Popular Competitive Philosophies: "It's okay to disagree!"

[Col. Stauffenberg]

BPC: "It's not okay to disagree!"

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

BPC: "Not all opinions are equally valid!"

Fixed that for you. It can be your opinion that M2K is a ****ty brawler who relies on MK to win all his tournaments, but it sure as hell isn't as valid as the common opinion that M2K is just a ****ing amazing player.

What I'm trying to do is to pull this from the subjective (where opinions matter, and it is okay to disagree) into the objective (where opinions don't matter, and agreeing to disagree is senseless, as it goes against this fairly simple tenant; hell, I think it does that in the subjective realm too) as far as I can. Once this is pulled from the subjective into the objective, there's no wishy-washy gray area, there's the question, "Which is better," with one solid answer. In short: I don't believe that it is okay to disagree on this matter; not without one side being definitively wrong.

 

[-Vocal-]

Alright, let's try looking at it this way. There are many stages in SSBB that without a doubt must be banned if the game is to be played competitively. To name ONLY a few:

Mario Bros.
Wario Ware
New Pork City
Flat Zone 2

If you were to argue for all of these stages to be included, I would lost all respect I have for you concerning matters concerning brawl. If you wish to argue one or two, but not all, save your breath - it won't matter.

Just the very fact that these stages MUST be banned for competitive play illustrates how Brawl is set apart from other competitive games. This is why the Constructivist theory applies to Brawl...

Actually, after reading through the descriptions again, it kinda sounds like I'm making a case for Originalist. However, I don't think Constructivist should be written off. We must remember that it is people who play the game, and people make the decisions on what detracts from gameplay. For some people, this may be the nearly uncontrollable nature of the hazards on Mario Bros.; for others, this may be the low gravity shifts on Pirate Ship and PS2. We cannot tell people they are wrong because they define competitively differently, even if we disagree with them, as long as there is some logic supporting their argument.

edit: And there is NOT one solid answer on what is "better;" you should know the word better enough to know that it is a relative term and therefore subjective. Quality of gameplay is not something that can be quantified and therefore you cannot claim to make an objective conclusion on it.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Alright, let's try looking at it this way. There are many stages in SSBB that without a doubt must be banned if the game is to be played competitively. To name ONLY a few:

Mario Bros.
Wario Ware
New Pork City
Flat Zone 2

Mario Bros is debatable IMO, but it's so out there that nobody will ever agree to legalizing it, even for testing. It is the only stage where I would ever want to agree with the statement "this is not brawl" as a reason to ban a stage. Legalizing it would be like banning FD, that's how insane that is. And yet it's still not conclusive that it's 100% necessary. The others I will agree with. I made a very long post about this...

If you were to argue for all of these stages to be included, I would lost all respect I have for you concerning matters concerning brawl. If you wish to argue one or two, but not all, save your breath - it won't matter.

Well duh. I just like using Mario Bros as an example of... wait what is my point on that one... I have no idea what the point actually is.

Just the very fact that these stages MUST be banned for competitive play illustrates how Brawl is set apart from other competitive games. This is why the Constructivist theory applies to Brawl...

No, no it doesn't... Remember, SF2T banned Akuma. So did SF2HDR. Banning what is truly necessary is originalist.

Actually, after reading through the descriptions again, it kinda sounds like I'm making a case for Originalist. However, I don't think Constructivist should be written off. We must remember that it is people who play the game, and people make the decisions on what detracts from gameplay. For some people, this may be the nearly uncontrollable nature of the hazards on Mario Bros.; for others, this may be the low gravity shifts on Pirate Ship and PS2. We cannot tell people they are wrong because they define competitively differently, even if we disagree with them, as long as there is some logic supporting their argument.

Hardly; when you want to play a different game, there are different games. I mean, yes, it's obvious we're not gonna immediately get everyone hopping on the PTAD gravy train. But if we can slowly but surely change their minds, change their perspectives...

edit: And there is NOT one solid answer on what is "better;" you should know the word better enough to know that it is a relative term and therefore subjective. Quality of gameplay is not something that can be quantified and therefore you cannot claim to make an objective conclusion on it.

I'd argue that better/worse competitive quality could be quantified (mostly to do with skill(s) required, I imagine), and that's what we're going for. But then we'd have to clear what actually makes competition work.

 

[vVv Rapture]

But would it be better if they had gone at it with an originalist philosophy?

Not even close. Not even remotely. No.

 

[WindMajor]

Not even close. Not even remotely. No.

I think so. If Halo were to include all the maps and weapons, then the game would have more competitive depth to it. The only stages I would even consider getting rid of are the levels that are meant for Big Team, like Sandtrap and Avalanche. There's also no need to remove any weapons.

