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

[Overswarm]

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

Overswarm wins by default!

OS - 1

Susa - 0

 

[rathy Aro]

**** post

I actually like this post, but I think I disagree on one point.

You say there is no "your logic", but I think that there might be. If we are trying to determine what stages are "good" or are most "competitive" we can simple come up with results that match our definitions of these words. If I say "good" stages are stages most like FD then our current neutrals are the good stages. Although logic doesn't actually change, the conclusion changes based on the premise and the premise is arbitrary. There is no way around that fact. Since it is arbitrary I think appeal to popularity is quite logical. Its people who choose to attend tournaments and make the game competitive so why not let them choose how they want their skills to be tested? You might argue that they disregard the greater depth with their preferences, but maybe depth isn't the only criteria they judge by.

I'm not really saying that we should do what people want. Even though people should choose what they want, I think the majority is usually too stupid to actually pick what they want accurately. Instead we should find out what skills the community finds important to test and then make the rules, stages, etc based on that.

 

[SuSa]

Compromise... actual compromise and not that 3/5ths compromise wait-we want 5/5ths deal.

I'd like to think our situation over the ruleset is a lot less severe than treating an entire race as slaves.

Is it the most competitively deep way to play Brawl?

I've addressed this. Two different competitive ideologies. One that wishes to be the MOST (logically) competitive, no matter how few people end up playing the game.

And that which wishes to be a community that is stable and continues to grow. Regardless of it being the "most" competitive - so long as that it is competitive.

If everyone wanted to play Ganon FFA's with items on on Temple. Well damn it, that'd be the way things would be done.

But the select minority that wants to do that isn't exactly in power. Now are they?

Power is both a beautiful - and disastrous thing. When, in the end, it is in the hands of the majority. It's shaped as to best suit that majority. This group the TO's can do whatever the **** they please, but in the end they have to do their best to keep a good member base happy. So if you're a minority and you're not being heard.

Welcome to the rule of the majority. Sucks to be a minority. Always has - always will.

EDIT:

When you are a part of the minority, you try to convince the majority that they are - in fact - wrong. When you are unable to do this. You try again. You keep trying until you either succeed... or you give up.

Brawl Community is stubborn and I'm willing to bet a pretty large amount of people would prefer not to be playing on Pipes or Green Greens. They may "sigh and ***** but in the end put up with it" but eventually - you WILL see a smaller turnout.

Imagine if MLG wasn't handing out $12,500.... how many people do you think would consistently put up with Green Greens if the prize was under $100? People couldn't change the rules of MLG after they were set - and of course they'd suck it up and play anyways for $12,500.

Hell, I'd ****ing play Ganon FFA's with Items on if $12,500 was on the line.

 

[Blacknight99923]

LOL @PEOPLE with the "compromise between 3-4 people"

I honestly want you to look at the current regions their rulesets and if everyone was actually going to vote on what ruleset we would all COMPROMISE to make including giving up some of our values would we REALLY ARRIVE at something different?

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=291113
Neutral Stages:

* Final Destination
* Battlefield
* Yoshi's Story
* Smashville
* Pokemon Stadium 1
* Delfino Plaza
* Battleship Halberd
* Castle Siege
* Lylat

Stages for Counterpick:


* Frigate Orpheon
* Brinstar
* Rainbow Cruise
* Pokemon Stadium 2

kadaj's stage list This is pretty much the EXACT same thing except picto is now ADDED to the BBR ruleset.

This is what the MAJORITY WOULD REALISTICALLY VOTE ON

Also they didn't just pick 4 people to vote on this they chose tournament organizers that have held regional sized events in their region and often times have hosted NATIONAL events. These are people who know WHAT THEIR PLAYERS want.


Again this is compromise.. the act of 2 or more parties GIVING up things they want so they can make a universal agreement


It has absolutely NOTHING to do with how logical you want to be

it has to do with NEGOTIATING to arrive at a conclusion we can agree to
this isn't about how competitive you think this ruleset is, I think its god awful being an extremely conservative individual that I am, but I AM WILLING TO COMPROMISE SO THE COMMUNITY CAN GET SOMEWHERE.

