The Unity Ruleset: Discussion

[Arcansi]

No, having a ruleset is completely different from a 'patch' or a different game.

It would seem to be functionally the same ingame.

Except for the fact that there is a possibility of unintentionally breaking a rule with a ruleset.

EDIT: I think the hacks thing comes down to opinion. You guys are weird in your caring for the community (You seem to care about things like MLG bringing new players but not care about IC's chaingrab or other such things (planking, camping) removing it.)

I will agree that it may lower the community size slightly, and lower the amount of people coming in.

It's conceivable Nintendo would be ok with us hacking, if they wanted smash to be competitive. Because we don't know this, I can see that being a big risk.

Also, I'm pretty sure we aren't getting back into MLG, although if Nintendo was OK with us having a hack as the competitive standard, we could get back in with it.

In the end, I see the huge competitive gain as a bigger plus then the negatives, and you guys don't. If I ever find reason to argue this further I'll go into it, but there's no reason to do such right now, nor the correct factors in place.

 

[DeLux]

Arcansi, I'm going to reiterate:

Hacking as a competitive standard is mutually exclusive with a ruleset that seeks to augment the game that we currently play in terms of logical coherency (as I outlined to you before). Since by definition, this is the Unity Ruleset Discussion thread, advocating the use of hacking as a competitive standard doesn't belong in this thread.

If you want to advocate a mod to be the competitive standard, make your own thread about it or, even better, host tournaments with your ideal mod as your specific competitive standard.

Whether or not a mod is better is an absolute non-issue. The URS is designed to regulate Brawl as it currently stands without hacks/mods. Any modifications to the internal mechanics of the game no longer makes it the same game and as such, we are no longer justifiably regulating it.

 

[Arcansi]

Arcansi, I'm going to reiterate:

Hacking as a competitive standard is mutually exclusive with a ruleset that seeks to augment the game that we currently play in terms of logical coherency (as I outlined to you before). Since by definition, this is the Unity Ruleset Discussion thread, advocating the use of hacking as a competitive standard doesn't belong in this thread.

If you want to advocate a mod to be the competitive standard, make your own thread about it or, even better, host tournaments with your ideal mod as your specific competitive standard.

Whether or not a mod is better is an absolute non-issue. The URS is designed to regulate Brawl as it currently stands without hacks/mods. Any modifications to the internal mechanics of the game no longer makes it the same game and as such, we are no longer justifiably regulating it.

Is hacking not just a more effective form of a ruleset? (considering only ingame effectiveness) Could I not be advocating an upgraded form of the current thing we usually have, if I wanted too?

Or is getting better disallowed in some form?

 

[DeLux]

Hacking is not a "better" form of a ruleset. It's the modification of the internal mechanics of the current game to create a new game. Your new game may or may not be better. That isn't an issue since a new game does not equal a new Unity Ruleset regulated game by definition. It still is only a new game.

The Unity Ruleset isn't designed to regulate the new hacked version of whatever is created. The Ruleset is designed to regulate Brawl as it stands.

 

[infiniteV115]

DeLux, how do you (personally) feel about having a legal/banned stagelist (as opposed to starter/cp/banned)?

 

[DeLux]

I am of the opinion that it is up to the TO to determine what stages are legal for play.
I think it is up to the players to define what is the most neutral stage to play on during game 1.

Meaning if it were up to me, I would not hold a distinction between starters and counter picks. I would competitively strike stages from the legal stagelist.

[collapse="Left Field Out there Manifesto"]I would also do away with most of the counter pick system as it currently stands because of its inherent competitive imbalance.

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=310743

Fortunately for the status quo, I am the minority/outlier lol[/collapse]

 

[Arcansi]

Hacking is not a "better" form of a ruleset. It's the modification of the internal mechanics of the current game to create a new game. Your new game may or may not be better. That isn't an issue since a new game does not equal a new Unity Ruleset regulated game by definition. It still is only a new game.

The Unity Ruleset isn't designed to regulate the new hacked version of whatever is created. The Ruleset is designed to regulate Brawl as it stands.

So you are saying that in a competitive setting we are playing Brawl, as we bought it?

Because I'm pretty sure the fact that we negate some things and such makes it so we aren't.

But if we assume the new game was designed to be played under the URC as it stands currently, would it simply be a better version of the game we are currently playing?

 

[Cassio]

[collapse="Left Field Out there Manifesto"]I would also do away with most of the counter pick system as it currently stands because of its inherent competitive imbalance.

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=310743

Fortunately for the status quo, I am the minority/outlier lol[/collapse]

lol, you know this is interesting. But to say it has an inherent competitive imbalance depends entirely on how you think the game should be played. This assumes stages hold little to no relevance in terms of the player skill we are attempting to measure. The problem is I could see the exact opposite being true as well (and some people certainly come close to this point of view).

That is, character selection holds little to no relevance in terms of the player skill we are attempting to measure. Instead its about how well we can navigate stages. In that case a system where character selection and character counterpicking is minimized or even predetermined would be better to due to the competitive imbalance of character selection while attempting to measure skill in navigating stages.

From a "developers intent" perspective; stages characters, and items are all meshed to determine a players ability to manage all 3 with competitive balance created through the give and take of all 3.

Not to say this wasnt considered. But when you consider all 3 factors theres 7 different ways the game can be played, and even more if you decide to give greater weight to one over the other (which we did. No skill with items, partial skill with stages, partial skill with characters (since MK is banned)).

I think the only things thats legitimately unfair or has an inherent competitive imbalance is 4 player FFAs. Unless you could somehow prevent players from colluding.

 

[DeLux]

So you are saying that in a competitive setting we are playing Brawl, as we bought it?

Because I'm pretty sure the fact that we negate some things and such makes it so we aren't.

