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

[Steam]

@BPC

He'd win the set assuming a 5 stage starter list (that has FD, as most do). Strike down to one of those 3. Beat you there.
Lose on your meaningless counterpick.
You ban one of the remaining 2.
He takes you to the third.
Good game.

also this : D

 

[vVv Rapture]

I'm just going to start this off with the fact that everyone who seems to be severely butthurt about the inclusion of some stages and the exclusion of others seriously needs to get over themselves.

It's as if adding Distant Planet adds 100 meters of depth to the game and suddenly Brawl is a legitimate fighter or something. I'm all for arguing about what's right, but it comes off as extremely unnecessary when it's such a futile thing to argue about. I could honestly care about the lives of ants in a particular ant hill and how us humans should band together to make each hill contain the same amount of granules for proper ant life, but at the end of the day, does it really ****ing matter if an ant hill has 1,343,006,800 granules as opposed to one more?

That's just for anyone along the lines of that argument.

In terms of the concept of how this is being executed, I feel like this sort of unity is definitely a step in the right direction and I feel like it's nothing but a good thing. The idea itself is marvelous, as it sort of seems just ridiculous that the community isn't as closeknit as it should be.

At the same time, how it's being done is a bit iffy. I personally couldn't give two flying ****s about the sticky thing, since things that get stickied will be the same things that get stickied now and vice versa. People will go to tournaments regardless of the sticky. I really haven't made a decision on going to a tournament based on its position in the Tournament Listings board. Is it really that hard to...you know, scroll a bit?

I do think, however, that the committee should have started out a lot larger. Having only 5 TOs doesn't seem right, especially when other very credible TOs weren't included. Plus, maybe a bit of throwing ideas around from the actual BBR could have helped. But then I'd be getting redundant because everyone else has said literally everything there is to say and, hey guys, you're getting no where.

Just saying.

Brawl is still going to be Brawl and people will get over this and play. It's really not the biggest deal. I agree that the execution could have been better, but you guys really need to find something better to do when you're getting this heated about it instead of trying to find a compromise...which, by the way, I haven't seen at all from either side. Both sides are saying they are right and you can't have that. I don't care how right you think you are, but it doesn't progress the situation when every single one of you is just saying the same thing over and over because no one wants to change their views or look for a middle-ground.

And if you have, it hasn't worked yet.

EDIT: Also, yeah, it'd be nice to see why those stages were picked. More information, more clarity, all that jazz...

 

[Sage JoWii]

I think, Raziek, needs transperancy. Some ppl get mad about coaching during matches and yelling in their ears, which are legitimate things to get mad about I would think. And some people get mad about being left out, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

If you're going to one of these nationals, maybe you can ask them? If not, why are you here in the first place? Lawl. Neva Shutup'd. Nove Scotia isn't even affected directly by this ruleset and stagelist.

 

[Overswarm]

Okay, define competitiveness? Or what makes a game competitive?

You might be right, but I wanna hear your response to make sure.

For Brawl, it "competitive" would be allowing for individual skill to triumph with consistency while allowing the most depth possible while still giving a fair game.

To have people play "all random stages with random characters" wouldn't be competitive. You could say "we want to see who is the best at BRAWL, not best at brawl with metaknight vs. diddy on lylat cruise!", but my response would be that you would have to have muuuuuuuch larger sets to determine who actually was "better" in a format like this rather than who got lucky. Quadruple elimination and a b07 with two mulligans for each player might not even be enough.

So, essentially, that is uncompetitive. It has tons of depth, but no consistency and lacks the individual skill requirement.

To have people play on an extremely limited stage list (or limited character list, like mid tier or low tier only, etc.) has the individual skill but no depth. You could play in a Metaknight only tournament and be the victor, but... you'd only be the winner of a bunch of Metaknight dittos. Regardless if that's important, that's not competitive for Brawl. That's competitive for Metaknight dittos in Brawl.