The game COULD benefit from a constructivist philosophy too. For example, changing weapon spawns and map variants would be great, but to a certain extent. I would support a change in weapon spawns in which they substitute weapons for others, but I wouldn't support a change in weapon spawns in which they cut everything out. I would also support the use of Forge to ADD stages to the circuit, or modify certain stages to make mobility better, but I wouldn't support removing stages.

 

[vVv Rapture]

I think so. If Halo were to include all the maps and weapons, then the game would have more competitive depth to it. The only stages I would even consider getting rid of are the levels that are meant for Big Team, like Sandtrap and Avalanche. There's also no need to remove any weapons.

The game COULD benefit from a constructivist philosophy too. For example, changing weapon spawns and map variants would be great, but to a certain extent. I would support a change in weapon spawns in which they substitute weapons for others, but I wouldn't support a change in weapon spawns in which they cut everything out. I would also support the use of Forge to ADD stages to the circuit, or modify certain stages to make mobility better, but I wouldn't support removing stages.

Still no.

A lot of the weapons are severely unbalanced or just outclassed or useless. The shotgun is completely a broken weapon, which is why MLG uses the Mauler, which is essentially a weaker shotgun much better suited for competitive play. The Energy Sword, another one-hit kill weapon, is only on one map and that's because it's spawn is so ridiculously obvious you'd have to either kill the entire opposing team to get it or play a team of brain-dead squirrels.

Then you have vehicles, which are super unbalanced, ranging from a weak ATV with absolutely no weaponry to flying machines with turrets and plasma bombs. And don't forget the Scorpion tank, which can literally decimate an entire team without even trying.

Oh, and then we have the fire grenades, which is a joke of a grenade competitively. Same with the spike grenade.

Then there's the flamethrower itself and the hip-fired lock-on missiles.

And don't forget the broken equipment that have no risk to using in most cases but just make games even worse.

Also, there is no way to have a weapon spawn two different weapons. A weapon spawn can only spawn one kind of weapon.

Also also, MLG does use Forge maps, including Amplified, Onslaught, etc. Way ahead of you.

 

[-Vocal-]

No, no it doesn't... Remember, SF2T banned Akuma. So did SF2HDR. Banning what is truly necessary is originalist.

That's why I said my argument started to sound very Originalist I think I'm actually an Originalist as well, but I don't think that Constructivist is an invalid position to hold.

Hardly; when you want to play a different game, there are different games. I mean, yes, it's obvious we're not gonna immediately get everyone hopping on the PTAD gravy train. But if we can slowly but surely change their minds, change their perspectives...

Stop saying there are different games, because you are dead wrong. There is NOT another game that includes edguarding, B-reversals, percentages, DI, chaingrabs, or any number of other qualities of Brawl gameplay. There is not another game that offers this - even Melee is entirely different due to physics.As such, the are the core things that make up Brawl gameplay - the actual things that one character can do to another.

Now, where people begin to disagree is on what environment these things take place is is fit for competitive play. Some believe these gameplay mechanics should occur with fewer hazards to interfere/be exploited, while others believe that hazards should be a part of combat simply because they are a part of the game.

The very important thing to remember here is that the actual gameplay mechanics of battle can be seperated from the stages in which they take place. We can then see the drastic changes that can affect how these mechanics unfold into gameplay when placed in different environments. After seeing this, is it that hard to understand may believe that "better" gameplay arises in one environment (ex: one without hazards) as opposed to another (ex: one with hazards)? I feel like I have more to say here but I'm not sure what it is; I'll just wait for you to point it out

I'd argue that better/worse competitive quality could be quantified (mostly to do with skill(s) required, I imagine), and that's what we're going for. But then we'd have to clear what actually makes competition work.

You would have to subjectively choose what to quantify.

 

[WindMajor]

Still no.

A lot of the weapons are severely unbalanced or just outclassed or useless. The shotgun is completely a broken weapon, which is why MLG uses the Mauler, which is essentially a weaker shotgun much better suited for competitive play.

The shotgun isn't broken. It's miles better than the Mauler, but it still suffers from the same flaws as the Mauler: It has no range. You could beat it with a Battle Rifle (which you spawn with in MLG) or with any other long range weapon. Also, what's so bad about a weapon that's useless, other than the fact that it's useless? What harm does it pose competitively?

The Energy Sword, another one-hit kill weapon, is only on one map and that's because it's spawn is so ridiculously obvious you'd have to either kill the entire opposing team to get it or play a team of brain-dead squirrels.

