• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

The Unity Ruleset: Discussion

Judo777

Smash Master
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
3,627

Most pro-MKban arguments were proven wrong many times, and MK still got banned.

Also, BPC never said LGL was right, he just said people thinks it is a good rule.


Been wondering this as well
Not even close MOST of pro bans arguments held true for 3 years. Most of anti-bans arguments were along the lines of "its too early, now its too late, the community will die, people just haven't learned the MU yet, its not a problem with MK it's a problem with the LGL, how much money is too much money?" which btw none of those are even like concrete claims. It was just "we realize that the line is blurry, so we are gonna point at it the whole time that's our argument!"

Pro bans arguments were more along the lines of "he has no even MU's, he is great on all the neutrals and only gets stronger on CPs, he has the option to time everyone out we just don't see it all the time because he doesn't need it, he has 1 move MU analyses, he wins like 60% of the money and about 1/5 of the country plays him"

All of those arguments still hold true.

So...about those pro-LGL arguments...

Do they not exist anymore, making anti-LGL provably correct?

ALSO: Why is our starter list still so ground-based?
They made a ground based starter system because AT THE TIME it seemed to yield balanced results. What people didn't realized was that "balanced results" were giving all of MK's closest to even MU's a huge bonus on game 1 possibly shifting the MU so they can beat the bat. But then when game 2 and 3 rolled around it was **** game 2 and "back to square one" game 3.
 

John12346

Smash Master
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
3,534
Location
New York, NY
NNID
JohnNumbers
Don't forget about surgical LGL BS(note that a LGL in general isn't a direct nerf on MK, but the fact he has a lower one than everyone else is), the fact that anti-ban seems to want to throw even more nerfs on MK before banning him(which arguably shows that they admit that MK is too dominant of a force under normal, unrestricted gameplay), and that a ****load of the community wants him banned.

On top of everything you just said.
 

John12346

Smash Master
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
3,534
Location
New York, NY
NNID
JohnNumbers
Edit: Misread, w/e

I'd like to bring up that one story that t1mmy/t0mmy(forgot who) made where their ROB ultimately lost to a MK because he was forced onto the ledge so many times, despite having the percentage lead. Right there is a good case of a character with LESS jumps and no intent of timing out the opponent, but still exceeding the LGL. What would you say about that?
 

SaveMeJebus

Smash Master
Joined
Apr 29, 2010
Messages
4,371
Edit: Misread, w/e

I'd like to bring up that one story that t1mmy/t0mmy(forgot who) made where their ROB ultimately lost to a MK because he was forced onto the ledge so many times, despite having the percentage lead. Right there is a good case of a character with LESS jumps and no intent of timing out the opponent, but still exceeding the LGL. What would you say about that?
Think of it this way, either he would have timed the other player out if there was no ledge grab limit and he had the percent lead or he would have still lost with the current rule set if he was behind on percents
 

Tesh

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 28, 2008
Messages
9,737
Location
TX
It really shouldn't matter if I intended to time someone out if my ledge play isn't actually broken. I've timed people out on Pictochat with Sonic (and on RC). I can still intend to time people out without ledge play. Thats a dumb reason to limit non broken planking imo.
 

SaveMeJebus

Smash Master
Joined
Apr 29, 2010
Messages
4,371
It really shouldn't matter if I intended to time someone out if my ledge play isn't actually broken. I've timed people out on Pictochat with Sonic (and on RC). I can still intend to time people out without ledge play. Thats a dumb reason to limit non broken planking imo.
It is broken though because you can never predict what your opponent is going to do next. If you predict wrong, you risk taking damage or getting gimped. It's as broken as walk off camping which is also banned
 

Maharba the Mystic

Smash Master
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
4,403
Location
Houston, Texas
walk off camping is not a broken tactic oh my ****ing god. seriously it is laughably easy to beat with pretty much every character bar like ganon. seriously if you can't make someone get the **** away from the edge of the screen you suck large flopulant penas.

edit:

same for non MK planking. although g&w planking is borderline broken..... nobody else is though.
 

