The Unity Ruleset: Discussion

[Ghostbone]

Halberd and Yoshi's yes, but oh well, they're not leaving any time soon.

 

[DeLux]

Battleship Halberd isn't a stage

 

[Ghostbone]

Oh and Strong Bad, just because some of the ruleset is flawed, doesn't justify making it worse (which turning items on would do)
Bad logic is bad.

 

[Sinister Slush]

Of course it'll never come off the stage list, But Why is halberd in it anyways. Hate the hazards cause of how trolly they are and the very low ceiling.

Claw: "Hmm... lemme decide who to nitpick for A Whole minute..." *Senses Marth suffering from RCO Lag*
"AH-HA! CLAAAAAAAAAW!"

 

[Strong Badam]

That implies that adding items would be objectively bad, which remains to be seen.
"But stormgarde they're random and ur a scrub for thinking they should be legal."
G&W, DDD, Peach, Luigi, Ice Climbers (Nana's AI), and other characters have random elements and yet we don't ban them. Same thing with Halberd, Stadium, Yoshi's Island, etc. "But they're not going away any time soon." This means that there is some "acceptable amount of randomness," otherwise we'd also be banning grabs, because same frame grabs are randomly determined. Determining exactly what that is is the hard part. Moving on:
Item spawn points are fixed points and spawn on a timer with a bit of leeway. They are inherently randomly selected, yes, but as I said in my previous paragraph, so is G&W's Judgment or many other things. Now, since the spawn points are predetermined, it takes skill, knowledge, experience, etc. to know where they are. Then, item spawning encourages stage control, and important part of Smash. Unique stages are one of the main things separating Smash from your average run of the mill fighting game, so it'd be ******** to limit the stage list to BF and FD only, so that means that the stages are somewhat random too.

I'm also willing to bet that Item standard play would improve the game's competitive depth. Look at all of the item-specific ATs that make Diddy so great. Glide tossing, picking up/catching items with attacks, item combos, etc. And I can guarantee you Meta Knights wouldn't be planking if Power Stars and Food were spawning on stage.

Give me more bad posts to pick apart, Ghostbone. I can do this all day.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

You are the reason why the smash community is hated. You are an idiot.
You feel that Ken outplayed CPU within the ruleset by throwing items off the stage or at CPU and ignoring them for the most part, while CPU intelligently made use of items (Grabbed Ken during Final Smash for epic damage, sniped Smash Ball from across the stage with Laser, etc.). No. Just. No. Within the ruleset, CPU outplayed Ken. Ken's ability to place 2nd at such a huge tournament by mostly ignoring items further proved that in Super Smash Bros. Brawl, items did not significantly randomize results, and that the two best players got top 2. CPU used items better than Ken did and deserved to win. I am sick of hearing people say that Ken outplayed CPU at Evo 2k8 when CPU played to win within the ruelset and Ken largely ignored a huge part of the metagame during it. Evo 2k8 finals are still the most entertaining "serious" Brawl videos I've ever seen.

You're full of ****.

This is stupid for several reasons. The first is that Ken actually did use items at times. Bumpers, especially. Perhaps not as proficiently, but have you watched the matches? The only reason CPU stood a chance was a little item called the Smash Ball. Which, by the way, actively homes in on the losing player, and is easier for them to break. Saying that CPU outplayed Ken within the ruleset is like saying that, say, RandomNoob321 beating M2K in that tournament with Warioware and Pictochat as the only stages and containers and bombs on high was legitimate–technically, it may be true; on any realistic measure, it's not, because the ruleset was so ridiculously broken to begin with that there's simply no way the results would actually reflect skill. I mean, for ****'s sake, watch round one and tell me how many times CPU even comes close to landing a kill without the smashball. Look at how much ground this one item made up for him, and tell me that he wasn't not only outplayed, but brutally outplayed by ken, by any sensible definition of the word.

It's not even just the randomness. Game three, ken gets killed by a bumper at around 50%. Not gimped, flat-out killed. The items don't just spawn in random positions (offering random bonuses to the characters involved), they also often offered an obscene shift of risk-reward in favor or extremely risky, extremely rewarding gameplay–something which is also seen as a poor sign (i.e. why we have stages with walkoffs banned).

So you mean like Battleship Halberd's random hazards, Pokemon Stadium(s) random transformations, the ghosts on Yoshi's Island: Brawl, etc?
Might as well make the only legal stages Battlefield & FD then. Stop with the double standards.