The logical response to formatting a competitive ruleset is to be as originalist as possible. Keep as much of the game intact as you can. Lay the groundwork early, and keep things fair and not random (no single elimination or randomized seeding and whatnot). This present depth.

From this point forward, you need to evaluate results and determine if they allow for consistency and individual skill. If you see that Hyrule Temple has a near 50% win/loss rate for everyone regardless of skill level or a much higher volume of timeouts, you can call that an intrinsic property of that stage. If the intrinsic property of that stage removes consistency, easy ban. If you have extreme consistency, or over-centralization as it has been called, this isn't grounds for a ban by itself. Diddy players would pick FD like 97% of the time; that doesn't mean FD should be banned. But, if you look at a stage and realize that it takes out individual skill from the equation, then it can be banned. If Diddy routinely CPs FD and he has a much higher win % there than on other stages (including his other CPs), you can determine if FD is just his only good CP or if the stage is really just "too good" for him. If the latter is the case, ban the stage.

Lastly, some things, like Wario Ware's randomized rewards or Summit's fish or the like, can remove individual skill from the equation if they can't properly be controlled or at least anticipated and responded to by the player. Most hazards are predictable and can be avoided or manipulated by the players, and thus aren't grounds for a ban (especially if someone just doesn't know how they work)! A prime example of this is Green Greens. While it's true you can't determine if a bomb or block will fall next, based on the layout of the stage you can get a pretty good idea. In addition to this, you know when the blocks will stop falling completely. It was a good example of stage knowledge at MLG D.C. when ADHD got three stocked on the main stage by Rich Brown, but otherwise gave him close games (and later won the continuation set). Despite the fact that Green Greens isn't some uber stage for Olimar that results in 100% win rate and it isn't so bad for Diddy as to see him get destroyed there by Olimar every time, it occurred because ADHD didn't know the stage as well. That's an example of hazards increasing the amount of individual skill required.

As for "but that's not a skill we want to test!!!", those arguments are invalid. Removing depth for the sake of enjoyment is not a prerequisite to a competitive game. In fact, it's kind of the opposite. Otherwise, Meta Knight would have been banned loooooong ago.

 

[Overswarm]

I'm just going to start this off with the fact that everyone who seems to be severely butthurt about the inclusion of some stages and the exclusion of others seriously needs to get over themselves.

It's as if adding Distant Planet adds 100 meters of depth to the game and suddenly Brawl is a legitimate fighter or something. I'm all for arguing about what's right, but it comes off as extremely unnecessary when it's such a futile thing to argue about. I could honestly care about the lives of ants in a particular ant hill and how us humans should band together to make each hill contain the same amount of granules for proper ant life, but at the end of the day, does it really ****ing matter if an ant hill has 1,343,006,800 granules as opposed to one more?

That's just for anyone along the lines of that argument.

In terms of the concept of how this is being executed, I feel like this sort of unity is definitely a step in the right direction and I feel like it's nothing but a good thing. The idea itself is marvelous, as it sort of seems just ridiculous that the community isn't as closeknit as it should be.

At the same time, how it's being done is a bit iffy. I personally couldn't give two flying ****s about the sticky thing, since things that get stickied will be the same things that get stickied now and vice versa. People will go to tournaments regardless of the sticky. I really haven't made a decision on going to a tournament based on its position in the Tournament Listings board. Is it really that hard to...you know, scroll a bit?

I do think, however, that the committee should have started out a lot larger. Having only 5 TOs doesn't seem right, especially when other very credible TOs weren't included. Plus, maybe a bit of throwing ideas around from the actual BBR could have helped. But then I'd be getting redundant because everyone else has said literally everything there is to say and, hey guys, you're getting no where.

Just saying.

Brawl is still going to be Brawl and people will get over this and play. It's really not the biggest deal. I agree that the execution could have been better, but you guys really need to find something better to do when you're getting this heated about it instead of trying to find a compromise...which, by the way, I haven't seen at all from either side. Both sides are saying they are right and you can't have that. I don't care how right you think you are, but it doesn't progress the situation when every single one of you is just saying the same thing over and over because no one wants to change their views or look for a middle-ground.