Maharba the Mystic

Smash Master
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
4,403
Location
Houston, Texas
it will go about ****ing itself because there is now way they get to ruin another smash game by making rules then testing them after people complain about instead of testing it before they make it law and not be stupid

like they made an lgl with no actual data testing on non mk characters, yet they allow infinites because they are MU specific. lol

like our starter/cp system. lol

i would lol at our stagelist but i know they are looking at addin new stages so ill hold off on the lol there.

etc....
 

Judo777

Smash Master
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
3,627
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=13440271&postcount=79

@John12346, no character with five jumps is ever going to go over 35 ledge grabs unless he is trying to time the other player out. No character with five jumps should have more than 35 ledge grabs
Removing stages like RC and Brinstar isn't going to make MK worse by any significant amount. Its just gonna make the people who do reasonably against him better. This is not balance.

"Man Akuma is too freaking strong. No hes not its just that characters like O. Sagat, Claw, Boxer, and Dhalsim can't dizzy him. We should just make it so that everytime Akuma gets hit with a combo that ordinarily dizzies people (or we do dizzy him) he has to stay still (or dizzied) until they can get another combo off. This will only apply to those 4 characters tho.........."
 

SaveMeJebus

Smash Master
Joined
Apr 29, 2010
Messages
4,371
Removing stages like RC and Brinstar isn't going to make MK worse by any significant amount. Its just gonna make the people who do reasonably against him better. This is not balance.

"Man Akuma is too freaking strong. No hes not its just that characters like O. Sagat, Claw, Boxer, and Dhalsim can't dizzy him. We should just make it so that everytime Akuma gets hit with a combo that ordinarily dizzies people (or we do dizzy him) he has to stay still (or dizzied) until they can get another combo off. This will only apply to those 4 characters tho.........."
That example has nothing to do with the stage list though. We should have at least tried to ban those two stages for a couple of months and and increased the timer. If nothing really changed,then we should have banned him.
 

C.J.

Smash Master
Joined
Nov 30, 2008
Messages
4,102
Location
Florida
Cool opinion bro. Care to back it up with... substance? Proof? Logical basis for argument (that does not appeal to other decisions that were made that are arguably wrong or appealing to other games)?
Don't bother, because you can't. Because it's completely subjective and your personal opinion. There is no objective way to show that your way was better, or that banning him straight out was better. They chose their preference. That's the end of it. Quit bringing it up.
 

SaveMeJebus

Smash Master
Joined
Apr 29, 2010
Messages
4,371
You lose a lot more game depth by banning a character than you do by banning a few stages.

@John, I guess you and I have a different idea of broken then
 

Conviction

Human Nature
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
13,390
Location
Kennesaw, Georgia
3DS FC
1907-8951-4471
Just wanted to say to Jebus.

Why 35 grabs? I might be trying to time you only with only 10 lgs.

How would you know my intent?
 

Doc King

Smash Lord
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
1,790
You lose a lot more game depth by banning a character than you do by banning a few stages.

@John, I guess you and I have a different idea of broken then
MK destroyed the game depth lol!

And banning those stages would only make it very slightly easier to beat mk, which isn't gonna help that much.
 

Arcansi

Smash Champion
Joined
Jul 9, 2011
Messages
2,545
Location
BC(Vancouver Island) Canada
I don't think they'd do either though from preliminary discussions.
This is one of the worst flaws of the URC. They claim a bunch of stuff, (Like the intent of this whole SubForum...) but we see nothing.

It's almost as if you guys have to hide yourself from us for some random reason, and therefore can't actually argue your points to a logical conclusion with us.

Or you think your better then us and your arguments mean as much as they would with us without.

It makes no sense...
 

SaveMeJebus

Smash Master
Joined
Apr 29, 2010
Messages
4,371
MK destroyed the game depth lol!

And banning those stages would only make it very slightly easier to beat mk, which isn't gonna help that much.
How? There is nothing stopping a player from choosing a character other than MK. They just choose to play as him.
 