But if we assume the new game was designed to be played under the URC as it stands currently, would it simply be a better version of the game we are currently playing?

I don't understand how you don't seem to get that from a premise standpoint, the URC is not going to make a mod a competitive standard because it's categorically in opposition to the goal of the URS to regulate Brawl.

You can argue the validity of a mod all you want and whether its an improvement, but it doesn't belong in this thread because it doesn't benefit the Unity Ruleset Discussion. It's just your opinion on how the entire competitive scene should operate.

If the Unity Ruleset Committee were a group of modded Brawl developers, it MIGHT have some relevance, but it doesn't. As long as we're a group of TO's for Brawl tournaments (and not modded Brawl Tournaments), you need to take it to another thread


@Cassio- the logic that I follow in my thread would work also on anything from 3 to 5 to 7 to 9 to 11 to 13 to 15 to 17 to 19 etc stages. It's not a commentary on what specific underlying value we place in order to form a legal stage list. It's more a commentary on how the procedures we use are competitively imbalanced upon the establishment of a stage list.

Even if we had an ultra small stage list, I would still opt to use a variation of the current system because of the issues the current system and sub-classification of starters and counter picks creates.

I understand that certain people think to define "neutral" as supporting player vs player interaction without stage interference. But I think that ideology would have to consider the stage list as a whole in determining what's legal and what isn't. There really isn't any good ideology towards why there is a distinction between the two categories of stage (starter/cp) and the distinction contributes directly towards overcentralization of game one as it currently stands. In the context of having legal/not legal determined by a set value system, the most neutral stage at that point is determined by player choice.

 

[Cassio]

Ah, well I did misinterpret the intent and I agree with you about game one.

However the issue I was pointing out isnt so much how many stages there are so much as the fact that stages are struck at all.

Again taking the hypothetical perspective that our intent is how well we navigate stages, what is the point of striking stages at all if your skill on legal stages is of higher importance than character selection. To us, that would be similar to saying "I dont like fighting Olimar so Im going to strike you from using him". In fact character striking would be a reasonable procedure to from this perspective.

[note: To take this viewpoint to its extreme, imagine a game with immense stage diversity and only one selectable character to compete with. This would be brawl if we eliminate skill with items and characters. The fact that stage diversity exists at all means we hold at least some value to stage navigation skill.]

Not really knocking the idea, it definitely fits well with the values we prefer. but we have to assume that character skill is valued above all else, an assumption I dont think its exactly necessary but still convenient at this point in time.

 

[san.]

I think having no platforms interferes with my "player vs player" interaction a lot.

 

[DeLux]

^ All the more reason that once there's a discernible established legal stage list established based on its own set of criteria, we should afterwards leave it to the individual players using the stage list to determine the most neutral stage by striking rather than by an arbitrary classification of starter and counter pick

 

[Arcansi]

I don't understand how you don't seem to get that from a premise standpoint, the URC is not going to make a mod a competitive standard because it's categorically in opposition to the goal of the URS to regulate Brawl.

You can argue the validity of a mod all you want and whether its an improvement, but it doesn't belong in this thread because it doesn't benefit the Unity Ruleset Discussion. It's just your opinion on how the entire competitive scene should operate.

If the Unity Ruleset Committee were a group of modded Brawl developers, it MIGHT have some relevance, but it doesn't. As long as we're a group of TO's for Brawl tournaments (and not modded Brawl Tournaments), you need to take it to another thread.

I wonder why you purposefully avoid the true intent of my query.

I wonder if this could be applied to my questions earlier about things not being shown.

I understand what you are saying, and know you understand that what your saying is technically correct but in reality it only holds up because you want to avoid what I'm asking.

I also note here that the rest of the URC has simply stopped responding to me, which would seem to be evidence of conceding the points they held.

I don't understand how the LGL argument can end how it did and the URC functionally ignore it from what I can tell.

Why is our starter list so ground-based? (3)

 

[DeLux]

I wonder why you purposefully avoid the true intent of my query.

I wonder if this could be applied to my questions earlier about things not being shown.

I understand what you are saying, and know you understand that what your saying is technically correct but in reality it only holds up because you want to avoid what I'm asking.

Avoiding the intent of your query? It seems to me you're simply refusing to accept the answer.

If you want to advocate a mod:

1. Go make a mod
2. Get people to use the mod at an event you host
2a. Get people to TO using said mod

Either way, the use of the mod doesn't involve the URS in any way, shape, or form as the URS is a Brawl regulating ruleset. We are not a ruleset that regulates brawl and then throws in, "Oh by the way, play this game instead since it may or may not be better than the game we're regulating." It's absolutely mutually exclusive because you're advocating the use of a completely different game on an internal mechanic level by definition.

Please take your agenda to advance a mod as the competitive standard to a different thread as it doesn't advance Unity Ruleset Discussion.

I also note here that the rest of the URC has simply stopped responding to me, which would seem to be evidence of conceding the points they held.

We've already been over this. Do I really need to go find my post addressing this?

More over, a lack of response as concession on the URC's part is absolutely ludicrous.

Has the ruleset changed? No
Therefore, no points have been conceded.

I don't understand how the LGL argument can end how it did and the URC functionally ignore it from what I can tell.

It's been said repeatedly many times, and I will reiterate this for your benefit (although I'm fairly positive I've mentioned this to you specifically)

In January, there is going to be a HUGE metagame changing rule that is implemented. We are going to hold off until a reasonable period after said change before we start addressing other possible issues with the ruleset.

This is why I've repeatedly told you unless something REALLY pressing forces an immediate change, we'll examine changing the rules after our next update takes effect in January.

Why is our starter list so ground-based? (3)

I already went over this and how "ground based" is an arbitrary criteria that in reality doesn't matter.

 

[Arcansi]

Avoiding the intent of your query? It seems to me you're simply refusing to accept the answer.