And if you have, it hasn't worked yet.

EDIT: Also, yeah, it'd be nice to see why those stages were picked. More information, more clarity, all that jazz...

I really like this post. I haven't seen your posts before I don't think, but they deliver. Will read more.

 

[HelpR]

wow. This is a stupid argument.

The 5 TOs who agreed on this arent tryng to force you to use the ruleset. That'd be a nice outcome, but it's unlikely that'd ever happen.

they're trying to make a unified ruleset that most regions can agree to, and the stage list is the best place to start.

Some areas prefer very liberal rulesets, while others prefer extremely conservative ones (mine is particularly far on the conservative side) They tried to find some common ground, and they reached a decent median.

Also, keep in mind, that these 5 TOs each run tournaments far larger then the norm, and have helped the community to such an extent. If they feel this is a worthy cause, the community should listen. If a TO isn't swayed by their points, that's fine, they arent forced to adopt the new ruleset. But if they want to try and unify smashboards, and make a legitimate ruleset accepted in most parts of the US, I can't see that as being anything but a bad thing, and that's the point of this committee.

A big problem with the BBR is that it's mostly seen as a bunch debates that go nowhere, and is seen as a defunct body. This is an attempt by a small group to unify the TOs to try and get some kind of stable ruleset in place, that WILL change.

Complaining about the stagelist just seems rather inflammatory, and hasn't resulted in anything but people arguing, degrading into trolling often.

 

[UberMario]

Why is Pictochat in the list on the first page? Of all the CPs to be removed from their rosters, the most random, currently legal stage which can gimp recoveries by itself was one that wasn't? I haven't read all the pages here, but I think that is just bull****.

 

[Teh Future]

so i got infracted for trolling. idk how that makes sense bc everyone one of buget player connect, susa, and ryzieks posts look like that.

someone ban them kthnxbi

 

[Crimson King]

so i got infracted for trolling. idk how that makes sense bc everyone one of buget player connect, susa, and ryzieks posts look like that.

someone ban them kthnxbi

Cut me some slack; I'm on my phone so it takes a lot to catch up.

But guys, come on, grow up a bit. Trolling people is not cool.

 

[SuSa]

so i got infracted for trolling. idk how that makes sense bc everyone one of buget player connect, susa, and ryzieks posts look like that.

someone ban them kthnxbi

Sorry that a specifically colored font makes it easier to find my posts, posts relevant to me (as in they are quoting me - I see my color) and allow me to more efficiently spend my time on SWF.

I could always use a generator and make my text look like I'm ****ting rainbows. But that's not exactly efficient as I'd always have to have that tab open and copy+paste my text over to it.

Do you ***** about colored postbits as well? (See Crimson King's crimson postbit if you don't know what I'm talking about)

 

[theunabletable]

hey guys

Ganon vs ICs is unwinnable on FD. FD should be banned for overcentralization.

Get at me.

 

[SuSa]

Except you need to go research what overcentralizing is, your ignorance is showing.

 

[theunabletable]

If I'm wrong about overcentralizing, then tell me what overcentralizing actually is, and why my definition (which is based off of the definition you gave me earlier in this thread, btw) is wrong.

 

[SuSa]

Do a single tactic or lose. For many banned stages, this becomes "Circle camp or lose."

Circle camping is not reasonably beatable, especially if you can never catch your opponent. So no matter WHAT MATCHUP IT IS - unless it is a ditto - you will lose for a specific general trait.

Not because your character is "bad" but only because your character is "slower than the opponents". It could be Bowser vs Ganon and one would win for simply outspeeding the other.

Your example is a specific example of ____ vs _____. Not "Any char vs any other char"

You misinterpreted what I meant, and decided to be an *** rather than use your head when I gave you the definition earlier. People get pissed at me for writing essays, but when I say it in 1 sentence nobody understands jack **** and they piss me off. If I explain it well the first time I don't need to spend 20 pages being pissed off at the guy.

