.
1.
a degree of density, firmness, viscosity, etc.: The liquid has the consistency of cream.
2.
steadfast adherence to the same principles, course, form, etc.: There is consistency in his pattern of behavior.
3.
agreement, harmony, or compatibility, especially correspondence or uniformity among the parts of a complex thing: consistency of colors throughout the house.
4.
the condition of cohering or holding together and retaining form; solidity or firmness.

We would also probably be using 2 or 3 in all of these situations.

I'm going to assume when you agree with me you think picto should be legal, because that's what it seems like your saying.

But can you please defend how moving down a logical and proveable patch ripe with evidence and backing is forcing ideology down someones throat?

BSP said:

You can't expect both of us to just sit back every time the screen goes blank.

Click to expand...

Why not?
Seriously, you could avoid those situations if you do not take the risk of getting grabbed and randomly increase your opponent's reward. As in, let any transformation to appear and act after that.
That is, of course, if you do not want to take the risk, there's nothing wrong if you DO take risks: you either get massive reward or massive punishment. Just do not complain if they did not favour you.


Directly respondig this because this was made by quoting me:

Falco vs. Diddy

So if I'm Falco and I'm sent off to the left, the stage is blank, and the line hasn't appeared yet, I'm supposed to phantasm straight into the waiting Diddy, putting myself further in harms way, because of something that may or may not happen?

Click to expand...

That one example is what I see on Frigate everyday. Sorry if, in my opinion, there's nothing wrong with any of them.

If I'm thrown to the right side and the Wind Face hasn't appeared yet, I need to recover high just in case the face appears and forces me to the ledge?

This is why I can't take the stage seriously

Click to expand...

Or stay in the air and wait for something to happen. If it did not, take risks.
Overall, the stage is a massive risk-bait, you should always avoid situations that forces you to take them, but in the end is impossible to avoid all of them. This is why it is important to force your opponent to be in them and trying to reduce yours.
Stage is VERY complex, and maybe it is hard to deal with. I am yet to see something that could not be avoided.

Also, recovery situations aren't that bad, offstage space is so small here that most characters shouldn't have problem recoveryng by using their second jump wisely.

BSP said:

Here's how I see it:

Yi can save you from a low % gimp - this is huge

Pictochat has a parallel to that situation -- the line gimps you at zero, or ends your stock at a % much earlier than normal due to a hazard

Both of these should be viewed as equally bad (taking stock vs saving stock)

But Pictochat can also have things like this:

[COLLAPSE=examples]
the vertical spikes appear when I have you grabbed - I KO you earlier
The spikes on the sides appear and I can combo you from throw -> spikes -> death
D3 is Dthrowing me and a wall appears - free % for him
The face on the right side appears when I'm recovering - I'm now forced to the ledge to recover
I'm launched vertically, and on my decent, platforms appear - I get a safe landing option now
[/COLLAPSE]

So while YI has one potential huge effect on the match, Picto has a that and more :\ and you can't see any of it coming. I see the isolation of YI (and the ability to avoid all of this by just KO'ing upwards) as a factor that can keep it separate from pictochat.

Click to expand...

Objectively speakingm both have interferred on the match result.
We do not have a bar that says when it is too much or not. We do not have a standard or a way to tell objectively if something is "too much".

In the end, is all a game of liking or not.

DeLux said:

I don't understand how having Yoshi's Island Legal is reason to have Pictochat legal on the consistency argument.

Click to expand...

Me neither, I'm merely defending Pictochat as a stage. I'm not even arguing its legality, just trying to tell people that they might be wrong with the way the criticize the stage.

Click to expand...

kyokoro_pamuyo said:

Me neither, I'm merely defending Pictochat as a stage. I'm not even arguing its legality, just trying to tell people that they might be wrong with the way the criticize the stage.

Click to expand...

Hey, he does now. And so should you, logically.

