Creation of BBR Ruleset Committee; Brawl Nationals Agree to Same Stagelist! New TO's!

[AMKalmar]

This was a couple pages ago and probably already responded to, but I just have to.

A part of Canada that has no good players and is rarely ever exposed to the US metagame (you know, the metagame that these rules are for). That's pretty unimportant to our metagame lol.

YOU'RE PLAYING THE SAME GAME!

 

[swordgard]

The transformations make MK into SF2-Akuma.

Lol.


Yeah you probably never played ps2. I mean wind transformation is probably his worst in the whole stage. His ice control is sub-par. The only one he really shines on is the conveyor belts one, and its fairly easy to stall on it.

 

[fkacyan]

This is why I don't argue stages with people that don't play on them. -_-;;

Obviously I'm exagerrating, but the stage gimmicks are all retardedly good for him.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

No they aren't... BF is probably a better stage in most matchups.

 

[Sage JoWii]

>_> I like how the ppl *****ing are the stage-'knowledgeable' guys. <_< And the other half are non-americans.

Neither important or essential to a group of American National-hosting TOs committee. Isn't there a Canadian regional thread? Why don't y'all go make a CRC and agree to a stagelist and ruleset? Then you can have all the liberal/conservative/radical/recommended whatever you want.

Stages might be a large amount of brawl, >_> But if you know stages like the back of your hand, why ain't you winning money like Gnes? M2k? G'*****.

 

[AlphaZealot]

If your ruleset is not logically supported, it is not as competitive as it can be.

If your ruleset doesn't get played at a single tournament, then it isn't used in competition, and therefor it is not competitive AT ALL. (aka extremes of the BBR Recommended Ruleset)

Also yea, on PS2, the Wind Transform is no good for MK. All he has got is his glide, otherwise his air mobility is slowed even more than it regularly is. This is good for Diddy/Snake who can just camp the ground and punish and glide approaches. Chances are this transform will turn into a stall out most of the time, just like two of the transformations on PS1 do.

EDIT: Also, what Blacknight said.

 

[Overswarm]

If your ruleset doesn't get played at a single tournament, then it isn't used in competition, and therefor it is not competitive AT ALL. (aka extremes of the BBR Recommended Ruleset)

This is called "appeal to popularity", and is just as true as someone telling you that playing with items off is not competitive because there are more people that play with items.

Also yea, on PS2, the Wind Transform is no good for MK. All he has got is his glide, otherwise his air mobility is slowed even more than it regularly is. This is good for Diddy/Snake who can just camp the ground and punish and glide approaches. Chances are this transform will turn into a stall out most of the time, just like two of the transformations on PS1 do.

It also greatly influences what you can do with SDI, as SDIing once out of MK's u-air or tornado make it near impossible for him to follow up with a guarantee (opposite of true on normal ground)

 

[SuSa]

Hey OS,
Know the difference between

get played at a single tournament

and

more people that play with items.

???

One has competitive value.

 

[Life]

Still a logical fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_popularity

 

[SuSa]

Halfway. Depends if you've read the 3-4 times I've explained the Smash Scene's situation and usage of the word "competitive".

Everything that isn't the most objectively sound ruleset (EG: BBR Ruleset with all 22 stages legal) has no reason to be used. NONE AT ****ING ALL. It's the TO's CHOOSING to do that.

What's this group doing?

A group of TO's CHOOSING to do what they want (as they always have been) but deciding to work together for the sake of UNITY among the community.

It's not like the entire sake of growth of competition is based upon it's popularity or anything.. (you know.. a pretty relevant factor...)

Eating **** faster than you can be seen as competitive. Not sure how well that'd take off for a competitive sport among the nation. Might get like 10 players? If there was enough money involved. I can damn well call that competitive though.

 

[AlphaZealot]

If you want, I'm sure I can find people to make a demonstrational video. Also, you are failing completely to see the line between "in theory, this stage might be broken" (YIM, LM, etc.) and "in theory, this stage is certanly broken". You don't need high-level tournament play; you need simple theoretical testing to prove that circle camping is broken. Unlike most other stage elements, which must be shown or disproven. Temple is a bad example, you would however probably have more luck with 75m, which not only has not been broken in practice, but does not have 100% airtight theory.

Just curious, which character breaks Temple?

 

[Espy Rose]

Oh, come on, AZ!

Blue streak, speeds by...

 

[Life]

So what you're saying is that community is more important than competition? In that case, why do we not hold giant smashfests instead of giant tournaments?

Also, at the above two posts, I lol'd.

 

[SuSa]

I'm not going to argue the entire concept of Democracy. Why democracy was chosen for America. Why it was omfg only chosen cuz it was poplar and worked well and was supported.