The sword can't be broken because it is a 1 hit KO. If that were the case, then the sniper would be broken too. And I don't see a problem for the last sentence. Fighting to get a weapon? Sounds like a high risk, high reward situation that requires strategy to win. Encourages teamwork.[/QUOTE]

Then you have vehicles, which are super unbalanced, ranging from a weak ATV with absolutely no weaponry to flying machines with turrets and plasma bombs. And don't forget the Scorpion tank, which can literally decimate an entire team without even trying.

There's nothing wrong with a mongoose. I don't remember the entire stage list too well right now, but I don't think there's any Warthogs, Banshees, or Scorpions in any 4v4 maps other than Last Resort and Valhalla. I agree with you with the Scorpion, but the Banshee and the Warthog can be seen as borderline, depending on where they spawn, what weapons you have on the map, and where they are spawned

Oh, and then we have the fire grenades, which is a joke of a grenade competitively. Same with the spike grenade.

What's wrong with them? The spike has the same effect as the Plasma, which is also acceptable. How are the flames considered a joke? What is wrong with them?

Then there's the flamethrower itself and the hip-fired lock-on missiles.

What's wrong with those? Flamethrower has low mobility and medium range. The lock-on missiles are counters to vehicles in vehicle maps. Without vehicles, they reduce mobility, fire slow, and are difficult to aim.

And don't forget the broken equipment that have no risk to using in most cases but just make games even worse.

How? What's wrong with them?

Also, there is no way to have a weapon spawn two different weapons. A weapon spawn can only spawn one kind of weapon.

I don't know how this got in here, but can't you just overlap them? Two different weapon spawns on top of each other?

Also also, MLG does use Forge maps, including Amplified, Onslaught, etc. Way ahead of you.

I'm fully aware of this. I'm a Halo junkie myself. I was just using map variants as an example to show how constructivism can benefit a game, forged maps being one way. However, I don't consider removing weapons as an example of how constructivism can be beneficial. That isn't to say that I want ALL the weapons and vehicles thrown in every map! I don't mind if someone picks a sniper over a mauler for a specific spawn. What I do mind though is when certain weapons don't ever get placed because they are wrongfully deemed "anti-competitive".



@Vocal and BPC: I don't remember what spawned your argument, but does it matter what game we're talking about? Last time I checked, we were just discussing competitive philosophies.

 

[-Vocal-]

No, he's trying to say that Constructivist isn't a valid position to hold concerning Brawl, and I disagree. It was spawned when he said that every other competitive game from the 90s forward (or something like that) followed/follows an Originalist position.

 

[vVv Rapture]

The shotgun isn't broken. It's miles better than the Mauler, but it still suffers from the same flaws as the Mauler: It has no range. You could beat it with a Battle Rifle (which you spawn with in MLG) or with any other long range weapon. Also, what's so bad about a weapon that's useless, other than the fact that it's useless? What harm does it pose competitively?

The one-shot kill aspect already makes it overpowered. Also, in Halo, close-combat fighting is extremely easy to achieve because of how much health each player gets. A player can easily weave and make his way close enough to kill, especially on maps like Narrows that have parts that just beg to have people fight inches from each other.

Even the Mauler is very powerful. It has the same range and still tons of kill potential in the same instances.

The sword can't be broken because it is a 1 hit KO. If that were the case, then the sniper would be broken too. And I don't see a problem for the last sentence. Fighting to get a weapon? Sounds like a high risk, high reward situation that requires strategy to win. Encourages teamwork.

The sniper only has a one-hit kill on the head hitbox. The sword is a one-hit kill on the opponent's entire hitbox. Huge difference. You have to be very precise to hit headshots with the sniper. You don't even have to aim with the sword and can end up with a kill.

The sniper doesn't have a lock-on or lunge, either.

There's nothing wrong with a mongoose. I don't remember the entire stage list too well right now, but I don't think there's any Warthogs, Banshees, or Scorpions in any 4v4 maps other than Last Resort and Valhalla. I agree with you with the Scorpion, but the Banshee and the Warthog can be seen as borderline, depending on where they spawn, what weapons you have on the map, and where they are spawned.

Well, have fun driving around with no way to defend yourself.

The Banshee is pretty powerful considering that it can ram you, drop on you, drop plasma bombs and shoot a plasma turret, as well as utilizing a boost feature. The Warthog is durable, pretty fast and can be equipped with either a very powerful turret or an even more powerful one-hit/two-hit kill cannon. Definitely not broken.

What's wrong with them? The spike has the same effect as the Plasma, which is also acceptable. How are the flames considered a joke? What is wrong with them?

The spike grenade not only has an initial explosion, but also sends out secondary explosives, the spikes themselves, which do even more damage and to possibly more than one person. They ricochet off of walls and other surfaces. The plasma grenade is much more contained.