You can't tell the difference between the randomness provided by items (most particularly the smash ball) and the randomness provided by various stages in brawl? There's a reason we banned Warioware and Pictochat.

 

[Ghostbone]

Bad things =! add more bad things.
It's not our fault the game wasn't designed with a switch that would allow Peach to always get dot face for example, or even to turn tripping of.
Doesn't mean we shouldn't use the switch that allows us to turn items off.

 

[Strong Badam]

You haven't effectively responded to the majority of my argument. I'm still waiting.

This is stupid for several reasons. The first is that Ken actually did use items at times. Bumpers, especially. Perhaps not as proficiently, but have you watched the matches? The only reason CPU stood a chance was a little item called the Smash Ball. Which, by the way, actively homes in on the losing player, and is easier for them to break. Saying that CPU outplayed Ken within the ruleset is like saying that, say, RandomNoob321 beating M2K in that tournament with Warioware and Pictochat as the only stages and containers and bombs on high was legitimate–technically, it may be true; on any realistic measure, it's not, because the ruleset was so ridiculously broken to begin with that there's simply no way the results would actually reflect skill. I mean, for ****'s sake, watch round one and tell me how many times CPU even comes close to landing a kill without the smashball. Look at how much ground this one item made up for him, and tell me that he wasn't not only outplayed, but brutally outplayed by ken, by any sensible definition of the word.

He lost. [/discussion.]

 

[Ghostbone]

Except most of your post was based around that.
Try again.

He lost. [/discussion.]

So picking the right result of a coin flip is outplaying the other person?
Cool

 

[Strong Badam]

If you aren't going to ban Peach because random turnips, then don't ban items because random spawn. There was never significant testing put into determining whether item's randomness had more of an effect on the consistency of results than Peach's randomness, or Halberd's randomness, because Brawlers banned items day 1.
You can remove Peach's randomness from the game. If you're going to ban MK because he's "too good, overcentralizes metagame, I'm too sick of getting my **** pushed in by Mew2King's ****" then you can ban Peach because randomness.

 

[Ghostbone]

We don't ban items.
Try again.

Saying we ban items is like saying we ban coin mode or something lol.

And again I'll repeat "It's not our fault the game wasn't designed with a switch that would allow Peach to always get dot face for example, or even to turn tripping of.
Doesn't mean we shouldn't use the switch that allows us to turn items off."
Do you not understand this?

 

[Strong Badam]

We don't ban items.
Try again.

General Gameplay Rules

• Items set to "Off" and "None"

And again I'll repeat "It's not our fault the game wasn't designed with a switch that would allow Peach to always get dot face for example, or even to turn tripping of.
Doesn't mean we shouldn't use the switch that allows us to turn items off."
Do you not understand this?

Where's the switch that allows us to turn Meta Knight off?

 

[DeLux]

If you follow that logic, why not set items to off AND ban the characters with a random feature?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

He lost. [/discussion.]

Do me a favor. Host a huge melee tournament with items on. As many items as possible. Now try to explain to, say, Armada, why he's no longer counted as a better player than, say, Shroomed, or some other high level player who is good but clearly not that good, because a bomb spawned on him.

Look, I'm sorry, but Ken, by any reasonable claim, outplayed CPU by a wide margin in that set. CPU abused a combination of randomness, ridiculously high reward options that were thrust onto him randomly, and an item that can guarantee a stock loss and that favors the loser heavily. Yeah, it's not just randomness: it's also an item which actively favors the loser.

But hey, that's besides the point. The point being that things like the gentlemen rule can, and probably will, reflect poorly on smash. I would rather not see the day where the match on the stream takes place on Summit. I dunno about you.

 

[Ghostbone]

Right back at you

 

[Strong Badam]

Do me a favor. Host a huge melee tournament with items on. As many items as possible. Now try to explain to, say, Armada, why he's no longer counted as a better player than, say, Shroomed, or some other high level player who is good but clearly not that good, because a bomb spawned on him.

I did specify Super Smash Bros. Brawl, didn't I? The main reason Items were banned in Melee (after 2 to 3 years of testing mind you) were the randomly exploding capsules and crates that couldn't be turned off. This is not an issue in Brawl, because both Capsules and Crates can be turned off and they will no longer affect gameplay.

