The Unity Ruleset: Discussion

[Tesh]

I really don't think timeouts in general will ever be enough of a problem for a large majority or even a noticeable minority to take a look at that "solution".

 

[Ghostbone]

LGL would be unneeded if we went to one-stock food.
>.>
<.<
<_>
*flees*

/Planking at 0%

 

[Life]

/Planking at 0%

Sure, but that just means you'll tie repeatedly.

 

[Ghostbone]

Sure, but that just means you'll tie repeatedly.

Well if your opponent's better than you why wouldn't you go for the tie?

 

[Life]

Because you can't win on ties alone?

Also, I proposed a 300% handicap tiebreaker round for percent ties, although that might not be relevant to this particular discussion since it'd be a separate rule. (In fact, I have a whole ruleset floating around my computer somewhere, I should really get around to posting it.)

 

[infiniteV115]

Well, to bring some activity to this thread, I'd like to bring up something I brought up earlier.

Getting rid of the starter/cp divide and turning the stage list into simply legal/banned. I think it's kinda silly that with our current system, something like Falco vs Diddy can have game 1 on FD, but G&W vs Wario (just an example) cannot start out the set on Brinstar.

However, to be completely honest, I haven't looked into this idea with very much depth. If there's some problem with this idea (I imagine it might affect stage striking a bit), can we at least add in the following Gentlemen's Clause?

If both players agree, they can skip the stage striking procedure and begin the set on any stage that is currently legal.

 

[DeLux]

Gentleman's Agreements are pacts between players that exist outside of the context of the ruleset and should not be placed into the rules to be enforced by a TO.

Creating such a rule would be entirely contradictory to creating the uniformity that is the entire purpose of the URS.


However, I do agree with the first part of removing the distinction between starters and counterpicks, with no compromises necessary that damage the integrity of the ruleset such as the gentleman's agreement. However, I'm obviously in the minority given the current stage striking procedure, but in the majority given the lack of a gentleman's agreement clause.

 

[Ussi]

Skipping the stage striking procedure happens frequently i would say. I am adamant on stage striking, but I've had some people just say 1-3 stages they didn't want and I could pick any stage leftover

 

[Supreme Dirt]

Yeah, I fully support abolishing the distinction. I mean, if two players want to play game one on PS2, why shouldn't they be allowed to?

Also imo players should be allowed to agree to return to the same stage. It's something especially important in cases like the ditto. Something like Olimar dittos are silly enough, telling the players "oh you can't just do all 3 games on SV" seems pretty dumb.

Actually ditto MUs in general screw with the CP system. It comes down to player preference more than anything else.

 

[Nidtendofreak]

Full stage striking would be fine.

Being allowed to play the same stage multiple times wouldn't be, but it's something that has already been explained in this topic before so I'm not going to go over it again. If you want to know why, go use the search function.

 

[Supreme Dirt]

I know why it's been explained.

And I wholeheartedly disagree with the sentiment behind it.

 

[Nidtendofreak]

And I (and from what I can tell at least, the majority), full heartedly agree with the sentiment behind it.

 

[Ussi]

Same stage should be fine if agreed to and that's it. I don't want to be CP'd twice to SV in a Bo5 set :/

 

[Nidtendofreak]

It's unfair to other players. Some guy could argue that he would have done better if his opponent had agreed to play on SV three times in a row as well. And quite frankly, that's taking away one of the things tested in a set: who can manage their character(s) on multiple stages better?

 

[sunshade]

If you stage strike from the entire stage list then the resulting stage should theoretically be the median of bias and thus the most fair stage obtainable for the match-up. I don't see why we should enforce arbitrary imbalances in the name "stage diversity" which is a greatly over valued concept to say the least.

 

[Ghostbone]

Gentleman's Agreements are pacts between players that exist outside of the context of the ruleset and should not be placed into the rules to be enforced by a TO.

Creating such a rule would be entirely contradictory to creating the uniformity that is the entire purpose of the URS.

See but then players would get a red card for not following the rules or some bull**** >.>
You could probably claim it was bracket manipulation because it may have modified the outcome or something.

So by not having the rule in place, you're preventing players from making those "pacts", so stop trying to bring that up like it matters....

It's unfair to other players. Some guy could argue that he would have done better if his opponent had agreed to play on SV three times in a row as well. And quite frankly, that's taking away one of the things tested in a set: who can manage their character(s) on multiple stages better?

That...doesn't matter.
It's like saying it's unfair your opponent counter-picked you to FD (and you don't like FD for whatever reason) but another player's opponent counter-picked them to SV.
Or complaining that your opponent plays D3 while another player's opponent plays Ganon.
Tough luck if your opponent doesn't do the exact same things and gives you the exact same opportunities to win as another player's opponent.
Idk how to explain it any better but it's a ridiculous argument to try to bring up.