:fluttershy:

No, it means I'd rather not go into a long ideological debate based on criteria evaluation because I know the effort it would take and suffice it for myself to say despite how hard you would make, I don't think you'd be right in the end >_>

@kyo: So let's say you and I are playing on Pictochat. I don't know how good you are at this game, but ur prolly better than me so we'll assume that to be the case. So we're fighting and whatnot, and the stage goes blank. Since I know you're prolly going to win, cuz you're a better player, and I also know you wanna wait for the stage to change before engaging, I decide to charge at you and mess with you. Now I'm FORCING you into the high risk/high reward situation you did not wanna be in. So the match plays out, and I continue hassling you every time the stage is blank, but as luck would have it, the random *** stage keeps favoring me. Every time I get a grab on you, some lethal hazard shows up and gives me a free kill. You grab me, and walls appear to keep me from dying. I end up winning, even though you outplayed me for a vast majority of the match, but randomness gave me the win. Sound like something you want in tournament? Most people wouldn't.

PrivateJoker-Brown said:

@kyo: So let's say you and I are playing on Pictochat. I don't know how good you are at this game, but ur prolly better than me so we'll assume that to be the case. So we're fighting and whatnot, and the stage goes blank. Since I know you're prolly going to win, cuz you're a better player, and I also know you wanna wait for the stage to change before engaging, I decide to charge at you and mess with you. Now I'm FORCING you into the high risk/high reward situation you did not wanna be in. So the match plays out, and I continue hassling you every time the stage is blank, but as luck would have it, the random *** stage keeps favoring me. Every time I get a grab on you, some lethal hazard shows up and gives me a free kill. You grab me, and walls appear to keep me from dying. I end up winning, even though you outplayed me for a vast majority of the match, but randomness gave me the win. Sound like something you want in tournament? Most people wouldn't.

Click to expand...

Except, I'm not stupid, and neither is kyo.

So I just plank the right side of the stage for the 5 seconds a transformation could appear and I'm fine.

Any character can do this, based on the fact that they have an lgl.

DeLux said:

No, it means I'd rather not go into a long ideological debate based on criteria evaluation because I know the effort it would take and suffice it for myself to say despite how hard you would make, I don't think you'd be right in the end >_>

Click to expand...

And would I make it hard unjustly? From what I've seen and been told, most of the stuff I do is merely asking for proof on unproven things and challenging status quo's. That doesn't seem unjust at all.

Like, I'm trying to achieve things here, mainly a higher overall standard of community knowledge. And I don't really get why your preventing this willingly. I'm trying to learn and your saying no because I would challenge what you say?

sigh >_>

Give me a day or two to decide if I really really really really really have to be the one to do this. I'm sure other people can do it for me in less direct routes

So you're gonna stay on the right side of the stage for the whole match, just so you can plank every time you need to? I'm not gonna be able to ever keep you away from that spot during the 5 second intervals you want to be there?

Seems legit

A) I'm pretty bad at this game, but everyone else here is apparently worse so I use to place well... whatever.

B) Adaptation is bliss. Not losing focus is godlike. In an adverse situation like that, getting mad at the stage is the least thing I'd do.

C) If you keep getting bonuses and rewards I'm probably doing something wrong. I'm yet to be in a extreme situation like that (or watch people in them) to change my mind. That means I could change my mind if something really, really, reaaaaaaaaaally bad happens.

D)However,

PrivateJoker-Brown said:

Sound like something you want in tournament? Most people wouldn't.

Click to expand...

Here's where I find the flaw in your argument: subjective inconsistency.
It's all reduced to stuff that people like or not.
Objectively speaking, there's nothing wrong with the stage, or a way to tell if someone "outplayed" the other player.

PrivateJoker-Brown said:

So you're gonna stay on the right side of the stage for the whole match, just so you can plank every time you need to? I'm not gonna be able to ever keep you away from that spot during the 5 second intervals you want to be there?

Seems legit

Click to expand...

No, I'm going to move there during the 15 seconds before those 5 seconds where I want to plank.