The spike grenade can also stick to other grenades, which isn't that balanced, either.

The biggest thing is that is the secondary spikes, which just do too much damage after the initial explosion.

The flame grenades also have a very powerful secondary effect; the dispersing of the fire after hitting something can be extremely overpowering, especially in close-quarters. No need for that.

What's wrong with those? Flamethrower has low mobility and medium range. The lock-on missiles are counters to vehicles in vehicle maps. Without vehicles, they reduce mobility, fire slow, and are difficult to aim.

Flamethrower is extremely powerful and has secondary burn effects that can render sections of the map unplayable, as well as making escape when used literally impossible. The missles are also extremely powerful and easy to use in really any map. Hit a wall, explosion can kill. Hit the floor, explosion can kill. Hit an opponent, teammates can easily get killed, as well.

How? What's wrong with them?

Bubble Shield promotes camping, gives unnecessary cover randomly. Mines are easy to use and very powerful. Radar Jammer is useless since no one uses radar. I can't think of the other ones.

I don't know how this got in here, but can't you just overlap them? Two different weapon spawns on top of each other?

I believe that it doesn't allow you to. Even if it did, you're assuming people pick these weapons up immediately.

Let's say you put a sniper and mauler spawn on top of each other and the sniper spawns first. No one picks it up and then the mauler spawns. Now you have two weapons in the exact same position and it's difficult to get in a position to pick up the weapon you want.

I'm fully aware of this. I'm a Halo junkie myself. I was just using map variants as an example to show how constructivism can benefit a game, forged maps being one way. However, I don't consider removing weapons as an example of how constructivism can be beneficial. That isn't to say that I want ALL the weapons and vehicles thrown in every map! I don't mind if someone picks a sniper over a mauler for a specific spawn. What I do mind though is when certain weapons don't ever get placed because they are wrongfully deemed "anti-competitive".

Halo is probably one of the most concrete games in banning things that need to be banned. Everything they use is made to me a specific kind of competition. It's anti-competitive to them. Is the shotgun anti-competitive as a whole? Probably not. But for their competitions, for their competitive world, it is. Simple as that.

 

[-Vocal-]

But for their competitions, for their competitive world, it is. Simple as that.

I really love this sentence because it can be so universal, including applicable to smash. Example:

New Jersey is generally known to view conservative stage lists as competitive. For their competitions, for their competitive world, Green Greens would not be seen as competitive.

The conflict arises when we try to get people to agree on one definition of what is competitive. No one is wrong, they simply live in different competitive worlds, and so it simply becomes a battle of trying to convince someone of your philosophy.

 

[Spelt]

I liked this thread until i came to BPC's post where he basically stated his way of thinking is the right way, even though that's obviously not what the discussion in this thread was intended for. Disappoint.

 

[-Vocal-]

I liked this thread until i came to BPC's post where he basically stated his way of thinking is the right way, even though that's obviously not what the discussion in this thread was intended for. Disappoint.

Yea...he thinks that anyone that has a different philosophy than his isn't justified to hold it. He doesn't understand how any other philosophy can be valid so...yea, he missed the point of the thread.

 

[painlord k11]

spacing and racking up damage is what brawl is all about =D

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Yea...he thinks that anyone that has a different philosophy than his isn't justified to hold it. He doesn't understand how any other philosophy can be valid so...yea, he missed the point of the thread.

...I'm trying to show why this is the case. I see this thread as something like saying that creationists have an equally valid viewpoint to astronomers who explain things scientifically. Sure, technically correct. But realistically?

spacing and racking up damage is what brawl is all about =D

Yes, if you define brawl as "fox only, no items, 1v1, final destination". What you're describing just simply does not fit the definition of brawl. It's a normal fighting game pattern, but not this one.

 

[Spelt]

...I'm trying to show why this is the case. I see this thread as something like saying that creationists have an equally valid viewpoint to astronomers who explain things scientifically. Sure, technically correct. But realistically?

that's a horrible comparison....

 

[-Vocal-]

...I'm trying to show why this is the case. I see this thread as something like saying that creationists have an equally valid viewpoint to astronomers who explain things scientifically. Sure, technically correct. But realistically?

Dude.

YOU CAN QUANTIFY THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE WITH EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, SCIENCE, AND MATH.

That was the worst argument I have ever seen you make on this website.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Dude.

YOU CAN QUANTIFY THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE WITH EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, SCIENCE, AND MATH.

That was the worst argument I have ever seen you make on this website.

And creationists can claim that god put that there. Sad but true, but "<scientific explanation for dinosaur fossils>" and "God put fossils there" are equally valid. We choose to rate science as more valid because religion has brought us nowhere. I find it bull**** too, but creationists literally cannot be proven wrong.