ITS NOT ABOUT YOU

 

[Overswarm]

I actually like this post, but I think I disagree on one point.

You say there is no "your logic", but I think that there might be. If we are trying to determine what stages are "good" or are most "competitive" we can simple come up with results that match our definitions of these words. If I say "good" stages are stages most like FD then our current neutrals are the good stages. Although logic doesn't actually change, the conclusion changes based on the premise and the premise is arbitrary. There is no way around that fact. Since it is arbitrary I think appeal to popularity is quite logical. Its people who choose to attend tournaments and make the game competitive so why not let them choose how they want their skills to be tested? You might argue that they disregard the greater depth with their preferences, but maybe depth isn't the only criteria they judge by.

I'm not really saying that we should do what people want. Even though people should choose what they want, I think the majority is usually too stupid to actually pick what they want accurately. Instead we should find out what skills the community finds important to test and then make the rules, stages, etc based on that.

The premise isn't arbitrary when your intention it to make a competitive venture, which removes the foundation of your argument. If your argument is to get the most people under one roof you could have an argument but, as stated earlier, rulesets haven't ever determined attendance. Maybe twenty people. That's about it, on average. But if you're looking for competitive value, there are ways you can verify this: consistency, ability for change (the previous two do not contradict one another), etc., things that fit competition. You can't just create your own definition of competition that is completely separate of the reality of competition and expect it to hold weight.

I see what you're saying, but it isn't arbitrary.

 

[Life]

edit: mass ninja'd and irrelevant

edit2, @Blacknight: Once again. What should happen versus what will happen.

 

[Overswarm]

I'm not really saying that we should do what people want. Even though people should choose what they want, I think the majority is usually too stupid to actually pick what they want accurately. Instead we should find out what skills the community finds important to test and then make the rules, stages, etc based on that.

This isn't an approach I agree with, as limiting skills in a concrete package seems silly to me, but how would you say one would go about doing this? Just in your opinion.

 

[Ripple]

this thread is by far the most bipolar thing I have ever seen. extreme activity for like 5 min. and then regular posting for like an hour. somehow, everyone knows when a big post is made on here and comes swarming

 

[Blacknight99923]

edit: mass ninja'd and irrelevant

edit2, @Blacknight: Once again. What should happen versus what will happen.

ughh I should but FeSoren back in my location


anyway who honestly knows whats "best". There isn't a math problem for stage x+ stage Y equals the most **** ruleset we will ever play on.

For example a japanese ruleset favors further competitive depth on character viability and having to learn more than just the metaknight match up.

A liberal stagelist favors competitive depth on stages

Honestly we can sit here debating for hours.... days ..... months ....and YEARS for what is best as WE HAVE BEEN on these forums. But if we don't COMPROMISE where does that leave us at then?

We'll be agruing without agreement with discord until the game dies unless we accept sacrifices from our individual competitive values to meet at a middle ground.

You don't have to like a compromise but you need to be willing to accept one.

 

[Overswarm]

ughh I should but FeSoren back in my location


anyway who honestly knows whats "best". There isn't a math problem for stage x+ stage Y equals the most **** ruleset we will ever play on.

For example a japanese ruleset favors further competitive depth on character viability and having to learn more than just the metaknight match up.

A liberal stagelist favors competitive depth on stages

Honestly we can sit here debating for hours days months years for what is best as WE HAVE BEEN on these forums. But if we don't COMPROMISE where does that leave us at then?

The most metaknight dominated regions have been those with the most restricted rulesets in the US, just saying.

 

[Life]

The thing is, a liberal stagelist has both character and stage depth, while a restrictive list has only character depth. Hence, open lists have an inherent advantage, and restrictive advocates have to dig into specifics ("green greens is too random"-type stuff) in order to stand a chance.

