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

[ADHD]

I believe that that's a saner thing to do than go about banning stages like PTAD.

Yup, exactly.

 

[Spelt]

BPC's argument skills are that of a toddler screaming bloody murder at a supermarket because he wants ice cream.

 

[-Vocal-]

Long story short:

BPC does not believe that people are allowed to disagree. There is a logical argument as to why Constructivist positions can be valid but it will never agree with BPC's logic regardless of what argument is put forth; therefore, everyone that does not agree with him is a scrub.

Everyone can go back to yelling at each other about the ruleset now.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Long story short:

BPC does not believe that people are allowed to disagree.

Oh hi. But beyond that, there's nothing wrong with people disagreeing, but in many cases, such as this one, there will be a right and a wrong side of the argument.

There is a logical argument as to why Constructivist positions can be valid

I must have missed this one...

but it will never agree with BPC's logic regardless of what argument is put forth; therefore, everyone that does not agree with him is a scrub.

[...], but he [the scrub] is bound up by an intricate construct of fictitious rules that prevent him from ever truly competing. These made-up rules vary from game to game, of course, but their character remains constant...

Again, I ask this:

Now tell me-why is "Play brawl without any stage except for FD, BF, and SV" (the japanese do that) less of an arbitrary, out-of-game rule than "play brawl without metaknight" (scrubby) or "play rawl without shields" (REALLY scrubby)? How is it less so than "Street Fighter without throwing"?

And please don't throw up the "brawl is a party game" defense that doesn't actually answer the question.

 

[-Vocal-]

You say that it is a necessity that 75m be removed from the stage list in order to play a competitive game. You fail to see the subjectivity in deciding that, and that is why I cannot continue a discussion with you on this matter.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

You say that it is a necessity that 75m be removed from the stage list in order to play a competitive game. You fail to see the subjectivity in deciding that, and that is why I cannot continue a discussion with you on this matter.

I see that it is subjective, I also see that it has been pushed so far into objective that it is virtually impossible to argue against banning the stage. It's like a case for objective morality-it's sure as hell not objective that murder is wrong, but it is so widely held that it might as well be; only the insane disagree. This is, AFAIK, still within the bounds of originalist, if only marginally.

 

[-Vocal-]

I see that it is subjective, I also see that it has been pushed so far into objective that it is virtually impossible to argue against banning the stage. It's like a case for objective morality-it's sure as hell not objective that murder is wrong, but it is so widely held that it might as well be; only the insane disagree. This is, AFAIK, still within the bounds of originalist, if only marginally.

75m is not the point here. The point is that you are removing a stage based upon subjective standards.

This would mean that removing a stage on subjective standards is both ok and something you support in moderation.

While 75m is at the extreme end of the competitive continuum, other stages fall into a grey area in the middle. This is the point at which debating about whether a stage should be banned or not is bound to occur, and you are entirely unjustified in saying that someone cannot argue against you. Different people have different opinions about where to draw the line, and while everyone can agree that 75m is bad, that grey area in the middle of the continuum is going to cause disagreement.

You have a solid opinion of where the line should be drawn, and anyone who disagrees with your opinion is wrong. Your belief that your opinion is superior and that you are inherently a better judge of what stages should be subjectively banned is self-righteous, conceited, and frankly cannot be discussed with. That's the reason I gave up.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

...

Oh. ****. Good point, I missed that (and it's lead to me kind of being a **** in this thread). Well, seeing as you won't see me supporting 1v1s on temple any time soon... um...

At this point we have the following choices:
-Find a play mode (as offered to us by the designers) that allows for originalist philosophy (teams comes to mind; what stages truly need to be banned there beyond Warioware?)
-Keep our 1v1 with originalist philosophy and see Fox in his own tier 20 tiers above second-best, MK.
-Become constructivist

I gotta read my **** theories again, or wait for someone else to back me up. I think I've been wrong.

 

[-Vocal-]

Epiphany

Seeing this breakthrough may be the single most satisfying thing I have ever received from this website.