 

[Ghostbone]

I did specify Super Smash Bros. Brawl, didn't I? The main reason Items were banned in Melee (after 2 to 3 years of testing mind you) were the randomly exploding capsules and crates that couldn't be turned off. This is not an issue in Brawl, because both Capsules and Crates can be turned off and they will no longer affect gameplay.

Because there totally isn't a billion other problems with items.
They weren't turned off in Melee because of that afaik, most people would have been convinced to turn them off without that anyway.
And anyway, if it wasn't a tournament that was decided by an exploding capsule that convinced everyone, it would have been a tournament that was decided by a ray gun or something.

Edit: And by your logic, P:M should have items on too!

 

[Zankoku]

Items are off because an overwhelming majority of tournament regulars dislike having them on.

The Smash Ball is rather imbalanced regardless.

 

[Strong Badam]

^the only argument that can be made for any rule

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I did specify Super Smash Bros. Brawl, didn't I? The main reason Items were banned in Melee (after 2 to 3 years of testing mind you) were the randomly exploding capsules and crates that couldn't be turned off. This is not an issue in Brawl, because both Capsules and Crates can be turned off and they will no longer affect gameplay.

Correct me if I'm wrong SB, as you often do, but aren't Melee item spawns fixed to 6 or so separate places while in Brawl items can spawn anywhere on heaps of diagonal "lines" extending from the center of the stage?

That in itself makes Brawl's items incomparable to Melee's.

 

[Strong Badam]

I'd have to do pointless research to confirm that.

 

[Ghostbone]

I'd have to do pointless research to confirm that.

Hang on.....

Item spawn points are fixed points and spawn on a timer with a bit of leeway.

Wait what.
So one of your points earlier was that items had fixed spawn positions.
And now you say you have no idea about that?

Good to know you're spewing nonsense.

 

[DeLux]

Even if item spawns were purely random, his original point of Brawl without a tolerance for random elements is incoherent would still stand :\

It's more or less boiling down to a subjective debate on how large that tolerance must be. If you really wanted to remove as many random elements as possible (which your posts indicate, but I don't want to misrepresent your argument), you would be obligated to remove multiple stages and characters as this is an easily enforceable method of removing said random elements.

 

[Ghostbone]

It's more or less boiling down to a subjective debate on how large that tolerance must be. If you really wanted to remove as many random elements as possible (which your posts indicate, but I don't want to misrepresent your argument), you would be obligated to remove multiple stages and characters as this is an easily enforceable method of removing said random elements.

Not really, my point is basically as follows, we should remove unneeded randomness (ie items) since the game allows us to, and other randomness only when it shows itself to alter the outcome of matches significantly and often.

 

[Supreme Dirt]

SB, I think I love you for those posts.

 

[Cassio]

BPC, ghostbone sorry but youre both painfully misinformed on this argument. Im not trying to be mean here since I held the same point of view as you not too long ago. I was vehemently against the idea of items. It wasnt until I read the items thread debate for melee here (old thread) and on SRK that I realized the point Strong Bad was making, and even then the idea had to sit with me for awhile before it came across.

Praxis actually nails it on the head with his original Meta Knight ban argument, the brawl ruleset has no rhyme or reason other then to add and remove things we feel strongly about. In fact removing items caused so any problems were still making adjustements to our ruleset to fix the issues that were left.

Addendum: Also Im not exactly an advocate of items on especially now, but I think most people who hate on them havent really attempted to understand the issue.

 

[DeLux]

Not really, my point is basically as follows, we should remove unneeded randomness (ie items) since the game allows us to, and other randomness only when it shows itself to alter the outcome of matchessignificantly and often.

What non-subjective threshold can accurately weigh "significant and often"?

 

[Arcansi]

Bad things =! add more bad things.
It's not our fault the game wasn't designed with a switch that would allow Peach to always get dot face for example, or even to turn tripping of.
Doesn't mean we shouldn't use the switch that allows us to turn items off.

We are in control of a switch that allows us to change ANYTHING WE WANT.

In fact, two of them.

1. Hacking (call it what you will, it exists and is an option and is regulateable and implementable)

2. A RULESET. There is no switch for megaknight being turned off.

There is no switch for sudden death.

And again I'll repeat "It's not our fault the game wasn't designed with a switch that would allow Peach to always get dot face for example, or even to turn tripping of.
Doesn't mean we shouldn't use the switch that allows us to turn items off."