By the way, I'm using open versus restrictive instead of conservative versus liberal for two three reasons:
1. CvL has political connotations that aren't really appropriate for a site about gaming
2. If a liberal/open list ever becomes the standard, it will have to be rebranded "conservative" and thus cause confusion.
3. "Open" and "restrictive" are more descriptive terms IMO.

 

[fkacyan]

The most metaknight dominated regions have been those with the most restricted rulesets in the US, just saying.

Loose if non-existant correlation there, broski.

 

[Life]

@above post:
"All the good players are from conservative regions, therefore conservative rules are more competitive!"
Same logic, broski.
/trollface

 

[Blacknight99923]

The most metaknight dominated regions have been those with the most restricted rulesets in the US, just saying.

or maybe those regions are better and so people are more inclined to pick better characters.

this isn't the thread for it however we could agrue this all day and not get anywhere.

@inferioty

while those are valid they are not the current terms and while they are I will continue to use them even if the use of them is flawed.

 

[Life]

And thus we come back to should versus will. <.<

I say open/restrictive is more accurate and SHOULD be used, so I WILL use it.
You say that while I'm right, people WILL use lib/cons so that's what you SHOULD use.

Am I correct?

 

[sunshade]

anyway who honestly knows whats "best". There isn't a math problem for stage x+ stage Y equals the most **** ruleset we will ever play on.

For example a japanese ruleset favors further competitive depth on character viability and having to learn more than just the metaknight match up.

You are right that there is no mathematical way of determining the amount of advantage given by having certain stage lists but you can determine it using basic logic.

Assuming one stage ban. The strength of a character's counterpicking ability would be the amount of advantage gained from their second strongest counterpick. The reason I say second strongest is because the strongest will get banned.

So on a restrictive stage list you generally have both Brinstar and Rainbow Cruise legal. This means Metaknights counterpick strength is equal to the power he gains on Rainbow Cruise.

Now lets say we made Jungle Japes legal. Is Jungle japes better than Rainbow Cruise or Brinstar? If its better than Brinstar then players will start to ban Japes instead of Brinstar and thus he will become stronger. If Japes is better than Rainbow Cruise but worse the Brinstar it will become his new counterpick of choice.

What this means is that unless a stage is better than your best or second best stage it does not strengthen a character's counterpicking ability.

Adding Jungle Japes does however help Falco. It causes players to be forced to ban it thus allowing him to take his opponents (like Metaknight in this example) to his previously banned choice.

You can now see that by making Jungle Japes legal you are encouraging stage knowledge, and character balance.

You can apply the logic of this post to any stage and see if its going to make metaknight stronger (which is the primary concern from most players). I will save you the effort and say that no banned stage other than Norfair and in select few match-ups distant planet will Metaknight become stronger from making more stages legal.

 

[Life]

^To add to that: I don't even agree that Norfair makes him stronger as it's probably #3. Perhaps I'm speaking from ignorance again, but I'd think it'd be harder to abuse Norfair's ledges than commonly thought (there's plenty enough to go around, use your invincibility to get through MK's uair and hit him). Norfair is, however, excellent for Sonic, Wario, Ganondorf, and possibly others.

 

[fkacyan]

@above post:
"All the good players are from conservative regions, therefore conservative rules are more competitive!"
Same logic, broski.
/trollface

I would be willing to bet I could get data to strongly correlate to conservative rulesets being better in practical play just based on stage usage, actually.

 

[Crow!]

Hmm. I could add "number of stages legal" to the list of data pieces to collect form each tournament when we reconstruct Ankoku's project (probably will happen over Winter break, I think), then we could get actual correlation data there. Might be mildly amusing.

 

[AlphaZealot]

Honestly we can sit here debating for hours.... days ..... months ....and YEARS for what is best as WE HAVE BEEN on these forums. But if we don't COMPROMISE where does that leave us at then?

We'll be agruing without agreement with discord until the game dies unless we accept sacrifices from our individual competitive values to meet at a middle ground.

This. This is very true. It is a pointless endeavor to try to defend what is "right" in a video game (this isn't life or death, this isn't abortion or civil rights, its a video game). It is especially a pointless endeavor to try to say what all the big tournaments are doing now, and have done for years, is wrong.