You should also stop trolling, you're bad at it. <_< You just make yourself look like a dumb ****.

 

[Blacknight99923]

lol at table's trolling

unfortunately your not xyro status

edit I forgot to mention rapture had a **** post

 

[theunabletable]

Do a single tactic or lose. For many banned stages, this becomes "Circle camp or lose."

Why a single tactic?

And it's not circle camp or lose, you have to lose the lead to lose due to circle camping.

Circle camping is not reasonably beatable, especially if you can never catch your opponent. So no matter WHAT MATCHUP IT IS - unless it is a ditto - you will lose for a specific general trait.

You're telling me it's impossible to not lose the lead at some point?

Your example is a specific example of ____ vs _____. Not "Any char vs any other char"

What's the difference, objectively? Why does it have to be more than one example of "do this or lose"? How many examples of matchups being "pick this character or lose" does it take, objectively, for something to be overcentralizing?

 

[Blacknight99923]

hey by the way about the snake argument on hyrule temple regarding circle camping

have you ever played catch the snake?

like no seriously because he's a mofo to catch

that being said circle camping should still be banned.

 

[rathy Aro]

For Brawl, it "competitive" would be allowing for individual skill to triumph with consistency while allowing the most depth possible while still giving a fair game.

To have people play "all random stages with random characters" wouldn't be competitive. You could say "we want to see who is the best at BRAWL, not best at brawl with metaknight vs. diddy on lylat cruise!", but my response would be that you would have to have muuuuuuuch larger sets to determine who actually was "better" in a format like this rather than who got lucky. Quadruple elimination and a b07 with two mulligans for each player might not even be enough.

So, essentially, that is uncompetitive. It has tons of depth, but no consistency and lacks the individual skill requirement.

To have people play on an extremely limited stage list (or limited character list, like mid tier or low tier only, etc.) has the individual skill but no depth. You could play in a Metaknight only tournament and be the victor, but... you'd only be the winner of a bunch of Metaknight dittos. Regardless if that's important, that's not competitive for Brawl. That's competitive for Metaknight dittos in Brawl.

The logical response to formatting a competitive ruleset is to be as originalist as possible. Keep as much of the game intact as you can. Lay the groundwork early, and keep things fair and not random (no single elimination or randomized seeding and whatnot). This present depth.

From this point forward, you need to evaluate results and determine if they allow for consistency and individual skill. If you see that Hyrule Temple has a near 50% win/loss rate for everyone regardless of skill level or a much higher volume of timeouts, you can call that an intrinsic property of that stage. If the intrinsic property of that stage removes consistency, easy ban. If you have extreme consistency, or over-centralization as it has been called, this isn't grounds for a ban by itself. Diddy players would pick FD like 97% of the time; that doesn't mean FD should be banned. But, if you look at a stage and realize that it takes out individual skill from the equation, then it can be banned. If Diddy routinely CPs FD and he has a much higher win % there than on other stages (including his other CPs), you can determine if FD is just his only good CP or if the stage is really just "too good" for him. If the latter is the case, ban the stage.

Lastly, some things, like Wario Ware's randomized rewards or Summit's fish or the like, can remove individual skill from the equation if they can't properly be controlled or at least anticipated and responded to by the player. Most hazards are predictable and can be avoided or manipulated by the players, and thus aren't grounds for a ban (especially if someone just doesn't know how they work)! A prime example of this is Green Greens. While it's true you can't determine if a bomb or block will fall next, based on the layout of the stage you can get a pretty good idea. In addition to this, you know when the blocks will stop falling completely. It was a good example of stage knowledge at MLG D.C. when ADHD got three stocked on the main stage by Rich Brown, but otherwise gave him close games (and later won the continuation set). Despite the fact that Green Greens isn't some uber stage for Olimar that results in 100% win rate and it isn't so bad for Diddy as to see him get destroyed there by Olimar every time, it occurred because ADHD didn't know the stage as well. That's an example of hazards increasing the amount of individual skill required.