It exists. Also, turning tripping off without hacking is reasonably doable (see: someone pauses when they trip randomly, gets up safely and game resumes, or something)

Items are off because an overwhelming majority of tournament regulars dislike having them on.

Is the UR considered a competitive ruleset by all means, and within the URC?
(let's go getting an answer)

Not really, my point is basically as follows, we should remove unneeded randomness (ie items) since the game allows us to, and other randomness only when it shows itself to alter the outcome of matches significantly and often.

We are able to remove other randomness. We don't. We(you people) don't even feel a need too.

Addendum: Also Im not exactly an advocate of items on especially now, but I think most people who hate on them havent really attempted to understand the issue.

I think most people don't do this.

What non-subjective threshold can accurately weigh "significant and often"?

What non-subjective threshold can accuractely weight what stock or timer we should use?

Has it been used? Is it going to be used?

Is your ruleset subjective?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

BPC, ghostbone sorry but youre both painfully misinformed on this argument. Im not trying to be mean here since I held the same point of view as you not too long ago. I was vehemently against the idea of items. It wasnt until I read the items thread debate for melee here (old thread) and on SRK that I realized the point Strong Bad was making, and even then the idea had to sit with me for awhile before it came across.

Praxis actually nails it on the head with his original Meta Knight ban argument, the brawl ruleset has no rhyme or reason other then to add and remove things we feel strongly about. In fact removing items caused so any problems were still making adjustements to our ruleset to fix the issues that were left.

Addendum: Also Im not exactly an advocate of items on especially now, but I think most people who hate on them havent really attempted to understand the issue.

I believe items should be banned because they cross the level of randomness I am willing to allow in a competitive game. This does not conflict with any of my other views on legality.

I fail to see how this is hypocritical with my view on MK's legality... I feel that both items and MK cross the line I have drawn for something to be uncompetitive enough to be ban-worthy. Both bans are also discrete and enforceable.

 

[Ghostbone]

What non-subjective threshold can accurately weigh "significant and often"?

Nothing, but it's impossible to make a ruleset that people would want to use without being subjective.

We are in control of a switch that allows us to change ANYTHING WE WANT.

In fact, two of them.

1. Hacking (call it what you will, it exists and is an option and is regulateable and implementable)

2. A RULESET. There is no switch for megaknight being turned off.

There is no switch for sudden death.

No, I think you're misunderstanding the point.
Hacking will never become the standard and we really shouldn't get into why that's a problem.

Yea, we have a ruleset because the game doesn't have usable default settings.
Most other fighting games don't have a ruleset past "Use default settings, after a round the loser can change their character(s)." (obviously expanded upon for clarification and what not, but yea)

It exists. Also, turning tripping off without hacking is reasonably doable (see: someone pauses when they trip randomly, gets up safely and game resumes, or something)

That's a terrible idea and won't work in practice.
-Player trips into a hit and dies before he reacts-
Can't exactly start the game again.
-Player trips past a move and doesn't get hit-
Now you have players arguing whether the one that tripped wouldn't have gotten hit in the first place.
And other similar situations which are unresolvable....

Oh and pause is turned off.

Trust me, removing all randomness is impossible, you end up with Marth dittos on FD, with a billion specific rules.

 

[Arcansi]

No, I think you're misunderstanding the point.
Hacking will never become the standard and we really shouldn't get into why that's a problem.

This is an argument. You do because you know I hold a different standpoint.

Yea, we have a ruleset because the game doesn't have usable default settings.
Most other fighting games don't have a ruleset past "Use default settings, after a round the loser can change their character(s)." (obviously expanded upon for clarification and what not, but yea)

I never mentioned most other fighting games. Our game has usable default settings we just decided they were unfit for competitive play (extremely inconclusively, mind you)

That's a terrible idea and won't work in practice.
-Player trips into a hit and dies before he reacts-
Can't exactly start the game again.
-Player trips past a move and doesn't get hit-
Now you have players arguing whether the one that tripped wouldn't have gotten hit in the first place.
And other similar situations which are unresolvable....

Not unresolvable, just undesireable. A concrete ruleset would deal with these rather easily. People seem to dislike rules like this for opinionated and usually illogical reasons, however.

Oh and pause is turned off.

This is irrelevant because it can be turned on.