It was an unfair comparison, but really. Originalist has proven itself as better in almost every game so far. Constructivist theory has had maybe one, two games where it's been used, and is generally seen by experts in game design as invalid. And yet they're equally valid?

 

[Spelt]

and the comparisons to other games keeps coming.
your whole argument is so flawed it's painful to read.
stop trying to start **** on this thread that was just meant for general conversation about the two different, equally viable theories.

 

[deepseadiva]

I made an entire thread dedicated to dismantling the constructionist viewpoint awhile ago.

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=271219

Constructivist is arbitrary and doesn't answer the very objective answer of "How do we make this game competitive?"

 

[Luxor]

Hypothetical question.

Would altering the stagelist with the intent to rebalance the game be originalist or constructivist? It's not exactly playing the game out of the box, but it doesn't go beyond the options the game already gives us, since it's simply a different philosophy behind choosing starter/CP stages.

 

[Spelt]

If we were all pure originalists we would be playing on super mario bros, 75m, bridge of eldin, etc as starters. so everybody is at least somewhat a constructivist and saying that that viewpoint is wrong is just stupid and hypocritical.


Constructivism, as well as originalism, have gotten us to our commonly used rulesets at the tournaments we hold today. Who is anyone to judge what's wrong and right, since both viewpoints go into making every ruleset we've ever had or considered as a community.

 

[deepseadiva]

If we were all pure originalists we would be playing on super mario bros, 75m, bridge of eldin, etc as starters.

Incorrect.

I'd refer you to my link, but in a nutshell: to make a game competitive, making alterations isn't wrong. It's only wrong when you go past what's necessary.

Removing 75m was absolutely necessary.

Constructivism, as well as originalism, have gotten us to our commonly used rulesets at the tournaments we hold today. Who is anyone to judge what's wrong and right, since both viewpoints go into making every ruleset we've ever had or considered as a community.

You can judge because it's an objective question. There's a yes and there's a no answer - and there's going to be a wrong and a right. Constructivist is logically wrong.

The thing is though, it's just a game and we play it purposefully for enjoyment. That desire seeps into how we want the game to be and it manifests itself as the constructivist mindset - it's wrong, but it doesn't always have opponents. See: items.

Nobody wants to play with them, and despite deserving testing, the community's 100% lack of support for them sees them removed from the ruleset. Constructivism outright fails objectively when constructing a ruleset, but pleases us as players - which physically always pleases us more.

 

[Spelt]

I'd refer you to my link, but in a nutshell: to make a game competitive, making alterations isn't wrong. It's only wrong when you go past what's necessary.

To make a PARTY game competitive...


First off, who is anyone to decide what exactly is competitive, brawl out of the box with no alteration could very well be just as competitive as it is now. Second, if we could define what exactly competitive brawl should (which no one is ever going to agree on. so this is kind of a moot point but whatever...) who is to decide how we go about banning and changing things to get that desired result?

You can judge because it's an objective question. There's a yes and there's a no answer - and there's going to be a wrong and a right. Constructivist is logically wrong.

it's not objective at all. Just this argument proves that there is subjectivity involved, just like any other side in any other debate. Your opinion is that originalism is right, my opinion is that they are both right.

The thing is though, it's just a game and we play it purposefully for enjoyment. That desire seeps into how we want the game to be and it manifests itself as the constructivist mindset - it's wrong, but it doesn't always have opponents. See: items.

This ... is kind of agreeing with me. so eh.

Nobody wants to play with them, and despite deserving testing, the community's 100% lack of support for them sees them removed from the ruleset. Constructivism outright fails objectively when constructing a ruleset, but pleases us as players - which physically always pleases us more.

There are people who want to play them. there's a whole thread about why they should (or how they could be) added to competitive play.



Generally though, you are saying that things should be removed. Which IS a constructive mindset. Banning items/75m is as constructive as banning rainbow cruise/pictochat/green greens. Keeping items/75m legal is as originalist as keeping port town/brinstar/etc.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I made an entire thread dedicated to dismantling the constructionist viewpoint awhile ago.

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=271219

Constructivist is arbitrary and doesn't answer the very objective answer of "How do we make this game competitive?"

THANK YOU Meno.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is a big part of why constructivist philosophy is not

Hypothetical question.

Would altering the stagelist with the intent to rebalance the game be originalist or constructivist? It's not exactly playing the game out of the box, but it doesn't go beyond the options the game already gives us, since it's simply a different philosophy behind choosing starter/CP stages.

Constructivist. With the intent to rebalance the game is always constructivist. Remember, when you ban a stage, you might as well be removing it from the SSS completely.

