The Counterpick System is NOT essential.

SuSa · Oct 10, 2010

Everything you will need to be informed about this debate will be posted momentarily.

Updated, easier to read, double-checking order of replies.

Referenced thread about neutrals/stage selection this is "BPC's thread"

Pierce's first reply to this thread (Reply #4)

Pierce7d said:
I want a second opinion on whether I'd be entirely justified on locking and deleting a thread that quotes me several times in private message without my knowledge or consent that the message was going to be used publicly. This is typically considered extremely rude. In this particular instance, I don't REALLY care all that much. I merely encourage everyone to take everything I say with a tad bit grain of salt, simply because thing things I say past midnight in PM doesn't imply that I put as much thought into a well thought out address to the public.

For instance, if I had written this in a post, I would've used the phrase "Starter" instead of "Neutral" because that is the official terminology of the BBR.

Also, keep in mind that everything said in this thread is in no way representative of the BBR. It is merely my own opinion and speculation.

SuSa said:
Joking title is so not going to fit the length of this post. I figured I'd try to get a laugh out of you before continuing. Expect a lengthy read, but I'll try to keep it as short and to-the-point as possible.

1) Heard Marc you're trying to speak to the BBR and get things worked about accepting people whom are voted in by the community. Kudos, if that can happen my CH idea can be thrown down the drain (for the most part) seeing as the next-best-thing happened. However, I'd like to know the factors in which they are trying to consider for this. (To remove the possibility of bribes for votes, as an example)

2) As far as the MK Ban discussion goes, Anti-Ban needs to come up with data they want to see to have Pro-Ban be able to find, organize, and display such data to them. I posted this in the thread in the SS in a response to Marc so if you want further details read there please. The TL;DR however is that Pro-Ban has to randomly find and present information, and Anti-Ban just says "well we're not looking for that" but doesn't tell Pro-Ban what they ARE looking for. If they can give us criteria that must be met, or data that must be shown - then we can finally make progress on this issue.

3) I honestly didn't know you had this job. Otherwise I would have gone through you. I usually avoid admins (JV) because it can take weeks/months to get an answer on the simplist and shortest of questions due to how busy/non-existant they really are.

4) Stage Discussion needs to be considered. BudgetPlayerCadet (or something like that) posted a WONERFUL stage analysis of how much a double-standard our stage list currenty is. It creates character bias and can't be seen as "fair" even with "neutral" stages. I believe the BBR should at least discuss this amongst themselves, or provide some input into this matter. I think the thread is called "OH NO IT MOVES" or something like that... It's made by BPC and is front page, not hard to find.

I'll leave my 5th point to be explained at a later date, depending on how #1 ends up. because until that happens, it's rather moot.

Pierce7d said:
1) I can't tell you too much, because that goes against the privacy of the BBR. You obviously already know that I did bring it up.

2) I don't have much interest in discussing the MK ban, because I honestly couldn't care either way atm. I have too much bias at this point. However, I think it's important to allow people to talk about it, and I'll see about getting that allowed again.

3) I'll refrain from replying to this.

4) Stage discussion in the BBR typically occurs each time we go into updating the ruleset. Also, I read every post in Tactical, and I read BPC's thread already, even though I opted not to post this time.

SuSa said:
Understood.

My stance on it is very confusing. It doesn't really effect me either way - but I do care about which direction it goes...I don't see the community dwindling because he's NOT around.... =\

3) It didn't even need to be answered, I was just stating the fact. =P

4) Okay.

5th Point, now that I have some answers:

How important/essential is the counterpick system? First - stage wise; Second - character wise.

SSB is one of the few (only one I know about personally actually..) games that allow a counterpick between rounds. This has become an established standard. If you lose, you may counterpick. The fact it has become standard deems it of some importance, however how essential is it? Not factoring in MK (yet) whom ruins the entire system (arguably... with no bad matchups or stages); how essential is it, if essential at all?