See me saying I understand what your saying.

If you want to advocate a mod:

1. Go make a mod
2. Get people to use the mod at an event you host
2a. Get people to TO using said mod

I'm going to give you a small glimpse into the most likely future if I was to drop a ton of time on hosting a tournament with almost any change.

"Your tournament doesn't mean anything because the skill level is insanely low overall. I have no reason to run X. You want a change, go host a high level tournament and watch as the status quo illogically laughs at you and sticks to itself."

Also, STRAWMAN.

Either way, the use of the mod doesn't involve the URS in any way, shape, or form as the URS is a Brawl regulating ruleset. We are not a ruleset that regulates brawl and then throws in, "Oh by the way, play this game instead since it may or may not be better than the game we're regulating." It's absolutely mutually exclusive because you're advocating the use of a completely different game on an internal mechanic level by definition.

Just a reiteration of something I already defined as in essence an avoidance of the true question. I understand you don't feel the need to answer it because it isn't relevant to this thread because you seem to think we are playing Brawl.

When in truth we are playing Brawl + URC. And if the mod was Brawl + URC as a garunteed thing instead of a ruleset thing, it would be funtionally the same game.

Please take your agenda to advance a mod as the competitive standard to a different thread as it doesn't advance Unity Ruleset Discussion.

I have no agenda to advance a mod at this point and time.

We've already been over this. Do I really need to go find my post addressing this?

More over, a lack of response as concession on the URC's part is absolutely ludicrous.

Has the ruleset changed? No
Therefore, no points have been conceded.

Here's where you make no sense. No points have been conceded, but no points have been adequately responded too, either.

It's like you just felt you could ignore me because I'm not part of the URC or something, or you just felt you could tell me 'go host it yourself' and that would be a logical reason to not respond to me?

It's been said repeatedly many times, and I will reiterate this for your benefit (although I'm fairly positive I've mentioned this to you specifically)

In January, there is going to be a HUGE metagame changing rule that is implemented. We are going to hold off until a reasonable period after said change before we start addressing other possible issues with the ruleset.

You said this but without the huge metagame changing part. This can explain the lack of a change in the ruleset, but it cannot explain the lack of talking.

This is why I've repeatedly told you unless something REALLY pressing forces an immediate change, we'll examine changing the rules after our next update takes effect in January.

Can I take this to mean unless your knee jerks, based off of the LGL being implemented in such a way? No offence intended, I'm trying to understand you as best I can.

I already went over this and how "ground based" is an arbitrary criteria that in reality doesn't matter.

All I remember you saying on the matter is that you didn't have an opinion or something similar.

Assuming you've gone over it, are you telling me the distinction between focusing on more aerial based fighting (like RC) and focusing on more ground based fighting (like FD) doesn't really matter.

I can understand it being arbitrary to a point, most if not all stages are easily definable, and the arbitrary points is HOW ground/air based they are.

 

[DeLux]

See me saying I understand what your saying.

I'm going to give you a small glimpse into the most likely future if I was to drop a ton of time on hosting a tournament with almost any change.

"Your tournament doesn't mean anything because the skill level is insanely low overall. I have no reason to run X. You want a change, go host a high level tournament and watch as the status quo illogically laughs at you and sticks to itself."

Also, STRAWMAN.

How is it a strawman? Your question was "Is a mod more competitive than a ruleset?". I already directly answered the question by saying by definition the two are mutually exclusive. It's a very very very bad question.

First, you're asking me to compare the merits of competitiveness of a mod that doesn't exist. How am I supposed to weigh what is objectively or even subjectively more competitive if the mod doesn't exist. I can easily envision a shallow mod created that limits characters to single move pokes in fear that tactics might be deemed too powerful for specific matchups.

Second, even if it did exist, it's like asking, "Is Basketball more competitive than Brawl?" Hell, a lot of things are probably more "competitive" than Brawl, but it doesn't mean that the organization whose sole purpose is to regulate Brawl is going to go and regulate that other game. We can leave that to the creators, tournament hosts, and players of that other game to decide how they conduct themselves.

In regard to your future glimpse: That's laughable. If you're running successful events, why would you care what the "status quo" thinks? If people elect to not attend and your event crashes and burns because of it, I don't think you should be blaming the status quo. You should probably blame the reason your event failed. If the ruleset is the reason, maybe you ought to reevaluate your ruleset ideology.

Just a reiteration of something I already defined as in essence an avoidance of the true question. I understand you don't feel the need to answer it because it isn't relevant to this thread because you seem to think we are playing Brawl.

When in truth we are playing Brawl + URC. And if the mod was Brawl + URC as a garunteed thing instead of a ruleset thing, it would be funtionally the same game.

It isn't functionally the same. Manipulating/reprogramming Internal Mechanics (aka creating a different game) vs. External Regulation (aka creating a ruleset for a specific game). They are mutually exclusive.

I have no agenda to advance a mod at this point and time.

Awesome. Then we can close the discussion on the use of a mod as a competitive standard.

Here's where you make no sense. No points have been conceded, but no points have been adequately responded too, either.

It's like you just felt you could ignore me because I'm not part of the URC or something, or you just felt you could tell me 'go host it yourself' and that would be a logical reason to not respond to me?

???

I think I've responded to every single one of your posts that I've seen. I am insulted that you said you are being ignored.

Feel free to disagree with my opinion on how you should go about changing the ruleset. But then you'll have to forgive me at that point if I see you as part of the problem and not part of the solution. Either way, I addressed ways that you could further your argument; it's not the URC's fault you choose to ignore it.

You said this but without the huge metagame changing part. This can explain the lack of a change in the ruleset, but it cannot explain the lack of talking.