Strong Bad said:

Most rulesets try to compromise and appease everyone by having a middleground for stage ban criteria when in reality it just makes both sides pissed off. Go hard or go home. Set a ban criteria and ban everything that meets it.
IMO, Smashville, FD, and BF are really the only stages you need. YI:B and Lylat if you want more, but I advise against it.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately everyone is ok being pissed off. And the URC has no motivation to change it, as far as I've been told.

needs delete option

Actually, Arcansi, don't even respond, we're not going to get anywhere. I've got my opinion on how much stage intrusiveness is too much, and if a stage requires my entrants to always be on the right edge planking when a drawing appears to avoid the intrusiveness with no warning, the stage is going to be banned in my tournaments.

kyokoro_pamuyo said:

In the end, is all a game of liking or not.

Click to expand...

BSP said:

I'm getting punished for making a decision even though I had no way to predict what the stage was about to do.

Click to expand...

And so does wolf in the situation. It's no different in concept.

BSP said:

And still, this example we're using, Wolf's Dthrow, is isolated to the extreme ledges of YI, while Pictochat's intrusiveness is still stage-wide. I still think that separates them.

Click to expand...

They're seperated, yeah.

I feel like Kyokoro is right in the end. This is where I always end up on Pictochat talks. I still think Picto is worse though.[/QUOTE]

And it's worse, yeah. But as I've already said, consistency doesn't care as a concept.

:fluttershy:

For some people maybe :\

BSP said:

For some people maybe :\

Click to expand...

What are you responding to when you say this?

To this

Arcansi said:

And it's worse, yeah. But as I've already said, consistency doesn't care as a concept.

Click to expand...

I clicked on this thread without looking at who the OP was and was astoundingly confused as to why post #1 was completely missing.

Now I know why!

Thanks for saving me the trouble by posting your tripe in the League thread first.

As to the topic: This stage offers nothing meaningful to the game that CV / FD / BF do not already add. No reason to legalize!

BSP said:

To this

Click to expand...

Logical concepts don't vary from person to person. see: the definition of consistency I posted earlier.

Thiocyanide said:

As to the topic: This stage offers nothing meaningful to the game that CV / FD / BF do not already add. No reason to legalize!

Click to expand...

Please note: this wasn't on topic.

"steadfast adherence to the same principles, course, form, etc.:"

Well, as I'm sure you've figured out, I see YI and Pictochat in two separate areas of intrusiveness, and I've put my line in-between there. IMO I'm not making any double standard.

Or maybe I'm missing something

just throwing in my sideline comments

DeLux said:

Statistically speaking, Yoshi's Island Brawl is used nearly universally. I can only remember on tournament since I've been keeping tabs on rule usage that didn't have YIB as a legal stage.

Pictochat on the other hand, is almost universally banned. It is banned in the URS which we'll disregard for the sake of the argument and merely consider non-URS tournaments. Pictochat was legal in less than 15% of non-URS tournaments, which is 15% of a 45% group of tournaments that were non-URS in comparison to the 55% URS.

From a consistency standpoint, adopting Pictochat as a stage in the standard ruleset would be inconsistent since it's one of the stages that is nearly universally banned throughout standard tournament play. This is compared in direct contrast to Yoshi's Island Brawl which is nearly universally accepted.

Edit: Actually, 15% might be a loose number. I was mentioning tournaments with expanded stage lists. I might actually be smaller than 15 since it's Pictochat specifically and not an expanded stage list.

Click to expand...

uhh... arcansi isn't talking about consistency in terms of history of legality, so why even bring this up? besides, fallacious appeal to tradition, etc. etc.

BSP said:

No, that's not what I'm saying.

You know exactly what could happen when you're wolf and you're about to throw your opponent on YI. You know the ghost could come, it's the only possibility. Thus, you don't dthrow because you know what could happen.

On pictochat, you don't know what's coming next, and you could be wrong. And what's worse, when you take action to avoid the hazard that you're guessing is coming, you can get punished.