 

[Spelt]

I think BPC's trolling.

if not then ... that's basically what i've been saying. e_e

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

No, I've just had a bad case of the stupids for the last two pages.

 

[-Vocal-]

I think BPC's trolling.

if not then ... that's basically what i've been saying. e_e

It's what all of us have been saying; he just couldn't understand us.

 

[King Funk]

There's a lot of idiots who apparently think that banning MK = constructivist. >_>

I'm completely against banning MK, but I'm probably still leaning towards the constructive side.

Here in Europe we have been using a ruleset which most people would label as "constructive". It's a ruleset many of us have debated on, and in the end, all of my opinions on each issue ended up being the winning one. Not really because I'm a guy who likes to follow the majority or anything, but just as Overswarm described it (a bit too negatively for my taste), I really feel like we can make this game a better one. We have 5 starters (BF, FD, SV, YI and LC) and 6 counterpick stages (HA, DEL, CS, PS1, FO and BRI). We have the Marth CG on Ness/Lucas and Dedede infinites banned. So far, this ruleset has been working wonders and almost no one ever complained about it. I truly believe we created a balanced stagelist and rules that ensure every character gets a shot at being tournament viable. There are still many characters we can't save of course (lolGanondorf), but nothing but with those two infinites we banned, we ensured that SEVEN characters get a shot at competitive play (a 0-100 matchup for them just because the other player [who may not even need to know how to play that character] gets one grab and then spams Z is a plague to [a part of] the metagame).

 

[-Vocal-]

There's a lot of idiots who apparently think that banning MK = constructivist. >_>

I'm completely against banning MK, but I'm probably still leaning towards the constructive side.

Here in Europe we have been using a ruleset which most people would label as "constructive". It's a ruleset many of us have debated on, and in the end, all of my opinions on each issue ended up being the winning one. Not really because I'm a guy who likes to follow the majority or anything, but just as Overswarm described it (a bit too negatively for my taste), I really feel like we can make this game a better one. We have 5 starters (BF, FD, SV, YI and LC) and 6 counterpick stages (HA, DEL, CS, PS1, FO and BRI). We have the Marth CG on Ness/Lucas and Dedede infinites banned. So far, this ruleset has been working wonders and almost no one ever complained about it. I truly believe we created a balanced stagelist and rules that ensure every character gets a shot at being tournament viable. There are still many characters we can't save of course (lolGanondorf), but nothing but with those two infinites we banned, we ensured that SEVEN characters get a shot at competitive play (a 0-100 matchup for them just because the other player [who may not even need to know how to play that character] gets one grab and then spams Z is a plague to [a part of] the metagame).

You guys love Mario too much to leave DDD's infinites unbanned

So you allow IDC in tournament?

And your version of the game always gives the initiator of a suicide move the victory if both players are on their last stock, at least that's what I've heard. Makes things simpler there

How does Europe (it feels odd to refer to you all as a whole lol) feel about ledgeplay/planking?

The stagelist...that's interesting. Especially the absence of Lylat Cruise, but that's no big deal to me. I do have to say that I can definitely imagine how that stagelist would give rise to a healthy, competitive scene. I know people say that hazards are a part of Brawl, but sometimes you really have to question how much they should be a part of competition...oh, this is hazy territory for America.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Lylat cruise is there. Rainbow Cruise isn't.

 

[Espy Rose]

Poor Fox, Wolf, and Sheik. According to Funk, Pikachu still wrecks them with his chain grab.

 

[King Funk]

Poor Fox, Wolf, and Sheik. According to Funk, Pikachu still wrecks them with his chain grab.

As long as the matchup isn't 0-100.

And we banned Rainbow Cruise when we knew we were going to ban Jungle Japes as well. But I don't want to explain it yet again, just find the old discussion threads in the euro section.

 

[Espy Rose]

Funny. DK vs. Dedede isn't 0-100 according to the DK boards. Same goes for the Mario, Samus, and Bowser boards.

 

[#HBC | ZoZo]

It should be with the infinite.