Trust me, removing all randomness is impossible, you end up with Marth dittos on FD, with a billion specific rules.

No offence, but there is zero reason you should ever say 'trust me' in an argument. I'm very rarely going to even consider doing so.

Actually, we could remove all randomness pretty dang easily with hacks.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Just a small side-note: Hacking should NEVER become the standard.
Specially if URC is looking for a more professional-like Ruleset.

As for everything else, I didn't read it. I probably skim it and most likely won't comment about it.

 

[Arcansi]

Hacking is an opinion thing. People will whine and cry and junk but in the end competition is competition, and you can't argue the game wouldn't be more competitive.

People have just gotten used to getting what they want, even if it isn't whats competitive.

 

[ElDominio]

I think I'd rather read SMJ's posts than Arcansi's....

It exists. Also, turning tripping off without hacking is reasonably doable (see: someone pauses when they trip randomly, gets up safely and game resumes, or something)

I mean... really?

 

[Arcansi]

Sometimes I post things slightly unreasonable.

Most of my posts are extremely constructed, your just prone to disliking them because I go against the status quo consistently and aggressively.

Note that mine and your definition of reasonably doable is different.

 

[Zankoku]

Hacking is an opinion thing. People will whine and cry and junk but in the end competition is competition, and you can't argue the game wouldn't be more competitive.

People have just gotten used to getting what they want, even if it isn't whats competitive.

The widespread opinion is that, yes, you can make the game better through hacks, but considering hacks are the one thing Nintendo has shown any sort of response to (by deleting the Homebrew Channel with nearly every single firmware update), it's really not a professional approach to building a competitive game in this case.

Considering those new to the competitive scene would also then have to break Nintendo's rules/etc. and download custom content just to enter said scene, it's also not a very practical solution when considering attempts to achieve a more mainstream awareness.

I mean, seriously, do you really think the majority would leave "Random Tripping" on if it were a settable option like stocks and items?

 

[ぱみゅ]

We should all play Balanced Brawl...
I'm not pushing it as a standard, but it is nice and vastly underrated because of it being a mod...

 

[Arcansi]

The widespread opinion is that, yes, you can make the game better through hacks, but considering hacks are the one thing Nintendo has shown any sort of response to (by deleting the Homebrew Channel with nearly every single firmware update), it's really not a professional approach to building a competitive game in this case.

Considering those new to the competitive scene would also then have to break Nintendo's rules/etc. and download custom content just to enter said scene, it's also not a very practical solution when considering attempts to achieve a more mainstream awareness.

It's not illegal, it does void your warranty. I guess it breaks nintendo's rules...but that's not a big thing, seeing as nintendo isn't ready to accept the competitive community as far as I can tell.

There are a ton of non-professional design calls to building a competitive game in many cases, why do we not see people speaking out? Not that it would be super unprofessional, one could even argue just politically incorrect, and more professional then leaving it due to us taking what we have and making it work, instead of taking what we have and...using it.

I mean, seriously, do you really think the majority would leave "Random Tripping" on if it were a settable option like stocks and items?

The way I see it, it became a settable option as soon as the hack was discovered.

We should all play Balanced Brawl...
I'm not pushing it as a standard, but it is nice and vastly underrated because of it being a mod...

That's unfortunately what you get when you allow the communities natural instincts to dictate the flow of a ruleset.

For the most part.

 

[Zankoku]

It's not illegal, it does void your warranty. I guess it breaks nintendo's rules...but that's not a big thing, seeing as nintendo isn't ready to accept the competitive community as far as I can tell.

Unless we want to just burn off any future bridges we build, it's not exactly the best idea to tell everyone potentially entering the scene that they gotta hack their Wiis first.

There are a ton of non-professional design calls to building a competitive game in many cases

Name them.

 

[Arcansi]

Unless we want to just burn off any future bridges we build, it's not exactly the best idea to tell everyone potentially entering the scene that they gotta hack their Wiis first.

Do you mean as in relationships with new people by future bridges? If not I don't understand...

Name them.

Making the LGL without properly testing the rule, making it global without properly testing or even knowing how that would work.

Any and all claims for objectionality>Subectionality. See: Stock, Timer.

The removal of items without proper testing.

The choice of stock without proper testing.

The removal of some stages without proper testing.

The use of a definition for stalling that does not serve any purpose, and therefore cannot serve its own. (Unless it has no purpose)

This enough?