 

[Supreme Dirt]

Amusingly, I haven't been carded yet for going Mario at Tin's recent tourney.

I legitimately expected that to happen.

Maybe the URC actually thinks after all.

 

[Ussi]

People don't always play the same characters.. Some people change to worst characters too cause it's more fun to them or they are going back to them or something. Maybe you were doing the same? Who is anyone to judge unless you confess your true intention.

 

[DeLux]

See but then players would get a red card for not following the rules or some bull**** >.>
You could probably claim it was bracket manipulation because it may have modified the outcome or something.

To say redcarded is incorrect. But I guess that you could see that it could infact manipulate bracket outcomes speaks volumes to the legitimacy of gentleman's agreements.

From the standpoint of running a tournament, I can think of numerous examples of abuse of such agreements that required TO discretion on my part. Honestly, every rule in the ruleset could have tacked on with a stipulation "unless a player agrees to X". But when it comes time for the TO to enforce rules, they are obligated to enforce the rules as written. By having a GA clause actually written in, they are forced to logically mediate between two usually mutually exclusive ideas that may or may not have equal merit based on the whim of players.

Given the consistency that one offers, it's easily the superior option. That isn't to say people can't make GA's in tourney. If they were to do that, they just make sure it's a true GA and leave the TO out of it. If it's my tournament and they involve me to enforce it if it isn't honored, I'll reneg on their GA for them and make them redo everything and play by the rules. I'd encourage other TO's to do the same.

So by not having the rule in place, you're preventing players from making those "pacts", so stop trying to bring that up like it matters....

That's the point.

 

[Deleted member]

Any current stage legality discussions going on within the URC?

 

[Ghostbone]

To say redcarded is incorrect. But I guess that you could see that it could infact manipulate bracket outcomes speaks volumes to the legitimacy of gentleman's agreements.

You could card people for anything, doesn't make the thing you card them for illegitimate.

That's the point.

...Circular logic much?

 

[DeLux]

Any current stage legality discussions going on within the URC?

We are having discussions on Pokemon Stadium 2, but as previously mentioned, nothing definitive should take place until after the MK Ban takes place in January.


@GB, I outlined much more non-circular logic earlier in the same post in terms of rulesets advocating mutually exclusive scenarios by inclusion of GA's and how that detracts from consistency.

 

[sunshade]

What is there to discuss about pokemon stadium 2? Shouldn't more important stage related matters be discussed like jungle japes, or pirate ship?

 

[DeLux]

It appears to me that there's a divide between adding stages and removing stages as the next direction to take for the ruleset.

I think the naming of different stages as "more important" than others is entirely subjective and that kind of thinking has helped lead towards the seemingly insurmountable status quo of a starter list distinction, although I understand what you're trying to say.

 

[Deleted member]

The stage list will just keep on dwindling, though...variety keeps things a lot more interesting.

If stages keep getting removed, then the chances of Norfair being added goes down. Maybe you guys should consider "trading" stages? For example, getting rid of Rainbow Cruise and replacing it with Norfair?

 

[DeLux]

IMO, I am much more receptive to RC as legal based on it's non-random nature in comparison to Norfair.

I agree that stage variety is an important value to be considered. If I had my way, the next legal stage to be added would be Japes.

But the decisions aren't entirely up to me and I can only answer based on my opinions and not necessarily speak for the rest of the members.

 

[Ghostbone]

The stage list will just keep on dwindling, though...variety keeps things a lot more interesting.

If stages keep getting removed, then the chances of Norfair being added goes down. Maybe you guys should consider "trading" stages? For example, getting rid of Rainbow Cruise and replacing it with Norfair?

If they don't consider RC legit they'll never consider Norfair legit.

@GB, I outlined much more non-circular logic earlier in the same post in terms of rulesets advocating mutually exclusive scenarios by inclusion of GA's and how that detracts from consistency.

K so let's look at your post.

From the standpoint of running a tournament, I can think of numerous examples of abuse of such agreements that required TO discretion on my part. Honestly, every rule in the ruleset could have tacked on with a stipulation "unless a player agrees to X". But when it comes time for the TO to enforce rules, they are obligated to enforce the rules as written. By having a GA clause actually written in, they are forced to logically mediate between two usually mutually exclusive ideas that may or may not have equal merit based on the whim of players.

Not every rule needs a stipulation of "unless a player agrees to X", gentleman's agreement has traditionally only applied to stages, so it would only apply to stage selection.
They are forced to logically mediate? Tell me where in "A player may CP any stage that hasn't been banned by the opponent in the starter/counterpick section (and they haven't won on), or any stage the opponent agrees to" the TO must step in? If players agree they agree and that's fine, if they don't they don't and that's fine....no TO intervention required, just as you don't require TOs to go around the tournament the whole time checking other rules.