If we were all pure originalists we would be playing on super mario bros, 75m, bridge of eldin, etc as starters. so everybody is at least somewhat a constructivist and saying that that viewpoint is wrong is just stupid and hypocritical.

No. Remember what originalist entails regarding "banning things"? "Ban what is absolutely necessary". Competition is simply not possible on those stages, or rather is possible, but reduces the depth of the game by so much that you could hardly still call it competitive. So of course we ban them.

Constructivism, as well as originalism, have gotten us to our commonly used rulesets at the tournaments we hold today. Who is anyone to judge what's wrong and right, since both viewpoints go into making every ruleset we've ever had or considered as a community.

No. The moment you stray into constructivism, you abandon originalist philosophy, as every change can be quantified by constructivism.

Actually, there's a term for constructivists. It's fairly widespread in the gaming world. It's "scrub".

 

[-Vocal-]

Fine. I'm done arguing it. BPC is right - it's wrong and unreasonable for people to disagree, so anyone who disagrees with him is a scrub until they change their mind.

/thread

 

[Flayl]

The truth is Brawl is a bad game for competition without adding rules. You either accept that and don't play it competitively, like BPC, or accept that plenty of changes need to be made.

 

[-Vocal-]

The truth is Brawl is a bad game for competition without adding rules. You either accept that and don't play it competitively, like BPC, or accept that plenty of changes need to be made.

I can't believe I never tried saying that.

With all of my reasoning and all of my explanations and all of my examples, I was just trying to say this one thing.

Brawl is a bad game for competition.

Chess is good. SSFIV is good. Halo is good. Brawl just...it just is not.

I already know that BPC will reply to this still touting the Originalist flag (I SEE YOU!) but if nothing else has come of this thread, you have shown me just how simple it really is ^_^

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Fine. I'm done arguing it. BPC is right - it's wrong and unreasonable for people to disagree, so anyone who disagrees with him is a scrub until they change their mind.

/thread

Actually, yes, it is unreasonable for people to disagree with a fully functional system that works for every game and has always been shown to actually work better than the other competitively (and indeed, the other is almost by definition anticompetitive!). A scrub is someone who puts rules on himself to prevent competition. Now tell me-why is "Brawl without any stage except for FD, BF, and SV" (the japanese do that) less of an arbitrary, out-of-game rule than "brawl without metaknight" (scrubby) or "Brawl without shields" (REALLY scrubby)? How is it less so than "Street Fighter without throwing"?

The truth is Brawl is a bad game for competition without adding rules. You either accept that and don't play it competitively, like BPC, or accept that plenty of changes need to be made.

Name me one thing that we have banned that isn't stages. Go on. I'll wait. Brawl is an incredible competitive game, a game with incredible potential (how many other games have you seen that have not only different settings where it would still be competitive, but where each of these settings turns it into a very different game? There aren't any. Smash has ridiculous competitive depth and is a great competitive game; the fact that we are forced to ban a stage or two does not change that). I made a whole thread about this.
There are many very competitive games that are bad games for competition without external rules. In fact, one of them has been played competitively for 20 years and is seen as a competitive gem (SF2T, which has the external rule to ban Akuma, and in a similar vein HDR, which also had to ban akuma). We need a few rules in brawl to ensure that it is a good competitive game. This fits perfectly within originalist philosophy-ban only what is truly necessary. Stages like Temple with hard circles? Truly necessary-they make the game virtually unplayable. I went through this in a long post a while back.

Seriously though, to claim that constructivism is a correct way of balancing an existing game is outright ridiculous at this point.

 

[Spelt]

No. Remember what originalist entails regarding "banning things"? "Ban what is absolutely necessary". Competition is simply not possible on those stages, or rather is possible, but reduces the depth of the game by so much that you could hardly still call it competitive. So of course we ban them.

again, who is anyone to decide "what is absolutely necessary"? and who is anyone to decide which stages make competition impossible?

Here we have more subjectivity, further proving my point that this is all in your opinion and not at all fact.

No. The moment you stray into constructivism, you abandon originalist philosophy, as every change can be quantified by constructivism.

So again, everyone is this community is a constructivist.

Actually, there's a term for constructivists. It's fairly widespread in the gaming world. It's "scrub".

This is why nobody takes you seriously.

Actually, yes, it is unreasonable for people to disagree with a fully functional system that works for every game and has always been shown to actually work better than the other competitively (and indeed, the other is almost by definition anticompetitive!). A scrub is someone who puts rules on himself to prevent competition. Now tell me-why is "Brawl without any stage except for FD, BF, and SV" (the japanese do that) less of an arbitrary, out-of-game rule than "brawl without metaknight" (scrubby) or "Brawl without shields" (REALLY scrubby)? How is it less so than "Street Fighter without throwing"?

brawl is a party game, that we're trying to make competitive, like many other people have stated. Please get this point through your head, because every single argument you create usually denies this is fact. street fighter is a game that was made for competitive play. why would anybody need to change anything to make it competitive?