As for "but that's not a skill we want to test!!!", those arguments are invalid. Removing depth for the sake of enjoyment is not a prerequisite to a competitive game. In fact, it's kind of the opposite. Otherwise, Meta Knight would have been banned loooooong ago.

Based on your definition, I'm now sure that I'm right and that competitiveness IS arbitrary. I'll explain later. *goes back to watching Soul Eater*

 

[theunabletable]

@Soren: Yeah haha. I was there when Seibrik was introducing SoCal to it haha. That game is pretty damn fun.

 

[Blacknight99923]

because it just occurred to me snake could potentially combat circle camping
this is getting off topic though.

 

[Tin Man]

How can one become apart of the BBRC?

 

[Life]

*random*

Why a single tactic?

1:

Tactic A is overpowered.
Do tactic A or lose.

2:

Tactic A is OP.
Tactic B is OP.
Either A counters B / B counters A, in which case do the better or lose (game degrades to one), or they're both incredibly close to equal, which means do both/either depending, or lose.

3:

Rock beats paper...

3 seems to be the critical mass for this. One tactic is like having RPS with one of the throws removed. If there's two tactics, the majority of the time the game will be reduced to one of the two. When there's three, RPS-type "flowing metagames" become possible.

Someone tell me if I'm wrong.

 

[swordgard]

How can one become apart of the BBRC?

You can't.

For real, you can't. Needs to be american!

 

[MK26]

I was going to post a bunch of stuff, but it's mostly been said already, much more eloquently than I could put it. I guess the 'debate' comes down to what is theoretically correct vs. what is able to be practically implemented
but on the other hand, we have five prominent TOs that decided to regulate their stage lists for their tournaments, no problem...their initiative is supported by the swf admins, still no problem...but putting the bbr name on this TO Subcommittee and telling the other nationals directly (and smaller tourneys indirectly, more on that in a moment) that you'll lose recognition if you deviate is a little harsh imo. I'm thinking about half of the bawwing in this thread couldve been averted if the line of thinking was "hey fellow TOs, the five of us came up with this stage list and will be using it for all of 2011, this is our variation on the BBR's recommended list and we'd be glad if you followed it too" rather than "DO EEET OR ELSE ".

This whole situation reminds me of what essentially amounted to a coupe d'etat in the WBR, where the large, unwieldy group dragged their heels on bringing out a good product, and Cape took charge, gathered a posse, and knocked everyone's socks off with a badass codeset. He didn't brand it WBR, he didn't say "this is the future, resistance/dissent is futile", he showed what he had and let it do the talking for him. And whaddaya know, it became the official Brawl+ codeset - not because someone in power said it should, but because IT WAS BETTER THAN ANYTHING ELSE OUT THERE. Period. Honey vs vinegar, no? Even a niner knows that any force has an equal and opposite reaction - push hard for this and you'll get resistance, demand conformity and you'll get more resistance; but ask nicely, or better yet talk to other TOs without informing the public (assuming nobody gets suspicious that a stage list gets formalized overnight) and this would've sailed through, and six months from now, when this had 20 major tourneys' worth of data and maybe a few tweaks, nobody would bat an eyelash when it became an official BBR policy. Sure you'd still get people like BPC and Raziek (not gonna lie, I probably would too) arguing the stages, but by then it'd be too far gone to even consider a large overhaul.

And that bull about this not affecting local tourneys? Please. In the scenario I just described, do you think any locals near (time-wise) to 6 months' worth of national tourneys would go against the grain? Remember that little circuit called MLG? Remember the complaints from everywhere when the stage list came out? Remember, despite the bawwing, that tournaments were held with the MLG stage list to get players ready? Now imagine that, except replace 'MLG' with 'just about every major tournament for six months'. Yeah, I don't think that anybody besides those regions vehemetly against this list would stick to their own. Especially if you notified other TOs not involved in creating the list, while keeping it away from the public. A year from now, barring this initiative crashing and burning hard, not even the hardline dissidents (at least, within the States) would be able to run tourneys without at least one of every few running the Official Brawl-Back-Room-Certified Tournament-Organizer-Approved Stage Recommendation.