Given the consistency that one offers, it's easily the superior option. That isn't to say people can't make GA's in tourney. If they were to do that, they just make sure it's a true GA and leave the TO out of it. If it's my tournament and they involve me to enforce it if it isn't honored, I'll reneg on their GA for them and make them redo everything and play by the rules. I'd encourage other TO's to do the same.

This is just silly...

The only way something can cause an inconsistency in this context is if it's not in the rules, correct? You can't claim that GA shouldn't be a rule because if it isn't a rule making a GA would be inconsistent. If it is a rule then it doesn't cause inconsistencies in this context.

The point is that if it's a rule it means you can leave the TO out of it, not that the TO must mediate it.

I mean really, do you card players for being inconsistent if they don't follow the set order correctly? (ie picking a stage and starting straight away without going back to the character selection screen to confirm characters) Really I only want one thing which is for players to be allowed to agree to any stage (or any legal stage if you really hate the idea of banned stages), and not technically be able to be carded for it. Of course the TO can intervene at any time, but the TO can also intervene and DQ players for no reason or switch the bracket around at whim and do an assortment of things (though they'd be a bad TO for it) so that doesn't really matter. You can either make a rule in the ruleset or clear that up in the infractions system or something, but yea.

If you want to get into why we shouldn't have a GA based on our rules, then that's easy to refute as well, but since you guys seem incredibly adverse to allowing players to agree to a banned stage, I won't argue for that. (something about players being able to go temple on stream despite that never happening ever)
As for DSR though, we have DSR so that one player can't win on the same stage twice, as it's (supposedly) unfair for the opponent. If the opponent agrees, then that's not an issue. Wouldn't you agree?

Really I don't see why you guys would remove a rule that's been standard in smash since forever without any adverse effects, and not look at rules such as DSR which clearly favour one player over the other.....I don't mind if you don't consider any rule changes until after January, but don't defend all your current rules like they're infallible.

 

[DeLux]

Not every rule needs a stipulation of "unless a player agrees to X", gentleman's agreement has traditionally only applied to stages, so it would only apply to stage selection.

No rule needs "unless a player agrees to X" is the point. By applying it to stages, it should be allowed to apply to any rule based on consistency in logic.

They are forced to logically mediate? Tell me where in "A player may CP any stage that hasn't been banned by the opponent in the starter/counterpick section (and they haven't won on), or any stage the opponent agrees to" the TO must step in?

A player can be coerced into undesirable action by another player. This can occur knowingly or unknowingly. It happens more and more often, especially with new members of the tournament scene. It's superior to have a concrete option and procedure rather than something where a player can be pressured or bartered into an action.

If players agree they agree and that's fine, if they don't they don't and that's fine....no TO intervention required, just as you don't require TOs to go around the tournament the whole time checking other rules.

A person could reneg on said agreement after the fact since a GA is a pact between players. A TO would have no way of knowing what exactly happened in the pact or if there is dishonorable actions on anybody's fault. The rule would increase the burden on the TO's unfairly in the sense that not only do they have to manage the rest of the tournament and all the matches/rules/every other thing a TO does, but they also have to account for arbitrary GA's as well.

The only way something can cause an inconsistency in this context is if it's not in the rules, correct? You can't claim that GA shouldn't be a rule because if it isn't a rule making a GA would be inconsistent. If it is a rule then it doesn't cause inconsistencies in this context.

If it's a rule, it creates inconsistencies within the ruleset. At times, X situation is legal. While other times, X situation is not legal. All of it at the mere whim of a player. It's by definition inconsistent, even if it is a rule.

The point is that if it's a rule it means you can leave the TO out of it, not that the TO must mediate it.

If it's in the ruleset, a TO is then required to mediate by obligation to enforce the rules. By leaving it out of the ruleset, it's only enforceable by the players.

I mean really, do you card players for being inconsistent if they don't follow the set order correctly? (ie picking a stage and starting straight away without going back to the character selection screen to confirm characters)

Nobody is going to get carded for anything unless their TO calls for it. That is not what the intent of the card system is for, so you can stop portraying it as such. I would, however, be justified in discarding the result of the GA Agreement played set because at that point it's not a valid tournament match.

Really I only want one thing which is for players to be allowed to agree to any stage (or any legal stage if you really hate the idea of banned stages), and not technically be able to be carded for it. Of course the TO can intervene at any time, but the TO can also intervene and DQ players for no reason or switch the bracket around at whim and do an assortment of things (though they'd be a bad TO for it) so that doesn't really matter. You can either make a rule in the ruleset or clear that up in the infractions system or something, but yea.

If your issue is with the infraction system, you should say so. As I've stated previously to this post, the infraction system isn't intended to stop or punish a GA in cases that the TO isn't involved in.