Separation of theory and reality is the big theme here. You know what? In theory there isn't anything wrong with Distant Planet, or heck, Mario Circuit. In reality though there is no way in hell you will get TO's around the country to use either of those stages, because there are illogical factors that come into making a ruleset like player attendance. Gauging human behavior is an inherently illogical task, and scream as much as you like that some stages are okay, when it comes to getting an entire country to be unified it simply does not matter what any one person believes.

I'll argue to the heavens that Norfair is a great stage. Xyro would do the same thing for Japes I'd bet. Both of us though realize it is a fruitless effort to argue in circles about these things like the community has been doing for years. It is time to man up, compromise, and get some unity. The people who run tournaments are in a position to do that, and it starts by getting the nationals under the same ruleset.

I wonder if some of the people complaining would even be able to get together and make a ruleset themselves. I guarantee if all the people appealing to logic were put in a box by themselves and told to make a ruleset, that every single one of those rulesets would look different even though they all claim to be using the same system of beliefs.

 

[etecoon]

The most metaknight dominated regions have been those with the most restricted rulesets in the US, just saying.

the regions with more liberal rulesets also tend to be bad at the game to the point where character choice is barely going to matter

like this

 

[Blacknight99923]

stuff I agree with in general.

yes its true after a certain point it doesn't matter how many stages you add

thats why I'd ban both RC and brinstar and have us playing on on a 3 stage starter and 3 stage cp this pretty much removes metaknights broken counterpicking ability while promoting everyone in A tier accept maybe wario and a number of lower tier characters that are generally considered very good on neutrals (such as fox).


However again this type of agruements belong in the stage discussion as this is discussion on what is more competitive not discussing the unity of the ruleset.


And AZ's post was god like kais tier


edit LOL AT ETECOON

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

@FeSoren: ...Ugh. Really? You're going to drag that up?

Also, seeing as this isn't going anywhere fast, I'm going to restate my plea.

What's the goal of this initiative? If the goal is to run solid tournaments with an overall agreeable stagelist that anyone can agree with, then it will succeed. It will succeed really well. This is a really good ruleset for this (ignore those european cuntbags who refuse to go to any tournament with more than 5 stages legal; they are idiots); it is, as stated, a compromise that everyone can agree on.

If the goal is (and this is what people like me and Raz are pushing for) a ruleset which maximizes the competitive depth of the game, is logically sound (no artificially buffing one char but not another, no bizarrely random rules, etc.), and still allows for reasonable competition and balance (regarding things such as number of stage bans, this is important!), then it will almost certainly crash and burn. Hard. This is simply because of things I have expressed earlier to Jack Kieser; such as the fact that the players supporting more liberal stages are nothing more than a very vocal minority.

However, I doubt this is the goal. So I'd just like to state that I sincerely hope that "our" goal is merely mitigated, not fully erased; it's kinda disappointing that this list doesn't have Japes or Norfair. Please, try to push in that direction, slowly but surely. Because while the competitive depth of the game cannot vary outside of the ruleset, the populace's agreement to "gay stages" can and will-it's completely and utterly subjective and based on the individual's opinion. And I seriously doubt that you can honestly chat with us about this and then claim we don't make pretty convincing points as to why this gives the game more competitive depth.

 

[Blacknight99923]

The goal of making the most competitive ruleset through logic failed when it made absolutely no headway. So the purpose of this ruleset is a compromise around all relavent parties (for example you BPC are not a relavent part as you are not running american tournaments which is what this is for,quite frankly neither is raziek).



So really its not about logic at this point since that has shown making extremely large posts over and over and over to not get the community ANYWHERE.

Its not about obtaining competitive depth which we have frequently showed is subjective, there is no math formula for creating the "most" competitive ruleset.

 

[Tesh]

yes its true after a certain point it doesn't matter how many stages you add

thats why I'd ban both RC and brinstar and have us playing on on a 3 stage starter and 3 stage cp this pretty much removes metaknights broken counterpicking ability while promoting everyone in A tier accept maybe wario and a number of lower tier characters that are generally considered very good on neutrals (such as fox).