 

[Espy Rose]

Then argue and convince every single one of those boards to change it up.

Also, isn't Ganondorf vs. Ice Climbers 0-100?
Guess you're gonna have to buff Ganon too.

 

[#HBC | ZoZo]

The thing is, MUs at this moment overall represent a characters advantage IN GAME instead of representing the actual matches won out of 100. Why? Because SWF sucks.
A character with a 60/40 advantage in a game can easily get 70/30 in terms of win percentage. Is it strange for me to say that ZSS vs Kirby is 7/3 for ZSS, even when Kirby loses about 70% of all matches? Of course, some may be close, because in game the advantage is maybe like 60/40, but in the end ZSS wins.

 

[DMG]

a 0-100 matchup means that it's literally impossible for the other person to win. Like you pick the character and the game says "Lol you lose", or you have a frame 2 move that covers the entire stage that is an infinite/kills them and they cannot avoid it. 10-90 or 80-20 are more realistic.

 

[#HBC | ZoZo]

It's just not realistic on a starter for Ganon to ever beat ICs on top level play. ever.

 

[DMG]

Not realistic? Incredibly so

Impossible? Close but no gravy

There are no 0-100 matchups in Brawl, but quite a few 9-1 or 85:15/8:2

 

[#HBC | ZoZo]

99:1 then, w/e. You can't assume that the ICs will trip every chaingrab and trip into warlock punches and fsmashes and stuff. Even if you get a read with ganon, someone who knows the MU will make sure that any read you get can only be miniscule and hardly profitable.

 

[-Vocal-]

Oh yea, Lylat is there, I'm blind ^_^ I think I'm slowly beginning to gain a taste for semi-conservative stage lists...

 

[Flayl]

I disagree with King Funk on changing matchup specific tactics, simply because there is too much stupid **** in Brawl of various degrees. If King Dedede's standing chaingrab was the only high % (which is completely subjective) / infinite technique in the game then yeah I'd be for banning it. But then you get into
- Ice Climbers' surreal amount of different methods of infinite chaingrabs
- Ice Climbers' frozen Nana glitch
- Wario's air release
- Wario's DThrow
- Ness and Lucas's ground release
- Sheik's FTilt on fast-falling characters
- Pikachu's DThrow
- Ganondorf

And probably lots of other stuff. There's no clear way to draw a line. Once again, if there were a certifiable difference between the standing chaingrab's effect on a matchup compared to the above, I'd be all for banning it.

 

[Espy Rose]

That's more or less what I was getting at.

It's silly to limit one mechanic, and not another. It becomes too convoluted when you attempt to draw a line between certain exploitable techniques between characters.

Next thing you know, every chain grab, KO setup, and stall mechanic become banned.

 

[-Vocal-]

Like I said, I think it's directly related to how much Europe loves Mario

 

[Spelt]

100:0 means that when the two opponents are equally skilled, you're going to win/lose 100% of the time. This means that the ganon player can still very much win the matchup as long as he's better than his opponent.

 

[King Funk]

There's a difference between an infinite and a high % CG, lock or whatever.

I was about to say I'd ban only infinites, but I feel the counter-argument that's gonna come at me: infinites are banned for Dedede, but then Dedede won't have the stupidly high% dealing CG's and locks that other characters have.

Atm, I'd keep the infinites banned. But then, I can think of a new rule aside from a total ban: Dedede infinite and grab-release shenanigans on Ness/Lucas must end before 100%.

But yeah most people will just go like "arghhhhh more rules **** it."

 

[sunshade]

Why is the advantage King dedede gets from his chain grab infinites any different from the advantage any other character gets in any other way?

If a character has an infinite on another character that means that the character with the infinite is a better. Banning an infinite is basically the same as saying "I brought a club to a gun fight pity me". (if you know who said that quote first you get a cookie)

 

[-Vocal-]

Why is the advantage King dedede gets from his chain grab infinites any different from the advantage any other character gets in any other way?