Why is it in place? Would it hurt to remove the system? The system itself actually seems uncompetitive. It allows you to try and place yourself at a huge advantage over your opponent by hard countering them and picking their characters worse stage. How is that competitive? In fact, that's detrimental to competitiveness, but we have it around anyways. Why? It's obviously "more fair" but is that a good enough reason?

So for what reason is this system around?

Now if we add the MK factor, it would have us lead that counterpicking is not essential to Brawl and should therefore... be removed. If it's not essential, why keep it around? If it has been proven essential - this is where the MK discussion occurs.

How important is the ability to counterpick a stage against your opponent? Meta Knight arguably has no disadvantageous stages. He breaks the stage counterpick system.

How important is the ability to counterpick characters against your opponent? Meta Knight answers this question with - pick Meta Knight. This automatically centralizes the entire counterpick system on him which causes the metagame (which has proven to be very dependant on counterpicks) to be entirely focused on him. Doesn't this qualify as overcentralization of the metagame?

Hope you can bring this up with the BBR, feel free to use this PM if you want to. However, I'd love to get 5-10 opinions from the BBR answering all of my questions.. just to get an idea on how they think.

Pierce7d said:
It's commonly agreed that MK breaks the Counter-Pick system for the most part. We discussed the counterpick system once, and we concluded that while rubberbanding is typically discouraged as a competitive feature, allowing the opponent to do it as well balances things out. While I may not entirely agree with this, I'm of the opinion that the CP system is fine, and hence I'm not looking to change it, and have yet to be introduced to a superior alternative.

SuSa said:
Marc has told me otherwise. Rubberbanding? I see about the balance, and I don't really agree with it..... just because it's balanced does not mean it should be there. There is no essential reason for the counterpick system to be in place. None at all. If there is an essential reason, than MK breaks that - centralizes the gameplay around him by doing so - and that can be used as ban criteria.

See what I'm trying to get at? The counterpick system is not essential yet we include it. This means it's important, but not essential. No reasons are stated for why it is in place. There are no reasons as to why it is in place. For everything else the BBR does, they try to include a reason. They removed the Bowsercide/Ganoncide rule because they believe the winner screen should be followed. So what is there reasoning behind the counterpick system being in place?

Pierce7d said:
No one has yet to suggest an alternative that we find superior.

SuSa said:
Superior: No counterpicking, best 2/3 3 stock rounds, random stage selected from the stage list.

Or, no counterpicking characters as that part is definately not essential - but you can counterpick stages.

What can be superior to a non-essential, but wanted system? Nothing. You are avoiding my question of what makes the counterpick system essential to competitive gameplay?

The correct answer:
It isn't.

However that raises another question. Why is it incorperated if not essential? Which this is now a subjective point, and it is only around because we believe it should be.

There are no superior alternatives? That's completely avoiding the questions.... there doesn't need to be an alternative because it doesn't need to be around. (Bit sick of having to say this...)

Pierce7d said:
What makes different stages essential to competitive gameplay? Nothing. It's implied
that very few rules or setting are essential. I didn't avoid your question, I just viewed it to be rhetorical.

I would say giving players the OPTIONS of the stage the play on is superior to having it randomly decided. I would guess that most of the community agrees with me. I would also agree that people would feel more comfortable with the ability to switch out of unwinnables on a double blind, even if it means you can get CPed.

SuSa said:
I'm speaking of the counterpick system. For both stages and characters.

You were completely avoiding the question. Now you answered finally with "It is not essential"

And you also used words like "comfortable" and "ability to switch out from unwinnables" (which technically don't exist to be honest)

Without a counterpick system, there is a clear line drawn between "tournament viable" and "not tournament viable". Characters whom are infinited by DDD for example, are less tournament viable. In fact - the only reason they are tournament viable is because of the counterpick system. If you were a DK, I'd go DDD. You'd ask for a double-blind pick. At this point, I'm safer going DDD than you are DK. Especially if you are a DK main, I'd have the advantage of going my main vs your secondary. Without a counterpick system, if we did choose our mains - and because DDD's infinite is not banned by the BBR it would give you an "unwinnable" (don't get grabbed, hur hur) matchup.