DeLux

Player that used to be Lux
Joined
Jun 3, 2010
Messages
9,302
This is one of the worst flaws of the URC. They claim a bunch of stuff, (Like the intent of this whole SubForum...) but we see nothing.

It's almost as if you guys have to hide yourself from us for some random reason, and therefore can't actually argue your points to a logical conclusion with us.

Or you think your better then us and your arguments mean as much as they would with us without.

It makes no sense...
What does this even mean...
 

Doc King

Smash Lord
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
1,790
How? There is nothing stopping a player from choosing a character other than MK. They just choose to play as him.
Your wrong. There is something stopping players from playing any other character and that is how overpowered mk is. Also mk lacking an even or bad matchup makes it so ppl don't have to pick anyone else.
 

SaveMeJebus

Smash Master
Joined
Apr 29, 2010
Messages
4,371
Your wrong. There is something stopping players from playing any other character and that is how overpowered mk is. Also mk lacking an even or bad matchup makes it so ppl don't have to pick anyone else.
Fox and Diddy are even MUs if you get rid of Brinstar an RC. Falco and ICs do better against MK with them banned
 

Arcansi

Smash Champion
Joined
Jul 9, 2011
Messages
2,545
Location
BC(Vancouver Island) Canada
What does this even mean...
It means you hardly seem to involve the community in your decisions, past the vote for MK being banned.

The preliminary discussion could have been filled with people not talking because they didn't feel like it, or people spouting opinion, someone being away because of an important thing when they have a very logical undiscussed point on the matter.

It could've been filled with things we know to be false but you guys don't.

I'm not saying it was, and most of the stuff in paragraph 1 is probably false.

But we don't know this. We don't know **** about how you guys make your decisions or what actually goes into it.

It really almost feels like the discussion gets us nowhere because of what little reaction we see from the URC. Atleast to me. I'm not sure how much others care or what they feel.

Fox and Diddy are even MUs if you get rid of Brinstar an RC. Falco and ICs do better against MK with them banned
This is not a relevant conclusion because there is no reason for such conditions to be met.
 

C.J.

Smash Master
Joined
Nov 30, 2008
Messages
4,102
Location
Florida
Fox and Diddy are even MUs if you get rid of Brinstar an RC. Falco and ICs do better against MK with them banned
No they're not... Gnes/ADHD both say MK wins (maybe even on FD? MAYBE? but that is insta-banned so it's irrelevant)

There is no earthly way fox beats MK. I doubt it's even, even on FD. Watching Anti vs TKD was awful.

And yes, Falco and IC do better vs MK w/o those two stages. Why are they special? They're not.
 

Doc King

Smash Lord
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
1,790
Fox and Diddy are even MUs if you get rid of Brinstar an RC. Falco and ICs do better against MK with them banned
LOL!

Fox and Diddy aren't even matchups. Fox gets gimped way too hard and Diddy just isn't good enough to combat with mk in the air.
LOL@Jebus spotdodging my questions.
^
No they're not... Gnes/ADHD both say MK wins (maybe even on FD? MAYBE? but that is insta-banned so it's irrelevant)

There is no earthly way fox beats MK. I doubt it's even, even on FD. Watching Anti vs TKD was awful.

And yes, Falco and IC do better vs MK w/o those two stages. Why are they special? They're not.
^
 

ぱみゅ

❤ ~
Joined
Dec 5, 2008
Messages
10,010
Location
Under your skirt
NNID
kyo.pamyu.pamyu
3DS FC
4785-5700-5699
Switch FC
SW 3264 5694 6605
We're really back on "MK is broken, BAN" commentaries?
sheesh....


Arcansi, I think FLSS should be the standard as well, but I think you win nothing by attacking URC. Trust me, it may be annoying not to know what happens on the backstage, but is 10000x times worse when anyone can come and comment.
you should see SmashbrosLA, is a terrible, misinformed and biased place...
 

Conviction

Human Nature
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
13,390
Location
Kennesaw, Georgia
3DS FC
1907-8951-4471
Idk how it became an MK topic, I thought we were all calling Jebus stupid because he thinks LGLs are still necessary without any evidence (that hasn't been proven wrong) to support it.