Name me one thing that we have banned that isn't stages.

items. i win.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

again, who is anyone to decide "what is absolutely necessary"? and who is anyone to decide which stages make competition impossible?

Here we have more subjectivity, further proving my point that this is all in your opinion and not at all fact.

Read this post. http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=10844284&postcount=2084 It helps at least a little bit, if not completely.
The only stage in brawl where brawl stops being a competitive game is wario ware.
I'm sure that Brawl with Temple in it could still be a competitive game. Except... it would have like one char that stands a chance, and you would auto-win on that stage with him. Bad competitive decision to keep circles in.
I'm sure that Brawl with Eldin in it could still be a competitive game. No except here. Although I'm not about to go out and advocate Eldin's legality, especially because it's simply a bad stage, it's worth mentioning that this is constructivist. Or is it? Anyone looking at this can look at DDD, put 2 and 2 together, and see that allowing this stage or stages like it makes the game ridiculous unbalanced and that banning them is similar to legalizing dozens of characters. So we ban it. It's a constructivist move, but one that is pretty much as justified as banning Akuma in SF2T. Such moves, AKA bans brought about not necessarily out of necessity, but out of long and careful thought about what it brings the game where any thought process leads to the game being better off without it... AFAIK, Originalist philosophy is actually okay with this. See also: soft ban on O.Sagat in SF2T.
I'm sure that Brawl with Port Town in it is competitive.
I'm sure that Brawl with Norfair in it is competitive.
I'm sure that Brawl with Pictochat in it is competitive.
I'm sure that Brawl with any stage in the BBR ruleset in it is competitive.
I'm sure that Brawl with Metaknight in it is competitive.
I'm fairly sure that Brawl with some (not all) items in it is competitive. Except that we don't have to ban them. The designers intended for us to choose whether or not we play with items or not, and we chose not to.

So again, everyone is this community is a constructivist.

Not everyone.

This is why nobody takes you seriously.

Really? I think it's fairly justified. I mean, look at it.

brawl is a party game, that we're trying to make competitive, like many other people have stated. Please get this point through your head, because every single argument you create usually denies this is fact. street fighter is a game that was made for competitive play. why would anybody need to change anything to make it competitive?

I am getting so sick of this argument. "Brawl wasn't made for competition" blah blah blah. I welcome you to provide proof that Brawl was not designed to be a competitive fighter. And then I welcome you to tell me why this makes originalist philosophy not apply.

items. i win.

Phootbag. I win. "Banning" items fits perfectly within originalist philosophy; the same way that not playing coin matches or only doing 1v1/2v2teams does. Try again.

 

[ADHD]

We've MADE it a competitive fighter. Stop being annoying and trying to change it.

 

[Spelt]

Read this post. http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=10844284&postcount=2084 It helps at least a little bit, if not completely.
The only stage in brawl where brawl stops being a competitive game is wario ware.
I'm sure that Brawl with Temple in it could still be a competitive game. Except... it would have like one char that stands a chance, and you would auto-win on that stage with him. Bad competitive decision to keep circles in.
I'm sure that Brawl with Eldin in it could still be a competitive game. No except here. Although I'm not about to go out and advocate Eldin's legality, especially because it's simply a bad stage, it's worth mentioning that this is constructivist. Or is it? Anyone looking at this can look at DDD, put 2 and 2 together, and see that allowing this stage or stages like it makes the game ridiculous unbalanced and that banning them is similar to legalizing dozens of characters. So we ban it. It's a constructivist move, but one that is pretty much as justified as banning Akuma in SF2T. Such moves, AKA bans brought about not necessarily out of necessity, but out of long and careful thought about what it brings the game where any thought process leads to the game being better off without it... AFAIK, Originalist philosophy is actually okay with this. See also: soft ban on O.Sagat in SF2T.
I'm sure that Brawl with Port Town in it is competitive.
I'm sure that Brawl with Norfair in it is competitive.
I'm sure that Brawl with Pictochat in it is competitive.
I'm sure that Brawl with any stage in the BBR ruleset in it is competitive.
I'm sure that Brawl with Metaknight in it is competitive.
I'm fairly sure that Brawl with some (not all) items in it is competitive. Except that we don't have to ban them. The designers intended for us to choose whether or not we play with items or not, and we chose not to.

lol, sorry but you out of all people aren't qualified to make an objective term for "what is competitive?".
not even the best of the best pros can do that. it's just impossible.
For example, i disagree with a lot of those. because those are my opinions (aka not objective), and other people would have different opinions.
Am i fit to create a term for "what is competitive"? lol no.