Now, this is not essential to competitive gameplay. In fact, it only exists to make certain characters more viable in competitive play. This goes against everything that the BBR argues for. This goes against banning the small-step CG, this goes against banning [selective] infinites. This goes against banning Meta Knight.

Now do you see why I want you to bring this up to the BBR? Essentially it is an extreme double standard of making the game more varied and "balanced". It's something many people overlook, but the blatant fact is there.

If you want criteria for a ban against Meta Knight, look at the non-essential counter-pick system in place. In order to remove the double-standard, you either need to remove the counterpick system for characters, or remove Meta Knight.

As I stated it's actually very uncompetitive to have a counterpick system in place. If you don't want to be counterpicked, the answer is clear. Pick Meta Knight. With the counterpick system, if you don't want to be counterpicked, the answer is clear. Pick Meta Knight.

Removing the counterpick system - leaves Meta Knight as the center of metagame.

Keeping counterpick system, removing Meta Knight - Every other character has a counterpick, making no one character the best choice. Now it comes down to preference, and.. le gasp! You have a varied metagame with no one overly dominate character!

So what do you think personally of my argument? I've only seen anything similar used once, it didn't get very detailed like mine - and it was completely ignored.

Please... just present this to the BBR for discussion, I feel like I'm only getting your input - and I know you don't speak for the BBR.. just as PR for them...

Pierce7d said:
If you were under the impression that I'm going to nitpick words and debate with you through PM, you're sadly mistaken. I take time out of my day every Wednesday to do this, and I'm surely not going to do it on a relaxing Saturday night.

You yourself said that the CP system increases the "viability" of several characters. You go on to state that MK breaks the system. This has already been known forever.

You want me to bring up your argument to the BBR? And say what exactly?

"Susa has pointed out a flaw in our counter-pick system. Like several other features of our ruleset, it is not essential. Furthermore, it's ruined by MK. Therefore, we are creating a double standard by having a counter-pick system and MK together in the same ruleset."

It would get argued over for a bit, then probably laughed at, then ignored while a couple of die-hards debate it.

By the way, it's quite false that we do not have rules to be fair to the cast. Realistically, a shorter timer helps some characters clock each other out, and a neutral stage list helps to keep the game as balanced as possible. Furthermore, counterpick is done to give the players more options, not to balance the cast. Whether or not it's essential, it's a widely accepted and appreciated clause in our ruleset, and it's unlikely that the BBR would recommend it for change, or that the public would even accept such a recommendation if it were to happen.

Saying that removing MK leaves a more diverse metagame is an age old proban argument that I have used myself. It's not new.

Why have you not started a thread in Tactical titled "Removing the Counter-Pick system" where you proceed to explain how you don't think the CP system is good. You really don't need to talk about MK at all to do this. Then you could suggest an alternative in public.

If you do this, then I will bring it up in the BR.

SuSa said:
The PM's between myself and yourself are now open for public criticism. I have stated my points, and you have stated yours as well as do your best to answer said points. I will let the public discuss on whom they feel is correct.

Also giving a player more options, essentially balances the cast.

Now watch how fast the thread turns into an MK debate and it gets locked.

Also your argument brings up "neutral" stages being "the most fair" which I again refer to BPC's argument against that and the polarization of many of these stages towards certain characters.

DtJ Composer · Oct 10, 2010

More like collapse tag.

SuSa · Oct 10, 2010

I've fixed it, now it's just read top to bottom upon our countering points, in the order they occured.

Should be much easier to read and follow.

Pierce7d · Oct 10, 2010

I want a second opinion on whether I'd be entirely justified on locking and deleting a thread that quotes me several times in private message without my knowledge or consent that the message was going to be used publicly. This is typically considered extremely rude. In this particular instance, I don't REALLY care all that much. I merely encourage everyone to take everything I say with a tad bit grain of salt, simply because thing things I say past midnight in PM doesn't imply that I put as much thought into a well thought out address to the public.