However again this type of agruements belong in the stage discussion as this is discussion on what is more competitive not discussing the unity of the ruleset.


And AZ's post was god like kais tier


edit LOL AT ETECOON

My god your sig is amazing. Sweet irony.

 

[Life]

AZ: Have you read this thread? You'll notice all that "unity" and "compromise" have brought us is discord and disunity. Whereas debate was relatively civil before (if often fallacious), now it's beginning to grow personal. We've pushed the two most persuasive people on the forums out into the cold (Raziek and BPC). We've given three out of five people (a group which happens to include yourself) the authority to completely change the face of Brawl if they ever feel like it. We've completely taken away months of Brawl's metagame advancement for the sake of a "unity" which does not and will most likely never exist, and frankly isn't that great anyway. We've blocked the ability for anyone outside The Five to commit to large-scale testing (and any testing that does occur can be handwaved with "not enough data"). We've removed depth from Brawl for the sake of "unity".

This "unity" you have imagined is built on a foundation of sand, and will fail. As. It. Should.

Etecoon: Don't pretend you've never made a mistake. Because if you've never made a mistake, you've never lost a game of Brawl. AMAHGASH RAZIEK WHIFFED A COUNTER--grow up.

 

[Overswarm]

I wonder if some of the people complaining would even be able to get together and make a ruleset themselves. I guarantee if all the people appealing to logic were put in a box by themselves and told to make a ruleset, that every single one of those rulesets would look different even though they all claim to be using the same system of beliefs.

I don't think they'd be that different given the same information. More importantly, if you put them all in a box together, they'd come up with a near flawless ruleset that doesn't ban anything needlessly and when something questionable appears the response "further research required" would be the kneejerk reaction.

 

[Blacknight99923]

I don't think they'd be that different given the same information. More importantly, if you put them all in a box together, they'd come up with a near flawless ruleset that doesn't ban anything needlessly and when something questionable appears the response "further research required" would be the kneejerk reaction.

Only by your definition of flawless. They obviously won't see problems in their ruleset because they created it, when I would see a plethora of problems, as your party would if they saw a ruleset created by people who think like me.

 

[Life]

Flawless: without flaws

I dunno what your definition is.

 

[Overswarm]

Only by your definition of flawless. They obviously won't see problems in their ruleset because they created it, when I would see a plethora of problems as would your party see mine if I had like minded individuals in a box.

Flawless in the sense of "having no irregularities", not "perfect".

Although, I do believe if you put the right group of people together with the mind "don't ban unless proven broken" you'd have very few "borderline" stages.

 

[Life]

....troll fail ,_,

 

[Blacknight99923]

yes you would probably arrive at that if that is your exact definition. However I think we can agree the opposing party would have several problems with it.

 

[Life]

Like what? "it's gay"?... Frankly, until Susa came along, that's pretty much all I saw out of the restrictive side...

 

[SuSa]

AZ: Have you read this thread? You'll notice all that "unity" and "compromise" have brought us is discord and disunity. Whereas debate was relatively civil before (if often fallacious), now it's beginning to grow personal. We've pushed the two most persuasive people on the forums out into the cold (Raziek and BPC). We've given three out of five people (a group which happens to include yourself) the authority to completely change the face of Brawl if they ever feel like it. We've completely taken away months of Brawl's metagame advancement for the sake of a "unity" which does not and will most likely never exist, and frankly isn't that great anyway. We've blocked the ability for anyone outside The Five to commit to large-scale testing (and any testing that does occur can be handwaved with "not enough data"). We've removed depth from Brawl for the sake of "unity".

It's... actually near the same MAJOR split (open vs restrictive) and it's patching up the tiny MINOR splits (restrictive vs slightly more or less restrictive)

It's the same 5 people that have been arguing for god-knows-how-long. It's the same 5 people making very little headway. It's the same 5 people who mostly debate within themselves and a handful (2-4) randoms about stage legality and such.