That's how you make a uniform list, subvert the BBR, and get what you want, all without 700+ posts' worth of ****ing. Not "HEY GUYS, THIS IS OUR LIST, THE ADMINS WERE COOL WITH IT, SO SHUT UP. YOU TOO BBR." Because, honestly, the TOs run the show. They could do what they want if they get the community to agree with what they want. And, for all intents and purposes, I can see this list, +/- a stage here or there, be accepted as a national standard, as long as you go about it the right way. Not that I agree with it (and I would argue it if others weren't), but I'm just some rando with a grape name and $0.02 of opinion he decided to share.

======

@BPC

He'd win the set assuming a 5 stage starter list (that has FD, as most do). Strike down to one of those 3. Beat you there.
Lose on your meaningless counterpick.
You ban one of the remaining 2.
He takes you to the third.
Good game.

isnt this...iunno...a problem? Being able to undermine a stage list, whether 8 or 22 stages in length, by being good at three fairly similar ones? ofc, this could be averted by removing fd/having a 7 stage starter list/not sucking, but still...

 

[Life]

MK26 layin' down the law

 

[SuSa]

Summarized into:
You went about this the wrong way

Recommendations didn't really work for 3 years. I see a more forceful policy is obviously needed. This is what they have done. There will always be dissent.

As I quoted before, but this time from another I-forget-his-name who phrased it differently.

First step to avoiding failure - never try and please everyone.

There's arguments for both sides. Moreso on the EXTREMELY open side than the extremely restrictive side - only because the other is "losing" more stages. (Please read this and infer the sentence properly. I couldn't think of a better way to say "losing" even though the restrictive side is gaining stages..)

This is called compromise. Instead of pleasing everyone fully, you appease each side to an agreeable middle boundary.

isnt this...iunno...a problem? Being able to undermine a stage list, whether 8 or 22 stages in length, by being good at three fairly similar ones? ofc, this could be averted by removing fd/having a 7 stage starter list/not sucking, but still...

Totally is, I have a thread about flipping how the rounds are played - which largely averts this issue. Or full stage striking for Game1; the only logical route if you're going to say "These stages are legal. These one's aren't". As "counterpick only" stages shouldn't exist. A stage is legal - or it is banned. There is no sweet inbetween that's only "sometimes" OK to play on.

 

[Juushichi]

MK26 putting out the ****.

 

[ADHD]

F It was a good example of stage knowledge at MLG D.C. when ADHD got three stocked on the main stage by Rich Brown, but otherwise gave him close games (and later won the continuation set). Despite the fact that Green Greens isn't some uber stage for Olimar that results in 100% win rate and it isn't so bad for Diddy as to see him get destroyed there by Olimar every time, it occurred because ADHD didn't know the stage as well. That's an example of hazards increasing the amount of individual skill required.

You do know that you can also be hit into the area of a falling bomb, right?

 

[theunabletable]

1:

Tactic A is overpowered.
Do tactic A or lose.

2:

Tactic A is OP.
Tactic B is OP.
Either A counters B / B counters A, in which case do the better or lose (game degrades to one), or they're both incredibly close to equal, which means do both/either depending, or lose.

3:

Rock beats paper...

3 seems to be the critical mass for this. One tactic is like having RPS with one of the throws removed. If there's two tactics, the majority of the time the game will be reduced to one of the two. When there's three, RPS-type "flowing metagames" become possible.

Someone tell me if I'm wrong.

So you're telling me that if Hyrule were legal, the ONLY thing that would happen would be Sonics circle camping? That's just plain incorrect, you can't win with JUST circle camping, you still need a read (hmm... kinda like RPS) to win, or else you'll never gain the lead.

Picking Sonic and going on Hyrule wouldn't be auto-win. You wouldn't automatically lose if you decided not to.

Now if you got outplayed, and lost the lead, yeah you'll probably lose, but it's not "do this or lose" because you still have to outplay the opponent even if Hyrule is legal.