For instance, if I had written this in a post, I would've used the phrase "Starter" instead of "Neutral" because that is the official terminology of the BBR.

Also, keep in mind that everything said in this thread is in no way representative of the BBR. It is merely my own opinion and speculation.

SuSa · Oct 10, 2010

Private messages aren't essentially private, and while rude - are often posted publically.

See:
Staffer Shack
Smash Lab
GD Threads (sometimes)

You're totally entitled to be pissed, and I'll edit your post into the OP for you.

Mr. Escalator · Oct 10, 2010

I'm pretty upset by this thread. If I were to talk to you in PM, hypothetically, and I propose a radical idea that would get my laughed at, should I fear you'd make a thread on it? This just seems incredibly rude. More than me just being offended that you'd do this, I don't even want to have a discussion with someone who'd go out of their way to be a **** to me for not seeing eye-to-eye.

Just remake this thread with your ideas and leave this petty showcasing of private messages behind. Not many people want to participate in a discussion of who brought up better points in private. :/

Pierce7d · Oct 10, 2010

SuSa said:
Private messages aren't essentially private, and while rude - are often posted publically.

See:
Staffer Shack
Smash Lab
GD Threads (sometimes)

You're totally entitled to be pissed, and I'll edit your post into the OP for you.

I'm pretty sure it's AGAINST THE RULES to quote anything out of the Staffer Shack.
The Smash Lab deliberately aims to be as transparent as possible.
Also, the fact that you openly admit to being rude, while having the audacity to spit out a blatant fallacy such as

"Private messages aren't essentially private"

affirms my judgment of you. You are the only person who can access your PM box. To do so, you must log in with a username and password that presumably only you know, that you selected, for yourself. Though an administrator COULD change your password, this is typically against policy.

I'm totally done with you, I wipe my hands of this. I'll moderate the thread as is in my duties, but I hope you're clear in that you should expect no further cooperation from me.

Ripple · Oct 10, 2010

way to be the biggest ******* ever susa. what the hell is wrong with you? no one is going to care you brought up a legitimate concern since it is insanely overshadowed by your rudeness

pierced, If I were you, I'd ban him on the spot for this **** he's been pulling everywhere

z00ted · Oct 10, 2010

This thread is so ****ed up, lol.

What the hell is wrong with SuSa lately?

SuSa · Oct 10, 2010

Mr. Escalator said:
I'm pretty upset by this thread. If I were to talk to you in PM, hypothetically, and I propose a radical idea that would get my laughed at, should I fear you'd make a thread on it? This just seems incredibly rude. More than me just being offended that you'd do this, I don't even want to have a discussion with someone who'd go out of their way to be a **** to me for not seeing eye-to-eye.

Just remake this thread with your ideas and leave this petty showcasing of private messages behind. Not many people want to participate in a discussion of who brought up better points in private. :/

I'm the one proposing the radical idea that would get me laughed at.... and I'm not going to remove the logs, because it gives an honest unprepared answer. He had time to think his replies through carefully.

I asked him to bring it to the BBR, he said to make a thread. THIS IS MY THREAD.

He did not bring up points, he merely refuted mine.

Pierce7d said:
I'm pretty sure it's AGAINST THE RULES to quote anything out of the Staffer Shack.
The Smash Lab deliberately aims to be as transparent as possible.
Also, the fact that you openly admit to being rude, while having the audacity to spit out a blatant fallacy such as

"Private messages aren't essentially private"

affirms my judgment of you. You are the only person who can access your PM box. To do so, you must log in with a username and password that presumably only you know, that you selected, for yourself. Though an administrator COULD change your password, this is typically against policy.

I'm totally done with you, I wipe my hands of this. I'll moderate the thread as is in my duties, but I hope you're clear in that you should expect no further cooperation from me.