What more is there to discuss? Trying to have preconceived notions as to what our next move is going to be leads to confirmation bias. You're free to dissent, but trying to theorycraft the future on what is going to be a pressing issue with the ruleset that would prevent it from being the used standard across the country will most likely leave every claim you have unsubstantiated.

Can I take this to mean unless your knee jerks, based off of the LGL being implemented in such a way? No offence intended, I'm trying to understand you as best I can.

Exactly. Show me a specific incident that merits a rule change without having a control sample of tournaments to base off of come the pending ruleset change already scheduled to take place.

All I remember you saying on the matter is that you didn't have an opinion or something similar.

Assuming you've gone over it, are you telling me the distinction between focusing on more aerial based fighting (like RC) and focusing on more ground based fighting (like FD) doesn't really matter.

I can understand it being arbitrary to a point, most if not all stages are easily definable, and the arbitrary points is HOW ground/air based they are.

Apparently you haven't read my post to Cassio/Infi that immediately preceded yours. I'll repeat it for your benefit: ANY distinction in classification of stage outside of Legal and Illegal is arbitrary in consideration to a competitive striking system.

Your goal, I assume, is to advocate an expanded starter list or even achieve Full List Stage Striking. I would make the argument that classifying stages as "ground based" and "air based" is the same type of dogma that lead to the current starter list and a distinction of counter pick. All of it is arbitrary and should be dealt away with.

 

[Arcansi]

How is it a strawman? Your question was "Is a mod more competitive than a ruleset?". I already directly answered the question by saying by definition the two are mutually exclusive. It's a very very very bad question.

So what I'm getting for mutually exclusive is this (mutually exclusive - unable to be both true at the same time)

Now, not only can a ruleset and a mod both be true(or exist) at the same time, they can even be true(or exist) in such a case where the mod is the ruleset given 'form', so to speak.

So I don't know if you were just illogical or I didn't understand you.

First, you're asking me to compare the merits of competitiveness of a mod that doesn't exist. How am I supposed to weigh what is objectively or even subjectively more competitive if the mod doesn't exist. I can easily envision a shallow mod created that limits characters to single move pokes in fear that tactics might be deemed too powerful for specific matchups.

The rest of my post points out that I was talking about a mod that would imitate our current ruleset. I don't know if you just missed this or what.

Second, even if it did exist, it's like asking, "Is Basketball more competitive than Brawl?" Hell, a lot of things are probably more "competitive" than Brawl, but it doesn't mean that the organization whose sole purpose is to regulate Brawl is going to go and regulate that other game. We can leave that to the creators, tournament hosts, and players of that other game to decide how they conduct themselves.

Again, the same thing.

In regard to your future glimpse: That's laughable. If you're running successful events, why would you care what the "status quo" thinks? If people elect to not attend and your event crashes and burns because of it, I don't think you should be blaming the status quo. You should probably blame the reason your event failed. If the ruleset is the reason, maybe you ought to reevaluate your ruleset ideology.

1. Because everything matters to me.

2. I was talking about a response I would get after talking to someone who didn't agree with me about hosting a tournament like mine, assuming mine had been competitive. That was EXTREMELY vague, and I apologize.

It isn't functionally the same. Manipulating/reprogramming Internal Mechanics (aka creating a different game) vs. External Regulation (aka creating a ruleset for a specific game). They are mutually exclusive.

Ok, so can we assume function means this: The action for which a person or thing is particularly fitted or employed.

And if so, can we assume functionally relates to this?

Because if I'm being logical here, they both are particularly fitted for doing the same action, are they not?

I mean, not if we go into exact semantics, but the end result is very the same, people play the same game with 1 difference, in a non-mod the rules can be broken.

Awesome. Then we can close the discussion on the use of a mod as a competitive standard.

Not unless you concede. My points still stand to be proven or unproven.

I think I've responded to every single one of your posts that I've seen. I am insulted that you said you are being ignored.

More over, a lack of response as concession on the URC's part is absolutely ludicrous.

Has the ruleset changed? No
Therefore, no points have been conceded.

See, I took this to mean that you guys had not responded to stuff, and knew it.

It's not just my posts, because you have responded to them diligently, and I thank you for that.

But a response is not an answer, and telling me in effect 'your not going to get an answer' is the same thing as telling me nothing.

Stuff like around page 254 (50 posts per page) where I see no URC member comment on the LGL thing and then the only response we eventually get that I can even tie to this is 'no changes until january'.

Feel free to disagree with my opinion on how you should go about changing the ruleset. But then you'll have to forgive me at that point if I see you as part of the problem and not part of the solution. Either way, I addressed ways that you could further your argument; it's not the URC's fault you choose to ignore it.

Because I disagree with your opinion, I am part of the problem? I have already explained to you why such things that you suggest are illogical at best, even if successful. In truth, I myself wouldn't take data from my own tournaments, because the average skill level would be way too low for me to assume any of this is viable information outside of my own area and other areas with similar skill levels.

And I don't even know if any competitive areas exist with such low skill levels.

What more is there to discuss? Trying to have preconceived notions as to what our next move is going to be leads to confirmation bias. You're free to dissent, but trying to theorycraft the future on what is going to be a pressing issue with the ruleset that would prevent it from being the used standard across the country will most likely leave every claim you have unsubstantiated.

I meant talking as in the LGL example above.

I don't mean anything about assuming anything you would do ever.

Exactly. Show me a specific incident that merits a rule change without having a control sample of tournaments to base off of come the pending ruleset change already scheduled to take place.

So what your saying is the URC is prepared to make untested rule changes without proper knowledge of the situation in order to make people happy? Why is this something the competitive standard is doing?

Apparently you haven't read my post to Cassio/Infi that immediately preceded yours. I'll repeat it for your benefit: ANY distinction in classification of stage outside of Legal and Illegal is arbitrary in consideration to a competitive striking system.