If a character has an infinite on another character that means that the character with the infinite is a better. Banning an infinite is basically the same as saying "I brought a club to a gun fight pity me". (if you know who said that quote first you get a cookie)

I think the point is roughly something like this.

In a game of Brawl with no rules, DDD is king. However, we want to make the game both competitive and enjoyable for those that compete - the reason of playing a video game in the first place is to enjoy and the reason for going to tournaments is to have an enjoyable tournament experience. With this in mind, banning DDD's infinite's can add more variety to the competition while also allowing players to enjoy the game more.

Like I said, I think that's roughly the point. Not saying it's a perfect stance, I just wanted to sum it up to make it more clear. My own opinion is still up in the air, however, and I've got much to think about before taking a position.

 

[sunshade]

But Dedede is not the king. He is only the king when it comes to 6 bad for the most part characters.

Edit: To add more of a point to that statement let me put it this way. Lets say king dedede could preform his infinite on every character in the entire game and his grab range was even more ******** than it already is.

In this version of brawl King dedede would be the absolute best however I ask you why would we ban his infinite? The advantage given by it is no different than the advantage anyone has when they play against ganon but we dont ban people from abusing his weaknesses.

The only reason people complain about king dedede's chaingrab is because it is easy to do and is boring to watch. If you are going to ban king dedede's chaingrab then ban the ice climbers as well, and every other infinite in the entire game.

If you dont make the rule global then you are basically going out of your way to **** on one character because scrubs think that is "better" for the game or is more "fun" to watch or is more "skillful".

 

[Luxor]

But Dedede da bess. Now Donkey Kong be mad, Bowser he be mad, Mario be mad, but Meta Knight ain't maaaad

Fix'd.

Point of the debate: D3's Dthrow can infinite people. Cool story, bro. Meta Knight's Nado singlehandedly shuts down noobs and bad characters.

What's the difference? MK's Nado is as effective a tool as D3's Dthrow is, and there's no discussion about banning IT. Taking away a character's tools just because they're GOOD is scrubby at best.

Only legitimate reason to ban the infinites is to increase tourney attendance by the mains of the infinited, which is an excellent reason IMO because $$$ da bess.

 

[-Vocal-]

Fix'd.

Point of the debate: D3's Dthrow can infinite people. Cool story, bro. Meta Knight's Nado singlehandedly shuts down noobs and bad characters.

What's the difference? MK's Nado is as effective a tool as D3's Dthrow is, and there's no discussion about banning IT. Taking away a character's tools just because they're GOOD is scrubby at best.

Only legitimate reason to ban the infinites is to increase tourney attendance by the mains of the infinited, which is an excellent reason IMO because $$$ da bess.

I was about to dispute the Nado comparison, but then I realized that both only affect small subsets of the cast that badly. Well chosen comparison.

And I don't think $$$ is a better reason than allowing more people to enjoy the game. Intrinsic value > Money, imo

 

[DMG]

It's fine to ban Dedede's infinite.

If your reasoning is that it is better for attendance, not for the game. Banning his infinite isn't better for the game, it's a "Hey I will go to this tournament with Dedede's infinite gone" incentive reason.

 

[-Vocal-]

It's fine to ban Dedede's infinite.

If your reasoning is that it is better for attendance, not for the game. Banning his infinite isn't better for the game, it's a "Hey I will go to this tournament with Dedede's infinite gone" incentive reason.

Precisely what I was thinking.

That does open up doors for many other things, but in this specific case it comes down to that.

Branching out...well I have more thinking to do.

 

[sunshade]

It's fine to ban Dedede's infinite.

If your reasoning is that it is better for attendance, not for the game. Banning his infinite isn't better for the game, it's a "Hey I will go to this tournament with Dedede's infinite gone" incentive reason.

I read this as "its ok to ignore logic and reason if people ***** and moan enough".

This is a horrid idea. If we are going to ban things for the sake of attendance then you might as well go to the root of the issue and ban defensive play.

 

[ADHD]

No, I've just had a bad case of the stupids for the last two pages.

Or your entire life.