I didn't say quote anything in the staffer shack outside of it. I'm saying there are PM's that are quoted in the Staffer Shack.

Smash Lab quotes PM's

I'll admit to being rude, the point is to get my ideas across with the only counter-examples in a BBR members own words. Am I just to say "well, I have no proof but a BBR member told me _____ and ____"

Yeah, that'd be real convincing.

Wow. Apparently I'm now the bigges **** ever for using counter-arguments that were quoted. Would you have felt any safer I asked you these questions on your wall?

Sosuke · Oct 10, 2010

SuSa you're such a douche

SuSa · Oct 10, 2010

Nope. I have access to the data, I see nowhere where it says "don't post it".

It's just rude.
PS:
Didn't have to edit your reply into the OP, now did I?

DtJ SmithZzz · Oct 10, 2010

SuSa you're such a douche

SuSa · Oct 10, 2010

And I quote Pierce.

In this particular instance, I don't REALLY care all that much.

/obviously cares

Now can we actually get to the subject at hand? Or did I break some huge moral code for posting a PM log when he challenged me to make a thread on it? This was the easiest and most direct way to get both points stated.

I'm not going to do a whole "I said, he said" deal. What, would you rather have me paraphrase him? I'll totally do that.

Pierce7d · Oct 10, 2010

I'm normally a lenient moderator. I'm going to show that right now by not locking this extremely off-topic thread. I'll leave it to the OP to "put the thread back on the right track" or I guess I'll just have to lock it

Pikaville · Oct 10, 2010

SuSa your SUCH a douche.

Ripple · Oct 10, 2010

good luck having this have ANY affect at all. this is posted to the community and not the BBR. no luck susa

SuSa · Oct 10, 2010

Which is what my attempt is doing. Apparently you saying you don't care in this instance is causing the biggest flame fest ever.

If I had paraphrased you, it would have been slightly biased against the points you made. By me quoting you, it was the most direct way to get your actual input. There is no way to misintepret what you stated - and it's entirely your opinion.

If there are any words in ANY part of your quote that you would like me to fix, to become proper terminology for example, I will do so. But I will not drastically change any message as to alter the meaning behind it.

My point was to show the double standard belief which is held by some members of the BBR, including yourself - by how you responded to me. This double standard is an effect of the BBR's inefficiency to follow through on things in the organized manner in which they proclaim themselves to follow.

I'll see where people stand on that.

@Ripple
If you read Pierce's challenge to me stating to make a thread on such subject before he presented it to the BBR, you would see why it is posted here and not with the BBR.

YagamiLight · Oct 10, 2010

What a douche move.

Actually let me format it correctly:

SuSa you're such a douche

z00ted · Oct 10, 2010

SuSa I think you're getting too worked up over this.

it's a game yo - chill.

invading others privacy over this ****. hahahahaha

Ocean · Oct 10, 2010

SuSa you're such a douche.

deepseadiva · Oct 10, 2010

SuSa said:
If I had paraphrased you, it would have been slightly biased against the points you made. By me quoting you, it was the most direct way to get your actual input. There is no way to misintepret what you stated - and it's entirely your opinion.

If there are any words in ANY part of your quote that you would like me to fix, to become proper terminology for example, I will do so. But I will not drastically change any message as to alter the meaning behind it.

You blatantly do not understand what the problem is.

Wow.

SuSa · Oct 10, 2010

Alright, I see I started a trend. Okay, I get it. I'm a douche.

Pierce, go ahead and lock this. I already saved the entire log, and from now on people get to deal with this at the end of every post I make.

The Counterpick System is NOT essential.

Everything you will need to be informed about this debate will be posted momentarily.

Updated, easier to read, double-checking order of replies.