Your goal, I assume, is to advocate an expanded starter list or even achieve Full List Stage Striking. I would make the argument that classifying stages as "ground based" and "air based" is the same type of dogma that lead to the current starter list and a distinction of counter pick. All of it is arbitrary and should be dealt away with.

I can agree with this because the end result is the same. Gotta do work though.

I wonder if threads are even worth it with the fact that nothing will happen until January unless someone gets angry at you guys, no matter the competitive dampening stone the rule actually is.

 

[DeLux]

So what I'm getting for mutually exclusive is this (mutually exclusive - unable to be both true at the same time)

Now, not only can a ruleset and a mod both be true(or exist) at the same time, they can even be true(or exist) in such a case where the mod is the ruleset given 'form', so to speak.

So I don't know if you were just illogical or I didn't understand you.

A mod where that is "the ruleset given 'form'" is no longer the same game by definition assuming internal mechanic changes (if there aren't internal mechanic changes, there's no point for a mod anymore). Since it is no longer the original game, the ruleset is no longer applicable to it. A ruleset that regulates Brawl no longer applies to regulating a mod.

By the very definitions you have to either advocate:
a. Brawl being regulated by a ruleset
b. A Mod as the competitive Standard

Since the definition of the game is defined as Brawl as part of the premise, the conclusion holds. It doesn't matter if the intent is for the mod to be similar to the original. It is not the original and is thus a different game and the URS is not designed for a different game and the URC will not cater to a different game.

The rest of my post points out that I was talking about a mod that would imitate our current ruleset. I don't know if you just missed this or what.

Is that specific mod created? Do I have people that are able to compete in it? If either of those are "No", it's already anti competitive since the game needs to exist and be played in order for competition to even occur. So that being the case, I would argue that a mod that would imitate our current ruleset of Unity is less competitive since it is non-existent and non-used. If it's the same in every possible way, it can only be at best equally competitive assuming it's used at the same widespread amount. If you're making the argument that its not the same, then it's a different game.

1. Because everything matters to me.

2. I was talking about a response I would get after talking to someone who didn't agree with me about hosting a tournament like mine, assuming mine had been competitive. That was EXTREMELY vague, and I apologize.

Taking the ridicule of someone who didn't go to your tournament over the obvious praise and acceptance of people attending to make your tourney successful is a spit in the face and disrespect to your supporters. You still are speaking hypothetically and should get back to me when you can speak from reality.

Ok, so can we assume function means this: The action for which a person or thing is particularly fitted or employed.

And if so, can we assume functionally relates to this?

Because if I'm being logical here, they both are particularly fitted for doing the same action, are they not?

I mean, not if we go into exact semantics, but the end result is very the same, people play the same game with 1 difference, in a non-mod the rules can be broken.

Functionally speaking, a ruleset regulates a specific game that is played. A mod creates an entirely new game on an internal mechanic level. A new game may have its own ruleset or it may not. Either way, it's a different game and it does not matter in the context of focusing solely on Brawl and Unity Ruleset Regulated Brawl.

Not unless you concede. My points still stand to be proven or unproven.

This is the last time I'm going to ask you nicely to take your discussion obviously advocating the mod as a competitive standard to an appropriate thread. It does not advance discussion of the Unity Ruleset and does not belong here. Anything further would be spamming.

See, I took this to mean that you guys had not responded to stuff, and knew it.

It's not just my posts, because you have responded to them diligently, and I thank you for that.

But a response is not an answer, and telling me in effect 'your not going to get an answer' is the same thing as telling me nothing.

Stuff like around page 254 (50 posts per page) where I see no URC member comment on the LGL thing and then the only response we eventually get that I can even tie to this is 'no changes until january'.

I hereby decree that if an issue is brought up and the rule does not change, the static response is now: "We will undoubtedly discuss the issue, but for now there hasn't been a majority decision to warrant changing the ruleset. The reason being, people are attending tournaments and TO's are wide spread using our ruleset without major issues despite the proposed amendment not occurring."

I assumed, as do most people, that this is pretty implicit. I am appalled that I have to spell this out for you.

Because I disagree with your opinion, I am part of the problem? I have already explained to you why such things that you suggest are illogical at best, even if successful. In truth, I myself wouldn't take data from my own tournaments, because the average skill level would be way too low for me to assume any of this is viable information outside of my own area and other areas with similar skill levels.

And I don't even know if any competitive areas exist with such low skill levels.

I am reading this as I have an issue with my community. I already gave you the obvious answer to that problem as well. Create a new community. I wrote on your wall how to do so. You are not a victim. You have methods to easily remedy your circumstances.

By failing to exercise those options, I will continue to maintain you a part of the problem. Go host a tournament and help fix the problem and I'll drop that claim.

I meant talking as in the LGL example above.

I don't mean anything about assuming anything you would do ever.

I'm sorry, We will undoubtedly discuss the LGL, but for now there hasn't been a majority decision to warrant changing the ruleset. The reason being, people are attending tournaments and TO's are wide spread using our ruleset without major issues despite the proposed amendment not occurring.

So what your saying is the URC is prepared to make untested rule changes without proper knowledge of the situation in order to make people happy? Why is this something the competitive standard is doing?

No. By having a specific incident that shows an obvious issue with a rule, this is no way constitutes arbitrary rule changes to appease the masses. If there is a pressing issue, it will be addressed. There needs to be both issue and incident for this to happen. Incident without issue won't be addressed immediately until after January if at all. Issue without incident won't be addressed immediately until after January.

 

[C.J.]

Delux is the most patient man, of all time.

 

[Arcansi]

Delux is the most patient man, of all time.

/being hated on.

/being patient when noone understands you and getting hated on for it.