Click to expand...

i think the way you frame this is flawed

there's really no clear cut difference between

-ghost could come up, ghost could not come up
-drawing A could appear, drawing B could appear, drawing C could appear, drawing D could appear

the difference is that the second is HARDER to predict, but again there's no absolute there. it's theoretically possible (and not impractical imo) to calculate the relevant probabilities and weigh risk reward even on pictochat, but nobody does it. in other words, sure, you don't KNOW what's coming next on pictochat, but in exactly the same way, you don't KNOW what's coming on YI (ie- whether the platform will show up). or, you could say that you DO know what's coming on YI (ie - that the platform will either show or it won't), but in exactly the same way, you do KNOW what's coming on pictochat (exactly one of a given number of drawings will appear, or no drawing will appear). the possibilities on pictochat are still discrete, just no longer binary =\

anyways, that's not to say that i disagree with the distinction. you're saying the difference is that on YI, there's virtually no downside to attempting to predict the stage, whereas such attempts on pictochat could put you in disadvantageous positions. i think you're absolutely correct in stating that distinction.

i just question why that distinction matters. if we acknowledge that YI saving your opponent at 0% is essentially as "bad" as pictochat taking your stock at 0%, and we acknowledge that it is not outside the realm of possibility or even probability that these events CAN happen on both stages, then when we look at the big picture, why does it matter HOW the randomness affects the match when in the end, all that matters is that it DOES affect the match?

and of course, all that leads back to the point i keep stressing: that frequency of events MUST be weighed when comparing the two stages if there is to be a case to have YI legal with pictochat banned. yet opponents of pictochat constantly gloss over any mention of frequency and try to differentiate between the two stages based on arbitrary criteria that don't even make a difference in the grand scheme of things.

NOW, something you've cued me onto thinking from making that distinction is whether the nature of the random events might induce different changes in the playstyles of players such that the dynamic of a match on pictochat would be sufficiently altered such that we are not longer testing the skills we want to test (ie- perhaps we judge that play on pictochat becomes "too" careful; shoutouts to captain l for setting me back on this line of thinking). if this is the case, then we have a basis for how the nature of random events can affect the match in different relevant ways, and then the "big picture" view that i've always advocated is no longer capturing all the information we want to capture. maybe this is what everyone's arguments against pictochat have been saying all along, but i've never seen it phrased this way. in any case, i would argue that the majority of people do not understand the stage well enough to be making these calls (for instance, anyone who thinks the "safe zone" idea of pictochat is at ALL relevant should be immediately disqualified from being considered as familiar with pictochat), and perhaps nobody (myself included) does, but there simply has not been enough exposure to the stage as of this moment.

god why was that soooo long

BSP said:

"steadfast adherence to the same principles, course, form, etc.:"

Well, as I'm sure you've figured out, I see YI and Pictochat in two separate areas of intrusiveness, and I've put my line in-between there. IMO I'm not making any double standard.

Or maybe I'm missing something

Click to expand...

Your missing something in that the line is arbitrary and without proof is nothing to put in consideration ever when making a ruleset that adheres to more then one person, that one person being you.

Hence why we all operate without it.

look guys,

arcansi's consistency argument is STRICTLY attacking those who cite "it's stage-induced randomness that can affect the match" as THE reason to ban pictochat, and rightly so. with YI (as well as frigate, ps1, delfino, lylat, etc.) legal, stage-induced randomness is clearly not sufficient for banning a stage.

but once you look past absolutes (it's not WHETHER randomness is present, but rather HOW MUCH, or in the case of this comparison, HOW OFTEN), the idea of consistency within a stage list is not grounds alone to tie the fates of YI and picto together.

T-block said:

but once you look past absolutes (it's not WHETHER randomness is present, but rather HOW MUCH, or in the case of this comparison, HOW OFTEN), the idea of consistency within a stage list is not grounds alone to tie the fates of YI and picto together.

Click to expand...

Except you can't, because Unity is built on absolutes. I cite the LGL and my infinites thread.