Referenced thread about neutrals/stage selection this is "BPC's thread"

Pierce's first reply to this thread (Reply #4)

Pierce7d said:
I want a second opinion on whether I'd be entirely justified on locking and deleting a thread that quotes me several times in private message without my knowledge or consent that the message was going to be used publicly. This is typically considered extremely rude. In this particular instance, I don't REALLY care all that much. I merely encourage everyone to take everything I say with a tad bit grain of salt, simply because thing things I say past midnight in PM doesn't imply that I put as much thought into a well thought out address to the public.

For instance, if I had written this in a post, I would've used the phrase "Starter" instead of "Neutral" because that is the official terminology of the BBR.

Also, keep in mind that everything said in this thread is in no way representative of the BBR. It is merely my own opinion and speculation.

SuSa said:
Joking title is so not going to fit the length of this post. I figured I'd try to get a laugh out of you before continuing. Expect a lengthy read, but I'll try to keep it as short and to-the-point as possible.

1) Heard Marc you're trying to speak to the BBR and get things worked about accepting people whom are voted in by the community. Kudos, if that can happen my CH idea can be thrown down the drain (for the most part) seeing as the next-best-thing happened. However, I'd like to know the factors in which they are trying to consider for this. (To remove the possibility of bribes for votes, as an example)

2) As far as the MK Ban discussion goes, Anti-Ban needs to come up with data they want to see to have Pro-Ban be able to find, organize, and display such data to them. I posted this in the thread in the SS in a response to Marc so if you want further details read there please. The TL;DR however is that Pro-Ban has to randomly find and present information, and Anti-Ban just says "well we're not looking for that" but doesn't tell Pro-Ban what they ARE looking for. If they can give us criteria that must be met, or data that must be shown - then we can finally make progress on this issue.

3) I honestly didn't know you had this job. Otherwise I would have gone through you. I usually avoid admins (JV) because it can take weeks/months to get an answer on the simplist and shortest of questions due to how busy/non-existant they really are.

4) Stage Discussion needs to be considered. BudgetPlayerCadet (or something like that) posted a WONERFUL stage analysis of how much a double-standard our stage list currenty is. It creates character bias and can't be seen as "fair" even with "neutral" stages. I believe the BBR should at least discuss this amongst themselves, or provide some input into this matter. I think the thread is called "OH NO IT MOVES" or something like that... It's made by BPC and is front page, not hard to find.

I'll leave my 5th point to be explained at a later date, depending on how #1 ends up. because until that happens, it's rather moot.

Pierce7d said:
1) I can't tell you too much, because that goes against the privacy of the BBR. You obviously already know that I did bring it up.

2) I don't have much interest in discussing the MK ban, because I honestly couldn't care either way atm. I have too much bias at this point. However, I think it's important to allow people to talk about it, and I'll see about getting that allowed again.

3) I'll refrain from replying to this.

4) Stage discussion in the BBR typically occurs each time we go into updating the ruleset. Also, I read every post in Tactical, and I read BPC's thread already, even though I opted not to post this time.

SuSa said:
Understood.

My stance on it is very confusing. It doesn't really effect me either way - but I do care about which direction it goes...I don't see the community dwindling because he's NOT around.... =\

3) It didn't even need to be answered, I was just stating the fact. =P

4) Okay.

5th Point, now that I have some answers:

How important/essential is the counterpick system? First - stage wise; Second - character wise.

SSB is one of the few (only one I know about personally actually..) games that allow a counterpick between rounds. This has become an established standard. If you lose, you may counterpick. The fact it has become standard deems it of some importance, however how essential is it? Not factoring in MK (yet) whom ruins the entire system (arguably... with no bad matchups or stages); how essential is it, if essential at all?

Why is it in place? Would it hurt to remove the system? The system itself actually seems uncompetitive. It allows you to try and place yourself at a huge advantage over your opponent by hard countering them and picking their characters worse stage. How is that competitive? In fact, that's detrimental to competitiveness, but we have it around anyways. Why? It's obviously "more fair" but is that a good enough reason?

So for what reason is this system around?

Now if we add the MK factor, it would have us lead that counterpicking is not essential to Brawl and should therefore... be removed. If it's not essential, why keep it around? If it has been proven essential - this is where the MK discussion occurs.