-_-

[Large Paragraphs]

I understand what you are saying. I find your responses odd and evasive in relation to what I was getting at, but I hear you.

Taking the ridicule of someone who didn't go to your tournament over the obvious praise and acceptance of people attending to make your tourney successful is a spit in the face and disrespect to your supporters. You still are speaking hypothetically and should get back to me when you can speak from reality.

1. It's unrealistic for me to be able to host a tourney with over 6 entrants at best, and you know this.

2. I have to take that ridicule on the same level as the praise due to the simple fact that the ridicule comes from somewhere directly above the praise. My ruleset means extremely little if I can't go anywhere other then my city and play it competitively.

I hereby decree that if an issue is brought up and the rule does not change, the static response is now: "We will undoubtedly discuss the issue, but for now there hasn't been a majority decision to warrant changing the ruleset. The reason being, people are attending tournaments and TO's are wide spread using our ruleset without major issues despite the proposed amendment not occurring."

I assumed, as do most people, that this is pretty implicit. I am appalled that I have to spell this out for you.

I have just now learned I can assume NOTHING. I already knew I could assume almost nothing before, and that lack of being able to assume you would discuss anything was what I was complaining about before, but you missed it.

Also, why in the world is argumentum ad hominem your standard?

You and I both know that this very obviously and in large amounts favours your position. Unless your taking it because of this, which seems underhanded. No offence, I likely don't understand the true reason, hence my asking.

I am reading this as I have an issue with my community. I already gave you the obvious answer to that problem as well. Create a new community. I wrote on your wall how to do so. You are not a victim. You have methods to easily remedy your circumstances.

By failing to exercise those options, I will continue to maintain you a part of the problem. Go host a tournament and help fix the problem and I'll drop that claim.

You know that creating a new community is not a viable option for me. The people with the interests just simply aren't here.

No. By having a specific incident that shows an obvious issue with a rule, this in no way constitutes arbitrary rule changes to appease the masses. If there is a pressing issue, it will be addressed. There needs to be both issue and incident for this to happen. Incident without issue won't be addressed immediately until after January if at all. Issue without incident won't be addressed immediately until after January.

(Arcansi)Can I take this to mean unless your knee jerks, based off of the LGL being implemented in such a way?

(DeLux)Exactly.

The words 'your knee jerks' were refrencing an automatic, not thought over response to something, as the term means.

Obvoiusly, this would be a quite possibly arbitrary rule change to appease the masses.

You seem to be being hypocritical. I mean the situation as in with the rule. (See: not knowing the frame data on DK vs Oli before making the LGL) Soryr if that was vague.

Also, aren't all or many of your rule changes to appease the masses?
[COLLAPSE="source"]

but for now there hasn't been a majority decision to warrant changing the ruleset. The reason being, people are attending tournaments and TO's are wide spread using our ruleset without major issues despite the proposed amendment not occurring."

[/COLLAPSE]
And with rule changes with arbitrary numbers like 50 and 35 for LGL's...

It can be seen that a specific incident that shows an obvious issue with a rule(Will vs Rich Brown) constitutes [an] arbitrary rule changes to appease the masses(the LGL).

Am I wrong?

 

[Zankoku]

Arbitrary? afaik the numbers were reached after testing by ESAM on a realistic number of ledge grabs in a game focused mostly on camping the ledge for all eight minutes.

 

[[FBC] ESAM]

I actually just ran to the edge at the very beginning of a match, went to 1 minute and planked as fast as I could with any character I thought was a danger character. I got numbers between 20-30 in a minute.

 

[DeLux]

1. It's unrealistic for me to be able to host a tourney with over 6 entrants at best, and you know this.

2. I have to take that ridicule on the same level as the praise due to the simple fact that the ridicule comes from somewhere directly above the praise. My ruleset means extremely little if I can't go anywhere other then my city and play it competitively.

1. Advertise better. Network with people. Get sponsors for your tournament to increase prizes. Run it as a charitable cause.

2. Then your ruleset is by definition anti-competitive since you can no longer compete with it.

I have just now learned I can assume NOTHING. I already knew I could assume almost nothing before, and that lack of being able to assume you would discuss anything was what I was complaining about before, but you missed it.

Also, why in the world is argumentum ad hominem your standard?

You and I both know that this very obviously and in large amounts favours your position. Unless your taking it because of this, which seems underhanded. No offence, I likely don't understand the true reason, hence my asking.

Or you know, you could read what I responded to you and we're going to maintain a status quo until incident and issue merit a rule change.

Given that the normal procedural level in order to shift policy is to prove a viable alternative to the status quo is superior, pointing out that there isn't a realistic viable alternative currently in use isn't ad hominem. Pointing out that you COULD provide a hypothetically viable alternative but choose not to may be ad hominem. But if you can't see how you being an inactive but alleged stake holder and choosing to do nothing to advance your cause isn't relevant to the matter at hand, then I don't have much more to say on the topic.

You know that creating a new community is not a viable option for me. The people with the interests just simply aren't here.

Then if that is your stance, I suggest you find a different game to play. You seem to have an issue with the community (both locally AND outside of your locality) based on your statements. You seem to have an issue trying to create a new playing community. You seem to have an issue with the game because you want to limit all kinds of things within it.

If you can't reasonably get yourself to join a community and you can't reasonably find or create a new one, you should evaluate if you want to even play this game. Based on your statements, you might be happier playing a different game without the inherent issues you find in Brawl.

(Arcansi)Can I take this to mean unless your knee jerks, based off of the LGL being implemented in such a way?

(DeLux)Exactly.

The words 'your knee jerks' were refrencing an automatic, not thought over response to something, as the term means.

Obvoiusly, this would be a quite possibly arbitrary rule change to appease the masses.

You seem to be being hypocritical. I mean the situation as in with the rule. (See: not knowing the frame data on DK vs Oli before making the LGL) Soryr if that was vague.