If you could somehow win without a lead, then, yeah, it'd be overcentralizing by that definition. You'd automatically win if you did one tactic. However you will NOT win with just one tactic automatically on Hyrule.

 

[SuSa]

Again. Why not play 1% Stamina matches - first hit wins?

 

[theunabletable]

Exactly.

Why not?

 

[CaptCollins]

I dunno these people jordan. But if they are agaisnt distant planet in ns then I love them. lol

 

[napZzz]

How often have I argued for liberal stages?

Now can you name me the 6 stages I feel are the only stages we should be playing this game on?

Don't tell me I'm not willing to compromise. I'm just far more realistic and put aside my personal beliefs (and yes, EVEN LOGIC ITSELF!) to have unity.

Because in the end, the stages. Don't. ****ing. Matter

What matters is what when I travel to Texas during Spring Break - I know 100% what to expect. Far in advance. I can practice on only those stages. Hopefully my locals and regionals will adopt those rules to further allow me to practice on those stages. I will become a better player - because very little "stage bull****" takes place.

Then I can expect to actually place well at the national.

Having Distant Planet isn't going to help you AT ALL when you travel out of NS. Unless YOU are the people hosting the national - with DP legal - you have very little reason other than the competitive depth and your players wanting the stage - to have it legal.

0 reason.

It's not helping you at all outside of your region. If no other region has it.

You are spreading your knowledge of the game too far. Instead of focusing on important aspects such as actually fighting your opponent; you focus on when Brinstar's lava is going to rise. Or how to avoid Norfair's Lava (instead of learning how to counter your opponents attacks)

This game is damn well deep enough even on 6 stages. 22 adds a great deal of depth, but the more you have to learn - the less you learn everything.



A Jack of all trades is a King of none.

SuSa out.

whats funny is I was about to make a post regarded to ripple, bpc, raziek and anyone else who's super in favor of "janky" stages asking

ARE YOU GUYS NEVER WRONG?

because seriously...I dont think I've ever seen them admit to anything in an argument, they can take 2+2=5 and try to win it in their favor or lean on a draw

not picking on you guys in general, you just stand out the most

 

[-Googs]

I swear 90% of matchs are played on SV/BF then cp'd to Brinstar/RC if your mk or fd/SV again if your anyone else. Sometimes YI i suppose. I don't get why everyone is womping about legal stages if they are rarely going to be picked anyways.

 

[napZzz]

I swear 90% of matchs are played on SV/BF then cp'd to Brinstar/RC if your mk or fd/SV again if your anyone else. Sometimes YI i suppose. I don't get why everyone is womping about legal stages if they are rarely going to be picked anyways.

welcome to the life of a snake main, most of my sets look like this LOL

just in a mixed order

then again,here in the midwest for the most part we aren't ******s and run normal stage lists

 

[MK26]

Recommendations didn't really work for 3 years. I see a more forceful policy is obviously needed. This is what they have done. There will always be dissent.

As I quoted before, but this time from another I-forget-his-name who phrased it differently.


There's arguments for both sides. Moreso on the EXTREMELY open side than the extremely restrictive side - only because the other is "losing" more stages. (Please read this and infer the sentence properly. I couldn't think of a better way to say "losing" even though the restrictive side is gaining stages..)

This is called compromise. Instead of pleasing everyone fully, you appease each side to an agreeable middle boundary.

Recommendations havent worked for three years because they've been rooted in theory, and not fully fleshed out, and not recommended by the people who matter. Get 5 major TOs together ANYWHERE to agree on a stage list and pledge to use it, and suddenly their sphere of influence now uses that stage list. You can't boycott one guy's tourney based on the stages because his buddy's tourney next month is running the same rules. "Suck it up, buttercup, your neigbourhood is playing by the TOs' rules, and we've got each other to back us up".