His most recent fail being trying to base the LGL on intent.
 

Arcansi

Smash Champion
Joined
Jul 9, 2011
Messages
2,545
Location
BC(Vancouver Island) Canada
Arcansi, I think FLSS should be the standard as well, but I think you win nothing by attacking URC. Trust me, it may be annoying not to know what happens on the backstage, but is 10000x times worse when anyone can come and comment. you should see SmashbrosLA, is a terrible, misinformed and biased place...
Even like meeting notes or something would be cool.

Or more of the URC taking part in community discussions.
 

DeLux

Player that used to be Lux
Joined
Jun 3, 2010
Messages
9,302
It means you hardly seem to involve the community in your decisions, past the vote for MK being banned
You have to remember we are a room of TO's. At the end of the day, I've discussed rules and possible rule changes the most with the people that attend my tournaments. I don't know how you can make that accusation of us not involving the community when I'm sure I'm not an outlier in the context of we do in fact talk to people other than ourselves.

The preliminary discussion could have been filled with people not talking because they didn't feel like it, or people spouting opinion, someone being away because of an important thing when they have a very logical undiscussed point on the matter.
Preliminary discussion involved me gauging the opinion of every member in the URC, so none of this is true.

It could've been filled with things we know to be false but you guys don't.
Then if you feel that this is the case, then speak to a Unity TO that is in your region in person. If your area isn't influenced by Unity, go host a tournament that runs your own ideal ruleset. Or even host URS tournaments, join the URC and influence the system within.

I'm not saying it was, and most of the stuff in paragraph 1 is probably false.
At least you admit this.

But we don't know this. We don't know **** about how you guys make your decisions or what actually goes into it.
Who is "we"? We make our decisions by having a discussion phase on a particular rule. If someone moves to vote, there must be a majority to pass a rule. Now you know.

It really almost feels like the discussion gets us nowhere because of what little reaction we see from the URC. Atleast to me. I'm not sure how much others care or what they feel.
You can voice your opinion. It's listened to. Unfortunately your opinion is not shared by a majority of the URC. If you want to change it, I listed three possible options you have outside of the one you've been using of posting in this thread.


Stop playing the victim when you have more power than you realize in the matter.


Even like meeting notes or something would be cool.

Or more of the URC taking part in community discussions.
We host tournaments for our respective localities fairly frequently. I don't how much more involved in the "community" you expect each person to be.

I thought urc was doing streamed meetings? What happened to that?
There are plans for that to occur. At the moment, we're working on fixing some internal affairs. When we get back into discussing ruleset changes, we'll look into public meetings as well.
 

Arcansi

Smash Champion
Joined
Jul 9, 2011
Messages
2,545
Location
BC(Vancouver Island) Canada
You have to remember we are a room of TO's. At the end of the day, I've discussed rules and possible rule changes the most with the people that attend my tournaments. I don't know how you can make that accusation of us not involving the community when I'm sure I'm not an outlier in the context of we do in fact talk to people other than ourselves.
I meant the online community when I said community. If you can discuss it in person why can't you discuss it online? (Or why don't you?)

Preliminary discussion involved me gauging the opinion of every member in the URC, so none of this is true.
Ok, Cool.


Then if you feel that this is the case, then speak to a Unity TO that is in your region in person. If your area isn't influenced by Unity, go host a tournament that runs your own ideal ruleset. Or even host URS tournaments, join the URC and influence the system within.
1. Physically Impossible. 2. Physically Impossible. 3. Physically Impossible.

Who is "we"? We make our decisions by having a discussion phase on a particular rule. If someone moves to vote, there must be a majority to pass a rule. Now you know.
The online community. I meant more about the discussions, tbh.

You can voice your opinion. It's listened to. Unfortunately your opinion is not shared by a majority of the URC. If you want to change it, I listed three possible options you have outside of the one you've been using of posting in this thread.
Maybe it's listened to, I have no knowledge of this except you telling me, which while reassuring, isn't proof(except for by you, ofc).