Also, aren't all or many of your rule changes to appease the masses?
[COLLAPSE="source"]
[/COLLAPSE]
And with rule changes with arbitrary numbers like 50 and 35 for LGL's...

It can be seen that a specific incident that shows an obvious issue with a rule(Will vs Rich Brown) constitutes [an] arbitrary rule changes to appease the masses(the LGL).

Am I wrong?

You are incorrect. The LGL as a viable option for the ruleset wasn't some sort of brain child of the URC. It had been implemented with great effect in many tournaments prior to the establishment of the URC. Saying the LGL (and the numbers chosen) was arbitrary in the context of the URC decision making process wouldn't be correct. The numbers themselves may be "arbitrary" in denotation and construction, but the precedent had been established previously in practice so in terms of feasibility it was a very logical option in terms of implementation.

Again, this is another instance where a distinction needs to be made that the things argued here are policy and are theoretical values. It makes the construction of the debate and implementation of the results much different that when operating in pure theory. You can argue the value of the LGL all you want. But to say the implementation of the rule was arbitrary is anything but correct. There was incident. There was issue. There was a viable alternative WITH precedence.

 

[Captain L]

hey guys I have a very important question that I would like answered.

Under the current unity ruleset, is a player allowed to change control types mid match (without even having to pause).

For instance, if I played pokemon trainer and used wii-chuck for squirtle, but classic controller for ivysaur and charizard, am I allowed to unplug the nunchuck and put in a CC mid match? Or is this disallowed?

It is a very important concern that I believe needs to be addressed.

Thank you for your time.

 

[Zankoku]

Is that functionality even possible to begin with?

 

[Tesh]

As absurd as that sounds, I don't think anyone cares as long as you don't break rules that already exist. So don't pause for it or switch to a modified controller and you should be fine.

 

[Captain L]

I know it is possible to switch from wiichuck to wiimote on its side, however I don't own a classic controller to test that particular scenario with. It is probably possible though.

Your input is appreciated.

 

[Life]

I hope you're REALLY fast on that switch.

It's probably one of those things someone will call a TO in on you, so I'd ask your local TO. There's not a rule against it, though, so I wouldn't worry too much.

 

[Orion*]

hey guys I have a very important question that I would like answered.

Under the current unity ruleset, is a player allowed to change control types mid match (without even having to pause).

For instance, if I played pokemon trainer and used wii-chuck for squirtle, but classic controller for ivysaur and charizard, am I allowed to unplug the nunchuck and put in a CC mid match? Or is this disallowed?

It is a very important concern that I believe needs to be addressed.

Thank you for your time.

if you can do it without pausing then there's no problem I think. If you pause however that technically is a DQ.

 

[infiniteV115]

It should be pretty easy to do it without pausing, considering that pause it turned off

Or does it pause like the home button on the Wiimote?

 

[Ussi]

It should be simple to do when one pokemon dies and you just switch your controller as they respawn, only time you would be at a disadvantage is when you zero switch

 

[Orion*]

It should be pretty easy to do it without pausing, considering that pause it turned off

Or does it pause like the home button on the Wiimote?

people will forget that though... : |
so serious

and the 2nd part is a good question... FML.
^ why can't you just learn squirtle on the classic man? how do you play with your friends LOL

 

[Ussi]

its a hypothetical question

 

[AlphaZealot]

Home button is the same as the pause button (we should probably edit the word in there, wish it could be disabled somehow, sigh).

Regardless, feel free to change controllers without pausing. You will probably lose all your stocks before you even get the switch to work, but hey, if all the other person gets on you is free damage thats okay too.

 

[Captain L]

the switch takes about 2 seconds, might not be possible if you just do a regular switch, but between stocks it would be easily doable (unless you're on RC or something that forces you off the platform).

But yeah it was totally hypothetical since I play pikachu anyways lol. I just had the thought of changing controllers mid-match and wondered if there were rules specifically for it.

 

[Tesh]

Home button is small and flat. Its extremely hard to accidentally press it and your fingers shouldn't be anywhere near the middle of the wiimote anyway.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Unless they map 1 and 2 buttons for something, or presses A in a weird fashin (both are very possible).

 

[Arcansi]

1. Advertise better. Network with people. Get sponsors for your tournament to increase prizes. Run it as a charitable cause.

Unrealistic != impossible. You don't seem to want to understand at this point.

2. Then your ruleset is by definition anti-competitive since you can no longer compete with it.

I could compete with it, it just would be unusuable outside my region.

1. Does this mean you've been suggesting I become anti-competitive the whole time? (As it would seem to be a side effect of having my own ruleset)

2. I can still compete with it, just not outside my region. It would be uncompetitive outside my region, maybe, but even then illogically so.(assuming it was superior in some way.)

Or you know, you could read what I responded to you and we're going to maintain a status quo until incident and issue merit a rule change.

You missed a word here, but I'll assume it's know or understand or something.

Why is incident required to merit a rule change? And what is an incident, exactly?

Is the fact that almost nobody plays lucas making changes to regulate things that affect lucas a lot more difficult/impossible? If so, this is insanely flawed and unfair.

Given that the normal procedural level in order to shift policy is to prove a viable alternative to the status quo is superior, pointing out that there isn't a realistic viable alternative currently in use isn't ad hominem. Pointing out that you COULD provide a hypothetically viable alternative but choose not to may be ad hominem.

ok.

But if you can't see how you being an inactive but alleged stake holder and choosing to do nothing to advance your cause isn't relevant to the matter at hand, then I don't have much more to say on the topic.

I'm not inactive, I do as much as I can in my region ALL the time. My region just tends to (as far as I can tell) disregard me illogically. Although I do get stuff done.