Because essentially. That is what you are doing. In which case I say....

Because quite frankly - all forms of government are a fallacy. And **** no am I going to sit here and say we should get rid of all forms of government. I may be against my government but I'm far from an idealistic anarchist where everythings rainbow and sunshines and people get along when they aren't oppressed by a police force of some kind.



@Espy
Somewhat correct. Somewhat wrong. The correct answer is any character fast than your opponent. Which eventually degrades down to Sonic.

 

[etecoon]

No they aren't... BF is probably a better stage in most matchups.

loool

I think this has become my favorite stage

and no one is going to ban it because I'm such a homo on brinstar YES

 

[Espy Rose]

Which makes me completely correct, SuSa.
Don't play semantics with me. Dance around it all you want, Sonic wrecks anything on Temple.

 

[Yikarur]

nice, our room is finally up. i wont be posting here anymore. gonna go help create more of the ruleset. see ya later, sperglords!

this post itself shows somehow how bull**** this whole concept is.

 

[SuSa]

Which makes me completely correct, SuSa.
Don't play semantics with me. Dance around it all you want, Sonic wrecks anything on Temple.

Assuming people counterpicked the other until they chose Sonic due to not wanting to be at a disadvantage - and under the assumption that their opponent was going to play as gay as possible.

Which in that case Meta Knight breaks ****ing everything.

 

[Sage JoWii]

Bavarian, Canadian, German, people arguing about fallacies and other boring stuff, blah blah blah.

Edit: Yo, SuSa/Espy MM on Temple; let's go.

 

[Life]

Funny, because we're not a democracy, we're a republic. I assume you know the difference? And if all forms of government are truly fallacious, then why do we have government? (Perhaps because anarchy is just as fallacious?)

 

[Espy Rose]

I think SuSa is finally getting somewhere.
Finally.

 

[etecoon]

Funny, because we're not a democracy, we're a republic. I assume you know the difference? And if all forms of government are truly fallacious, then why do we have government? (Perhaps because anarchy is just as fallacious?)

anarchy isn't so much fallacious as it is impossible, if there is a power vacuum someone will try to fill it

one might say that's what happened here. the BBR's lack of real authority prompted someone else to take over

 

[rathy Aro]

Why are people trippin so much? This ruleset isn't that bad for conservative players and there's no reason for liberal players to avoid conservative stage lists so its fine for both parties. The only reason you would be against such a stage list is if you just love logic so much that you can't stand to see it violated in anyway, which is hilarious since the rules for any of the nationals would have been flawed anyway.

Other this is,
You guys don't really need to be worried. As I've said before the BBR doesn't control the rules the TOs do (which I guess AZ and some others finally realized), BUT the TOs are ultimately controlled by players. TOs CANNOT afford to just throw a way hundreds or thousands of dollars and then have no one attend because they will lose lots of their own money. It will only take ONE bad tournament to make the ruleset exactly how the majority wants it. The only problem with that is, if you do decide to split the community (for such a petty reason too) then the scene will never be as successful as it could have been if everyone just compromised.

 

[Overswarm]

Hey OS,
Know the difference between

and


???

One has competitive value.

As IC said, still a logical fallacy.

Also, you forgot to define "competitive value". However, you DID imply your definition. If "rulesets played in a tournament setting are inherently more competitive than those played in a friendly environment" isn't your definition, feel free to tell me what it is.

Giving just one example of each:

Tournaments using custom stages: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycqWyUs6EKM

I did an entire circuit with these. They've been used in other tournaments as well. You must agree they're competitive, right? Hell, OmegaWhiteMage and I discussed adding custom stages to his national before it had to be cancelled.

Tournaments using all items and all stages: http://www.youtube.com/user/OUGamingArts#p/u/465/rlvys07uJf0

Hey look. AZ.

This has been done multiple times, and with consistent results. Top players get top placings. Competitive?

LVL 9 CPU Tournaments and Money Matches: http://www.youtube.com/user/OUGamingArts#p/u/735/w22xtulkHtY

Yes, this has been done. Repeatedly. In a tournament fashion. For money. Competitive?

FFAs with all items and all stages on random: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBqiAh2zbtk

This has also been done multiple times. I even won one of them and made the finals of another. :B

Competitive?


That's just from one channel. The fact that you're arguing with people hosting tournaments is kind of silly when your argument is 'no one uses those rulesets'.

Because you've got two options here if you want to stick to your "only rulesets at tournaments matter" mentality but still be contrarian:

A) Appeal to Popularity

Basically, saying "oh, yeah, those tournaments exist but they aren't common. I mean come on, not everyone uses those tournaments!"