How important is the ability to counterpick a stage against your opponent? Meta Knight arguably has no disadvantageous stages. He breaks the stage counterpick system.

How important is the ability to counterpick characters against your opponent? Meta Knight answers this question with - pick Meta Knight. This automatically centralizes the entire counterpick system on him which causes the metagame (which has proven to be very dependant on counterpicks) to be entirely focused on him. Doesn't this qualify as overcentralization of the metagame?

Hope you can bring this up with the BBR, feel free to use this PM if you want to. However, I'd love to get 5-10 opinions from the BBR answering all of my questions.. just to get an idea on how they think.

Pierce7d said:
It's commonly agreed that MK breaks the Counter-Pick system for the most part. We discussed the counterpick system once, and we concluded that while rubberbanding is typically discouraged as a competitive feature, allowing the opponent to do it as well balances things out. While I may not entirely agree with this, I'm of the opinion that the CP system is fine, and hence I'm not looking to change it, and have yet to be introduced to a superior alternative.

SuSa said:
Marc has told me otherwise. Rubberbanding? I see about the balance, and I don't really agree with it..... just because it's balanced does not mean it should be there. There is no essential reason for the counterpick system to be in place. None at all. If there is an essential reason, than MK breaks that - centralizes the gameplay around him by doing so - and that can be used as ban criteria.

See what I'm trying to get at? The counterpick system is not essential yet we include it. This means it's important, but not essential. No reasons are stated for why it is in place. There are no reasons as to why it is in place. For everything else the BBR does, they try to include a reason. They removed the Bowsercide/Ganoncide rule because they believe the winner screen should be followed. So what is there reasoning behind the counterpick system being in place?

Pierce7d said:
No one has yet to suggest an alternative that we find superior.

SuSa said:
Superior: No counterpicking, best 2/3 3 stock rounds, random stage selected from the stage list.

Or, no counterpicking characters as that part is definately not essential - but you can counterpick stages.

What can be superior to a non-essential, but wanted system? Nothing. You are avoiding my question of what makes the counterpick system essential to competitive gameplay?

The correct answer:
It isn't.

However that raises another question. Why is it incorperated if not essential? Which this is now a subjective point, and it is only around because we believe it should be.

There are no superior alternatives? That's completely avoiding the questions.... there doesn't need to be an alternative because it doesn't need to be around. (Bit sick of having to say this...)

Pierce7d said:
What makes different stages essential to competitive gameplay? Nothing. It's implied
that very few rules or setting are essential. I didn't avoid your question, I just viewed it to be rhetorical.

I would say giving players the OPTIONS of the stage the play on is superior to having it randomly decided. I would guess that most of the community agrees with me. I would also agree that people would feel more comfortable with the ability to switch out of unwinnables on a double blind, even if it means you can get CPed.

SuSa said:
I'm speaking of the counterpick system. For both stages and characters.

You were completely avoiding the question. Now you answered finally with "It is not essential"

And you also used words like "comfortable" and "ability to switch out from unwinnables" (which technically don't exist to be honest)

Without a counterpick system, there is a clear line drawn between "tournament viable" and "not tournament viable". Characters whom are infinited by DDD for example, are less tournament viable. In fact - the only reason they are tournament viable is because of the counterpick system. If you were a DK, I'd go DDD. You'd ask for a double-blind pick. At this point, I'm safer going DDD than you are DK. Especially if you are a DK main, I'd have the advantage of going my main vs your secondary. Without a counterpick system, if we did choose our mains - and because DDD's infinite is not banned by the BBR it would give you an "unwinnable" (don't get grabbed, hur hur) matchup.

Now, this is not essential to competitive gameplay. In fact, it only exists to make certain characters more viable in competitive play. This goes against everything that the BBR argues for. This goes against banning the small-step CG, this goes against banning [selective] infinites. This goes against banning Meta Knight.