Isn't posting in these threads doing something to advance my cause? Isn't that the type of thing these threads exist for?

You seem to have an issue with the community (both locally AND outside of your locality) based on your statements.

Both locally, regionally, and outside of that, actually. This is nothing I would quit because of.

You seem to have an issue trying to create a new playing community.

Yeah.

You seem to have an issue with the game because you want to limit all kinds of things within it.

I want to limit one thing. Why are you saying all kinds of things, and what are you assuming?

If you can't reasonably get yourself to join a community and you can't reasonably find or create a new one, you should evaluate if you want to even play this game. Based on your statements, you might be happier playing a different game without the inherent issues you find in Brawl.

I like brawl as a game. I just see things that are wrong, question myself and can't find a truly logical answer.

So I come here, and this ends up happening.

You are incorrect. The LGL as a viable option for the ruleset wasn't some sort of brain child of the URC. It had been implemented with great effect in many tournaments prior to the establishment of the URC. Saying the LGL (and the numbers chosen) was arbitrary in the context of the URC decision making process wouldn't be correct. The numbers themselves may be "arbitrary" in denotation and construction, but the precedent had been established previously in practice so in terms of feasibility it was a very logical option in terms of implementation.

So what your saying is, the rule is fine because other tournaments implemented it?

That seems to be extremely illogical.

Again, this is another instance where a distinction needs to be made that the things argued here are policy and are theoretical values. It makes the construction of the debate and implementation of the results much different that when operating in pure theory. You can argue the value of the LGL all you want. But to say the implementation of the rule was arbitrary is anything but correct. There was incident. There was issue. There was a viable alternative WITH precedence.

I can see this. But I end up coming back to my point above whenever I try to respond to it...

Also, are you saying every rule is done to appease the masses, and in doing so disregarding competition for it? Not that this is inherently horrible, just bad.

 

[DeLux]

Unrealistic != impossible. You don't seem to want to understand at this point.

You're right, I don't understand it because the only reason why I'm a TO is because I was able to do what you are not willing to even try. If every TO took your attitude, there would be no ruleset; there would be no tournaments, and there would be no community.

I could compete with it, it just would be unusuable outside my region.

1. Does this mean you've been suggesting I become anti-competitive the whole time? (As it would seem to be a side effect of having my own ruleset)

2. I can still compete with it, just not outside my region. It would be uncompetitive outside my region, maybe, but even then illogically so.(assuming it was superior in some way.)

What makes it unusable? That nobody uses it? That nobody competes with it? Your rules based on how you want to use them would coddle your players to the point that they are uncompetitive due to limitations you restrict their opponents with in the case of infinites in your thread. You would inhibit their ability to advance their metagames on the other side if you're limiting their tactics.

Outside of the context of infinites, if your ruleset impedes your ability to compete at higher levels, your ruleset is anticompetitive. If you can't compete externally, then my suggestion is to compete locally with your ruleset. You don't seem to want to take either option, so there's really no point in discussing it further.

You missed a word here, but I'll assume it's know or understand or something.

Why is incident required to merit a rule change? And what is an incident, exactly?

Is the fact that almost nobody plays lucas making changes to regulate things that affect lucas a lot more difficult/impossible? If so, this is insanely flawed and unfair.

You don't seem to understand that if your new policy is a demonstrably consistent improvement over the status quo, there's no reason to implement.

I'm not inactive, I do as much as I can in my region ALL the time. My region just tends to (as far as I can tell) disregard me illogically. Although I do get stuff done.

Isn't posting in these threads doing something to advance my cause? Isn't that the type of thing these threads exist for?

No you aren't doing as much as you can. I outlined what you could for you already. Come back to me when you actually do as much as you can to advance your cause. Your attitude is the problem in my opinion, and not the community's.

I want to limit one thing. Why are you saying all kinds of things, and what are you assuming?

This is a joke. I'd probably be able to name 50+ things you'd change based off the values you presented in your thread on infinite alone.

I like brawl as a game. I just see things that are wrong, question myself and can't find a truly logical answer.

So I come here, and this ends up happening.

So you see things wrong with the game. You dislike your community. And choose not to make a new one, to summarize. You either are a masochist that likes bashing your head against a wall with things you dislike or you really ought to consider playing a better game imo

So what your saying is, the rule is fine because other tournaments implemented it?

That seems to be extremely illogical.

No, this is false. You said the method used to implement the rule was arbitrary. I pointed it out that you were incorrect and demonstrated how it was anything but arbitrary and had very definitive value criterion judgment and testing samples in past tournaments.

I can see this. But I end up coming back to my point above whenever I try to respond to it...

Also, are you saying every rule is done to appease the masses, and in doing so disregarding competition for it? Not that this is inherently horrible, just bad.

I'm not seeing where the need to prove a policy outside of the status quo is inherently superior to the status quo leads you to the conclusion that you just drew.



At this point, I am through arguing things out. If you rebuttal post, please outline your suggestions succinctly and I'll relay them to the URC, regardless of how I perceive their merit.

 

[Ussi]

My friend, Nysyarc, brought up how in a local tourney they tried a different way of doing bracket in which losers bracket became pools of 4 people where 1 person would advance 2 rounds of a bracket. It basically just adds 3 extra set to be played per pool done here is an example:

[collapse=Pretty large image]

[/collapse]

This would be beneficial as it lets lesser players get more tourney matches while not affecting winner's bracket at all besides maybe the incentive to not get sent into loser's bracket. It also makes results more accurate as well.

Time wise it shouldn't really be that much of a difference because its only 1 extra set per pool. Since its a pool, people should be gathered already so they don't need to be called to the TV more than once per pool while in bracket, you would have to call them twice as there are 2 rounds of losers to go through.

What do you guys think?

EDIT: wrong number of extra sets before, 3 not 1