Logical fallacy. I don't need to debunk this, you've got a thousand years of philosophers talking about how dumb this is. Just because a ruleset would be used more or less does not make it inherently better or worse than another ruleset for a specific goal, especially pertaining to balance which is the question at hand. This is especially important when you're put into a feedback loop.

B) Rethink statement

Changing your statement to "What I mean to say is 'tournaments use the most competitive rulesets, so popular rulesets are more likely to be more competitive and this can be independently verified', not 'rulesets used commonly in tournaments matter'" would make your stance more logical.

However

The current BBR ruleset was created for the sole purpose of creating stages. I've been doing this from Day 1, and I took it very seriously. Days before a tournament I didn't practice with my smash friends; I tested stages and recorded things for the BBR.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bRiPDcgWIo

Remember that? That was almost 2 years ago.

Being that the entire BBR ruleset save for a few stages (a few admittedly borderline but needed further testing, and one or two in banned that needn't be banned based on current data) has been thoroughly tested by multiple individuals in and out of tournaments, one can only come to the conclusion that yes, the BBR ruleset is competitive regardless of how often it is used.

The question next is then balance. As many of the BBR ruleset stages were independently tested in a vacuum at first, you can logically determine that some could have "fallen through the cracks" so to speak, and you can argue about potentially removing stages based on overlap of properties rather than independent matchup balance in a 1v1 setting. That is, you can say "Norfair is fine, we've seen it is fine, it's been used all over and has been fine, but it overlaps completely with Brinstar and Rainbow Cruise" (this isn't true) and you could make an argument for removing Norfair despite it being a tried-and-tested competitive stage for the sole purpose of preventing the saturation of the metagame in regards to character properties (i.e., Meta Knight too good). This will never happen and is a trap laid by Overswarm because Final Destination, Battlefield, and Smashville all overlap more than any other stages in this game and any argument about removing a stage would boil down to "we keep smashville and remove the other two" and then a discussion about the CP stage in question.

But other than that slippery slope trap, you are again confronted with two (logical) options.

A) Admit the stages are balanced based on current data, continue to use them. Mark certain stages as "further data needed" and collect data on them.

B) Claim that preference is just as important as balance, or at least close enough to where close calls can be made by preference

Choosing B puts you in a tough spot because you're basically just appealing to popularity again. However, you have another option: SCIENCE.

Or, more accurately, hoarding data and evaluating it over a period of time.

Looking at who (number) goes to what tournaments (location) and what ruleset (muy importante variable) and see if there is any particularly large change.

I'll save you the time though. You'll find healthy scenes pretty much everywhere. The midwest was getting 100 man locals for a while, and they had jaaaaaanky stages. Hell, a bunch of MI people proclaimed "OS is teh dumb!" when I was making people use custom stages for a year (circuit), and decided to skip out on the Lexington event to go to LoLis. Others said they'd go along to.

Result? LoLis has small turnout, Lexington has 90+ entrants.

The ruleset doesn't determine attendance for most players, but rather proximity, players, and hype. MLG did quite alright with its ruleset. The "appeal to popularity" doesn't even apply when you take this into account. It's more "appeal to people that would grumble and show up anyway".


So please, use logic. There is no "your logic". Just... logic. That's how people learn if stages are good or bad or not. They make a hypothesis, test them in tournaments, and go from there. Look for statistical anomalies. We're looking for that right now in the MLG data, and if something crazy came up on a stage (timeouts occur like 30% more often regardless of character, suicides common, 100% win with character X or something crazy) it'd be irrefutable evidence that it'd need to either be banned, rules need to be modified (timer length, etc.), or there at the very least would have to be a serious investigation.

Making rulesets isn't hard, it just takes a lot of time. Letting them evolve is the best way.

 

[Tesh]

Might makes right.

What part of compromise don't you people understand? It means no one got exactly what they wanted. We all have an ideal ruleset in our minds that would shape the game the way we think it should be. But it doesn't matter if no one agrees with you and wants to play THAT ruleset.

BPC and the stage-rage crew want to play on mario bros, PTAD, Onett and Rumble Falls. And without delving into whether or not they are right or wrong, barely anyone else wants to play these stages.

Some folks want to play on smashville over and over or on FDSVBF all tournament. But most people are against this as well.

This is where the COMPROMISE comes in. Its where we all give up our ideal situation for something that MOST of us can tolerate. In order for us to have a community we need to have a large group of people people playing together. Not just in their own little cliques that agree with their unique ruleset.

 

[Ripple]

why should we compromise with people who's stage lists have no logical backing?

 

[Teh Future]

quite possibly the worst thread discussion ive ever seen on smashboards

lol

 

[Yikarur]

just that this is a compromise between 3-4 persons, not the community.

 

[Sage JoWii]

Future GTFO, we need to continue to discuss 75M being legal you ****.