Then there are those making headway. Who want unity.

And to respond to BPC:

If the goal is (and this is what people like me and Raz are pushing for) a ruleset which maximizes the competitive depth of the game, is logically sound (no artificially buffing one char but not another, no bizarrely random rules, etc.), and still allows for reasonable competition and balance (regarding things such as number of stage bans, this is important!), then it will almost certainly crash and burn. Hard. This is simply because of things I have expressed earlier to Jack Kieser; such as the fact that the players supporting more liberal stages are nothing more than a very vocal minority.

10thisagains


To pick and choose what I decide to respond to OS about:

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".

I'd like to see the data for the first one. Outside of there being a lot of money on the line (read: National) I think a good deal of people care about the ruleset to some extent. As far as stages go? Maybe not so much, if you work them into it slowly.

Keyword being slowly.

MLG forced everyone into it only because of the amount of money on the line. I'd play on Temple and 75m if it meant a shot at that sort of money.

 

[Blacknight99923]

If I'm a top player I'd be willing to play on a liberal stage list with 12500 on the line and free soda, food all weekend.


and yes I agree
the same 5 people agruing about stages so they can feel pride at winning an agruement accomplishes absolutely nothing for the rest of the community.

 

[Life]

It's... actually near the same MAJOR split (open vs restrictive) and it's patching up the tiny MINOR splits (restrictive vs slightly more or less restrictive)

It's the same 5 people that have been arguing for god-knows-how-long. It's the same 5 people making very little headway. It's the same 5 people who mostly debate within themselves and a handful (2-4) randoms about stage legality and such.

Then there are those making headway. Who want unity.

Incom-1, Susa-0? No real philosophical headway, only headway on "this is acceptably gay". For proof, see Japes, a completely non-random stage which is banned because... wait, we don't know why. Too bad Xyro is "too lazy" to argue for it.

Rules should (there's that word again) not be influenced by "what is gay", but "what is unstoppable". Otherwise, I say Lucario is gay, aura is a stupid mechanic, let's ban Lucario. (Of course, I'm a Sonic main too, but shhhhh)

And re: the end of your post. That's EXACTLY what Raziek did and it worked out very well for his (admittedly small) scene.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Just a question for Overswarm.

Would people still have issues when it come down to interpreting results?

 

[SuSa]

Like what? "it's gay"?... Frankly, until Susa came along, that's pretty much all I saw out of the restrictive side...

End all argument time.

****'s gay yo'

That is the only ****ing reason I've tried coming up with an agreeable criteria that the open side couldn't argue to shreds (because it'd be a logical criteria) and that isn't so restrictive as to have even the restrictive side disagree with it (which is what my last attempt ended in)

Am I bad on these stages?

Hell 'naw. I have counterpicked Faco's and DK's to Japes (as Snake), LET the counterpick me there. I counterpick MK's to Rainbow Cruise. I've even let DDD's take me to Delfino (although that was honestly a mistake), I've played on some of the jankiest stages in this game. I know how they work.

But I feel that they are unfit for competitive play. A large reason for this?

I don't feel I really "earned my win" on most of these stages. It wasn't so much me facing my opponent as me abusing the living **** out of the stages design.

I beat a Kirby in a $1MM as GANON on Norfair because (gasp) I abused. The ****. Out of that stage. I SHOULD NOT HAVE WON. But I did anyways.

I don't see them fit for competition, most people are content with that mutual agreement. Others want LOGIC to back up why.

I'm fine with the mutual agreement, but I like to please people - so I try to find something logical other than "dude, these stages really aren't fit for competitive play. They're laughable."

 

[Overswarm]

Just a question for Overswarm.

Would people still have issues when it come down to interpreting results?

What do you mean? Like... who won the set? o_O

 

[Overswarm]

yes you would probably arrive at that if that is your exact definition. However I think we can agree the opposing party would have several problems with it.

That wouldn't matter unless they had legitimate complaints, of which "we don't like it" wouldn't be one.