The main problem with this is that's all I've got, is basically my preliminary point. The URC can disagree with it based on something I might be able to find a flaw in, but I'm never going to be able to find that flaw and it might go unchecked. This makes no sense to me.


Stop playing the victim when you have more power than you realize in the matter.
I realized I have LESS power then I realized in the matter while writing this post.

We host tournaments for our respective localities fairly frequently. I don't how much more involved in the "community" you expect each person to be.
Meant the online community.



There are plans for that to occur. At the moment, we're working on fixing some internal affairs. When we get back into discussing ruleset changes, we'll look into public meetings as well.
 

Judo777

Smash Master
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
3,627
That example has nothing to do with the stage list though. We should have at least tried to ban those two stages for a couple of months and and increased the timer. If nothing really changed,then we should have banned him.
Yea no no, you're right, instead of doing something we put off for 3 years, we should CONTINUE doing the same things we HAVE been doing and maybe that will fix the problem. .............

"nah nah man we don't need to replace the bad node in the circuit, lets instead make the voltage across the points REALLLLY strong and try to jump the problem. Ok so if that doesn't work..... I got it instead of removing the bad node and fixing it, lets just rebuild a NEW circuit around the old one, yea I think that will fix it. No, no dude I got it instead of fixing the problem lets just wait a few months and see if the problem fixes it self......."
 

DeLux

Player that used to be Lux
Joined
Jun 3, 2010
Messages
9,302
I meant the online community when I said community. If you can discuss it in person why can't you discuss it online? (Or why don't you?)
Because ultimately we take into account who our stake holders are. If you aren't affected by the Unity Ruleset, you aren't a stake holder. We are people that have a finite amount of time. You can say what you want and I listen to your opinion just by reading it and responding to it, but why would I cater to you when in reality catering to you puts me at odds with a competing claim of people that actually attend my tournies or could attend my tournies?

1. Physically Impossible. 2. Physically Impossible. 3. Physically Impossible.
It's not a matter of physically impossible. Either you are able to run or attend a tourney, or the Unity ruleset doesn't apply to you. It's a binary that you can't have both ways where you can't run or attend a tourney, but you have a stake in the ruleset. You have no stake in this at all by your own admission.

The online community. I meant more about the discussions, tbh.
The Unity Ruleset was never designed to apply to online tournaments specifically. It was designed to be a recommended ruleset run at real live events by real live TOs.

Maybe it's listened to, I have no knowledge of this except you telling me, which while reassuring, isn't proof(except for by you, ofc).
Whether you believe it or not is on you. It stops being my problem after me listening to you and letting you know you've been heard.

The main problem with this is that's all I've got, is basically my preliminary point. The URC can disagree with it based on something I might be able to find a flaw in, but I'm never going to be able to find that flaw and it might go unchecked. This makes no sense to me.
You can absolutely find a flaw. People before you have found flaws. We've changed the rules to cover those flaws. You aren't some special victim case here.


I realized I have LESS power then I realized in the matter while writing this post.
This is in no way fixable by the URC. Your inability to have power is focused in the things you claim are physically impossible.
 

SaveMeJebus

Smash Master
Joined
Apr 29, 2010
Messages
4,371
Yea no no, you're right, instead of doing something we put off for 3 years, we should CONTINUE doing the same things we HAVE been doing and maybe that will fix the problem. .............

"nah nah man we don't need to replace the bad node in the circuit, lets instead make the voltage across the points REALLLLY strong and try to jump the problem. Ok so if that doesn't work..... I got it instead of removing the bad node and fixing it, lets just rebuild a NEW circuit around the old one, yea I think that will fix it. No, no dude I got it instead of fixing the problem lets just wait a few months and see if the problem fixes it self......."
Japan doesn't have a problem with MK. They must be doing something right


@Ibis, don't ask me why we have the ledge grab amount we have. That's like asking why we use a 8 min timer over any other timer

@C.J., Did you even watch the set? From what I heard, TKD only used Fox in one of the matches of that set. He recently beat Tyrant in one of Mike's tournaments
 
Top Bottom