Suddenly, your neighbourhood is the ENTIRE FREAKIN' COUNTRY. "Bud, that national in two weeks you're sending 10 guys to? Our rules. That one over on the other side of the country that you can't go to but are hyped about? Our rules. The one in your region, where the nation's best are planning on coming to your state and kicking your ***? Yep, you guessed it. Better polish up on Picto, you'll need to know it. Japes? Nah, why waste time on that when you won't even need it at any of OUR major tournaments?"

They don't need to compromise among anybody but themselves. BPC and Raziek and I can argue till we're blue in the face (or have Carpal Tunnel, as it were), but if the TOs collectively choose to ignore us and agree amongst themselves, what's there for us to do? Like I said, I can see this list, maybe with a tweak or two, being agreed upon in most US regions. I mean, it's already got most of the nationals, and that's just five people. They've already done the 'compromise' part, next is just the 'convince everyone important that unity and a shoddy list are more important that floundering about testing and experimenting and theorycrafting Temple into legality' part.

Speaking of which...

So you're telling me that if Hyrule were legal, the ONLY thing that would happen would be Sonics circle camping? That's just plain incorrect, you can't win with JUST circle camping, you still need a read (hmm... kinda like RPS) to win, or else you'll never gain the lead.

Picking Sonic and going on Hyrule wouldn't be auto-win. You wouldn't automatically lose if you decided not to.

Now if you got outplayed, and lost the lead, yeah you'll probably lose, but it's not "do this or lose" because you still have to outplay the opponent even if Hyrule is legal.

If you could somehow win without a lead, then, yeah, it'd be overcentralizing by that definition. You'd automatically win if you did one tactic. However you will NOT win with just one tactic automatically on Hyrule.

um...yes, you will. look at it the other way around - the slower character needs to maintain a lead for 8 whole minutes, because if he's ahead, he cant run away, but as soon as he's behind, the game is lost. you cant catch up to your opponent, and even if you do, he's got the psychological advantage because he can turn around, attack, and run off again (thus increasing his lead), whereas you're moving in one direction only - towards him. It's almost a game of 'first hit wins'...except, if i'm faster than you, i can make up for being behind, while you cant. It's not that I need to outplay you, i just need a single decent read to grab an insurmountable lead. And if I KO you? You're doubly screwed. As long as I restrict our interactions to the cave of life, i can tech any kill move you throw at me. Chip a bit of damage off, and even if I miss a tech, you're still behind and need to start chasing me again. Of course, that's given that you catch me in the first place. Barring you grabbing a significant, early lead before it's off to the races, i've won with very little of anything besides running and jumping.

<_< totally not feeding the troll

 

[Crow!]

I swear 90% of matchs are played on SV/BF then cp'd to Brinstar/RC if your mk or fd/SV again if your anyone else. Sometimes YI i suppose. I don't get why everyone is womping about legal stages if they are rarely going to be picked anyways.

Tired of ending up with the same old stage selections regardless of your stage selections? Try new* Brawl Back Room recommended starter lists! With 3, 5, 7, and even 9 stage varieties to choose from, these more balanced stage selections give you fun, fun decisions to make at the start of each match.

Head to your local tourneymarket and buy some today!

* May not actually be new. In fact, may be nearing expiration date.
** Offer void on the EC and at national tournaments.

 

[Blacknight99923]

Tired of ending up with the same old stage selections regardless of your stage selections? Try new* Brawl Back Room recommended starter lists! With 3, 5, 7, and even 9 stage varieties to choose from, these more balanced stage selections give you fun, fun decisions to make at the start of each match.

Head to your local tourneymarket and buy some today!

* May not actually be new. In fact, may be nearing expiration date.
** Offer void on the EC and at national tournaments.

I'm pretty sure the offer is void here too

 

[-Googs]

even with nine starts i see the same results at local tournies, SOMETIMES i see people at delfino or cs, but that makes up for the other 10% I stated in my other post.

 

[Crow!]

Hmm, that's not what I've seen, Citrus. But it might be a regional thing - if a player isn't very comfortable with the additional stages on the list, those stages will probably wind up knocked out even if one of them is really the median stage for the matchup.