 

[Juushichi]

I love this thread, but goddamn did OS just **** absolutely everything.

Also, jowii and future, you're hilarious in the worst way possible. I love Midwest trolls.

 

[Ripple]

just that this is a compromise between 3-4 persons, not the community.

this times 1000000000000

and not to mention that 2 of said people used the appeal to experience to try and prove BPC wrong

 

[etecoon]

quite possibly the worst thread discussion ive ever seen on smashboards

lol

the last 2 or 3 MK ban topics were waaaay worse than this

 

[Tesh]

The rest of you have no power to make someone compromise with YOU. Its that simple.

 

[SuSa]

Funny, because we're not a democracy, we're a republic. I assume you know the difference? And if all forms of government are truly fallacious, then why do we have government? (Perhaps because anarchy is just as fallacious?)

We have government because it's what the majority - and those with power - have decided on.

Get the **** over it. If people didn't want it, and people had the power to overthrow it, people would. That. ****ing. Simple.

We're a democratic republic. Don't get all specific and detailed over ****, you're just going to look like someone who's purposefully trying to miss the point.

Governemnts. ON A GRAND ****ING SCALE. Are just one massive appeal to popularity.

Why a republic?
Why not a dictatorship?
Why not communism? (Not the dictoral communism..)
Why not a monarchy?
Why not _____?

Because. It's what. THE ****ING MAJORITY WANTS.

Anarchy would actually be an ideal situation. It's just not "humane" and a ton of people would end up dead with no police force to save their *****. Anyone try to take power? Kill them. Simple answer to everything in an anarchist state.

Although there are a few places that could be considered anarchist. Mali is one of the. "The Gift Economy" (youtube search that if interested)

 

[Sage JoWii]

OH ISH! Ripple in da house. Stage discussion is about to get mad legit now that all the stage-rage, <----let's make this a smash group and give it the color of crimson or bloodddd red?, ppl are here we can get down to srs business convincing ppl that 75M should be legal because it's something something blah blah.

 

[Overswarm]

We have government because it's what the majority - and those with power - have decided on.

Get the **** over it. If people didn't want it, and people had the power to overthrow it, people would. That. ****ing. Simple.

We're a democratic republic. Don't get all specific and detailed over ****, you're just going to look like someone who's purposefully trying to miss the point.

Governemnts. ON A GRAND ****ING SCALE. Are just one massive appeal to popularity.

Why a republic?
Why not a dictatorship?
Why not communism? (Not the dictoral communism..)
Why not a monarchy?
Why not _____?

Because. It's what. THE ****ING MAJORITY WANTS.

Anarchy would actually be an ideal situation. It's just not "humane" and a ton of people would end up dead with no police force to save their *****. Anyone try to take power? Kill them. Simple answer to everything in an anarchist state.

Although there are a few places that could be considered anarchist. Mali is one of the. "The Gift Economy" (youtube search that if interested)

please get into a political debate with me somewhere. o_o

 

[SuSa]

Send a PM and if I feel like replying I will.

I'm pretty much ignoring your WoT due to being somewhat irrelevant. I know appeal to popularity is a fallicious logical argument. That doesn't make it any less realistic.

It's not LOGICAL - but that doesn't mean it can't happen. It may not be the "RIGHT" thing to do... but then you have to take two steps back.

Define "right" without the use of a majority. You. Can't. There is no right or wrong. It's simply what the majority decides it is.

Slavery used to be A O K. Why? The majority didn't see a problem with it. Viewpoints changed. A war (in the US at least) was fought. Slavery abolished. Majority changed its mind.

I'm so sick of debating with massive walls of texts in so many different forums over so many different topics. I've begun to ignore posts just because /CBA

 

[Ripple]

OH ISH! Ripple in da house. Stage discussion is about to get mad legit now that all the stage-rage, <----let's make this a smash group and give it the color of crimson or bloodddd red?, ppl are here we can get down to srs business convincing ppl that 75M should be legal because it's something something blah blah.

hell yeah. best be 'fraid.

also,

colored posts seem to get more attention. since susa has orange and etecoon has blue and omni has purple sometimes, I think I'll have turquoise

 

[Life]

Susa: very well. Now the problem is to propose a solution that doesn't involve a bunch of dead people. Good luck on that.

However, to the debate at hand, what _will_ happen and what _should_ happen are two different things. In such situations as these, popularity determines what will happen. Logic determines what should happen.

Japan, for instance, wants to play on three stages? It'll happen. Is it the most competitively deep way to play Brawl? Nope. Will, not should.

Ripple: I like that idea. Maybe I'll post in black... owait

 

[Ripple]

Ripple: I like that idea. Maybe I'll post in black... owait

Black can still be read. you need to highlight it though