Not everyone.

Oh sorry, just anyone who's ever thought of banning any stage.

...So basically any competitive player.

Really? I think it's fairly justified. I mean, look at it.

Of course you do.

I welcome you to provide proof that Brawl was not designed to be a competitive fighter.

Tripping. My work is done here.

Phootbag. I win. "Banning" items fits perfectly within originalist philosophy; the same way that not playing coin matches or only doing 1v1/2v2teams does. Try again.

...Items ARE banned from competitive play though. if they weren't, then anybody could randomly set them on during a tournament match and nobody would take a second glance.

btw, IDC is also banned.
But i'm sure you're just gonna come back with "fine, then tell me something that isn't banned besides stages/items/IDC"

even though that argument is as logically sound as "find me a game that's called "Street Fighter" besides "Street Fighter". or Find me a meat besides "pork, poultry, or beef". You can't just exclude things at your whim because they don't fit your cause.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

lol, sorry but you out of all people aren't qualified to make an objective term for "what is competitive?".
not even the best of the best pros can do that. it's just impossible.

This is why we use the (more) objective method (AKA Originalism). Constructivism is completely subjective. There is nothing objective about it. Originalism counts it as a loss when something is not at least so ridiculously obvious that it might as well be objective (like Temple Hyrule or Akuma in SF2T). Sure, it's still subjective, but it's subjective in the same way that murder being wrong is morally subjective-only an insane person would disagree.

For example, i disagree with a lot of those. because those are my opinions (aka not objective), and other people would have different opinions.
Am i fit to create a term for "what is competitive"? lol no.

And can you prove it? Remember, when you claim that a built-in mode in the game is anticompetitive, you are going against the default theory, the so-called "null hypothesis"-everything is fine. Ask Jack Kieser about this one.

Oh sorry, just anyone who's ever thought of banning any stage.

...So basically any competitive player.

Ugh, you're confusing "originalist" with "insane person".

Tripping. My work is done here.

A mechanic put in place to nerf the (as perceived by developers) ridiculous effectiveness of dashing, foxtrotting, and dashdancing by some characters.

...Items ARE banned from competitive play though. if they weren't, then anybody could randomly set them on during a tournament match and nobody would take a second glance.

I disagree with this sentiment. I figure that it's perfectly fine if your opponent agrees to it, otherwise you go with the community decision on it. I mean, is the TO really gonna stop you if both you and your opponent decide, "let's play this set with ISP rules"? I somehow doubt it. However, this doesn't happen. Again, it's perfectly within the realms of the game to just turn off items, so we do it.

btw, IDC is also banned.

...as stalling. Another rule that is so obviously necessary that it's almost objective.

But i'm sure you're just gonna come back with "fine, then tell me something that isn't banned besides stages/items/IDC"

You wish I'd make it that easy.

 

[-Vocal-]

Like I said, I'm done discussing this because the conversation is going nowhere, but here's a thought:

The developers gave us a character select screen. Meaning they gave us the option to choose characters in the same way they gave us the option to choose item frequency. If we can have regulations about what item frequency is acceptable, we can have regulations about what character choice is acceptable.

Anyways, BPC would force us all to play the game in a different way because that's how the game was created. He doesn't care about enjoyable tournament experiences, let's just leave it at that.

 

[vVv Rapture]

Man, "banning what is necessary" is really subjective. I don't know why it is still being used as reasoning.

 

[-Vocal-]

Man, "banning what is necessary" is really subjective. I don't know why it is still being used as reasoning.

Because BPC does not get it. He also believes that his reasoning is perfect.

 

[ADHD]

Because BPC does not get it. He also believes that his reasoning is perfect.

He also believes that rainbow cruise or brinstar should be banned because it "overcentralizes" metaknight.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

He also believes that rainbow cruise or brinstar should be banned because it "overcentralizes" metaknight.

I believe that that's a saner thing to do than go about banning stages like PTAD. I don't honestly hold that position, but it's something for alarmists and scrubs like you to look into.

Man, "banning what is necessary" is really subjective. I don't know why it is still being used as reasoning.

Oh my god you are completely right. Except–oh wait you weren't reading.

This is why we use the (more) objective method (AKA Originalism). Constructivism is completely subjective. There is nothing objective about it. Originalism counts it as a loss when something is not at least so ridiculously obvious that it might as well be objective (like Temple Hyrule or Akuma in SF2T). Sure, it's still subjective, but it's subjective in the same way that murder being wrong is morally subjective-only an insane person would disagree.