Now do you see why I want you to bring this up to the BBR? Essentially it is an extreme double standard of making the game more varied and "balanced". It's something many people overlook, but the blatant fact is there.

If you want criteria for a ban against Meta Knight, look at the non-essential counter-pick system in place. In order to remove the double-standard, you either need to remove the counterpick system for characters, or remove Meta Knight.

As I stated it's actually very uncompetitive to have a counterpick system in place. If you don't want to be counterpicked, the answer is clear. Pick Meta Knight. With the counterpick system, if you don't want to be counterpicked, the answer is clear. Pick Meta Knight.

Removing the counterpick system - leaves Meta Knight as the center of metagame.

Keeping counterpick system, removing Meta Knight - Every other character has a counterpick, making no one character the best choice. Now it comes down to preference, and.. le gasp! You have a varied metagame with no one overly dominate character!

So what do you think personally of my argument? I've only seen anything similar used once, it didn't get very detailed like mine - and it was completely ignored.

Please... just present this to the BBR for discussion, I feel like I'm only getting your input - and I know you don't speak for the BBR.. just as PR for them...

Pierce7d said:
If you were under the impression that I'm going to nitpick words and debate with you through PM, you're sadly mistaken. I take time out of my day every Wednesday to do this, and I'm surely not going to do it on a relaxing Saturday night.

You yourself said that the CP system increases the "viability" of several characters. You go on to state that MK breaks the system. This has already been known forever.

You want me to bring up your argument to the BBR? And say what exactly?

"Susa has pointed out a flaw in our counter-pick system. Like several other features of our ruleset, it is not essential. Furthermore, it's ruined by MK. Therefore, we are creating a double standard by having a counter-pick system and MK together in the same ruleset."

It would get argued over for a bit, then probably laughed at, then ignored while a couple of die-hards debate it.

By the way, it's quite false that we do not have rules to be fair to the cast. Realistically, a shorter timer helps some characters clock each other out, and a neutral stage list helps to keep the game as balanced as possible. Furthermore, counterpick is done to give the players more options, not to balance the cast. Whether or not it's essential, it's a widely accepted and appreciated clause in our ruleset, and it's unlikely that the BBR would recommend it for change, or that the public would even accept such a recommendation if it were to happen.

Saying that removing MK leaves a more diverse metagame is an age old proban argument that I have used myself. It's not new.

Why have you not started a thread in Tactical titled "Removing the Counter-Pick system" where you proceed to explain how you don't think the CP system is good. You really don't need to talk about MK at all to do this. Then you could suggest an alternative in public.

If you do this, then I will bring it up in the BR.

SuSa said:
The PM's between myself and yourself are now open for public criticism. I have stated my points, and you have stated yours as well as do your best to answer said points. I will let the public discuss on whom they feel is correct.

Also giving a player more options, essentially balances the cast.

Now watch how fast the thread turns into an MK debate and it gets locked.

Also your argument brings up "neutral" stages being "the most fair" which I again refer to BPC's argument against that and the polarization of many of these stages towards certain characters.

Pierce7d · Oct 10, 2010

Wow, I'm sorry guys, this flaming of Susa has gone on far too long. Thread locked

NearZzz · Oct 10, 2010

and then pepsi was ok

The Counterpick System is NOT essential.

Banned via Administration

The Heroine Appears

Banned via Administration

Wise Hermit

Banned via Administration

G&W Guru

Wise Hermit

ᗣᗣᗣᗣ ᗧ·····•·····

The Assault of Laughter ﷼

Banned via Administration

Smash Obsessed

Banned via Administration

Happy Birthday Kjell

Banned via Administration

Wise Hermit

Pikaville returns 10 years later.

ᗣᗣᗣᗣ ᗧ·····•·····

Banned via Administration

Smash Champion

The Assault of Laughter ﷼

Smash Master

Bodybuilding Magical Girl

Banned via Administration

Wise Hermit

Smash Lord

Information

Network