If you want to get into why we shouldn't have a GA based on our rules, then that's easy to refute as well, but since you guys seem incredibly adverse to allowing players to agree to a banned stage, I won't argue for that. (something about players being able to go temple on stream despite that never happening ever)
As for DSR though, we have DSR so that one player can't win on the same stage twice, as it's (supposedly) unfair for the opponent. If the opponent agrees, then that's not an issue. Wouldn't you agree?

I would disagree. It's there to maintain a level of consistency (the non GA intent) while promoting stage diversity (DSR intent). It has nothing to do with "unfairness" to the opponent, in my opinion. I would think the favoring of the loser is an unintended result, although if you're going to make the argument that DSR favors the loser, you'd probably have an issue with the entire CP system as well.

Really I don't see why you guys would remove a rule that's been standard in smash since forever without any adverse effects, and not look at rules such as DSR which clearly favour one player over the other.....I don't mind if you don't consider any rule changes until after January, but don't defend all your current rules like they're infallible.

I'll take this back to the URC. I've already pointed out consistently that I've found numerous issues with the ruleset. However, I disagree with the intent and practice of Gentlemen's Agreements specifically.

 

[Ghostbone]

No rule needs "unless a player agrees to X" is the point. By applying it to stages, it should be allowed to apply to any rule based on consistency in logic.

I disagree, different situations entirely.

A player can be coerced into undesirable action by another player. This can occur knowingly or unknowingly. It happens more and more often, especially with new members of the tournament scene. It's superior to have a concrete option and procedure rather than something where a player can be pressured or bartered into an action.

Why would a player try to mislead a new player to give themselves a benefit? That's just douchery right there, and getting rid of GA won't eliminate the fact they'll probably pull out all sorts of gay tactics to beat the new player, rather than help them get into the scene. (I'm not saying gay tactics aren't legit, just that they're not needed to beat new players who you should be trying to get involved with the scene)

A person could reneg on said agreement after the fact since a GA is a pact between players. A TO would have no way of knowing what exactly happened in the pact or if there is dishonorable actions on anybody's fault. The rule would increase the burden on the TO's unfairly in the sense that not only do they have to manage the rest of the tournament and all the matches/rules/every other thing a TO does, but they also have to account for arbitrary GA's as well.

What, they could go back on the agreement during a game? I don't see how that's possible...

If it's a rule, it creates inconsistencies within the ruleset. At times, X situation is legal. While other times, X situation is not legal. All of it at the mere whim of a player. It's by definition inconsistent, even if it is a rule.

Apply the same exact logic to individual stage bans.

If it's in the ruleset, a TO is then required to mediate by obligation to enforce the rules. By leaving it out of the ruleset, it's only enforceable by the players.

The TO isn't enforcing anything new though....

Nobody is going to get carded for anything unless their TO calls for it. That is not what the intent of the card system is for, so you can stop portraying it as such. I would, however, be justified in discarding the result of the GA Agreement played set because at that point it's not a valid tournament match.

Then why not change the infraction system so it doesn't cover situations that supposedly go against its intent? Otherwise you end up giving people infractions for giving another player money for lunch or something.

If your issue is with the infraction system, you should say so. As I've stated previously to this post, the infraction system isn't intended to stop or punish a GA in cases that the TO isn't involved in.

Then it should be changed to reflect that.

I would disagree. It's there to maintain a level of consistency (the non GA intent) while promoting stage diversity (DSR intent). It has nothing to do with "unfairness" to the opponent, in my opinion. I would think the favoring of the loser is an unintended result, although if you're going to make the argument that DSR favors the loser, you'd probably have an issue with the entire CP system as well.

No I only have an issue with DSR, why would I have an issue with the entire CP system?
Anyway that's your opinion I suppose, and we'll agree to disagree....

I'll take this back to the URC. I've already pointed out consistently that I've found numerous issues with the ruleset. However, I disagree with the intent and practice of Gentlemen's Agreements specifically.

Ok

 

[Deleted member]

IMO, I am much more receptive to RC as legal based on it's non-random nature in comparison to Norfair.

I guess my problem with RC is that it's a stage that's constantly in motion, rather than a static battleground. You have to focus on maneuvering around the stage just to stay alive about as much as you have to focus on your opponent.

Also, RC has that b-throw glitch to be aware of. To me, Norfair is just about as legit a stage as RC.

 

[infiniteV115]

Don't see why moving stages/having to pay attention to a changing stage is a bad thing. If the glitch is consistent then that isn't a problem either.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

We are having discussions on Pokemon Stadium 2, but as previously mentioned, nothing definitive should take place until after the MK Ban takes place in January.

...Of all the ****ing stages to discuss...
Port Town would make more sense. Japes would make more sense. RC/Brinstar would make more sense. Delfino and FD would make more sense.

PS2 is an archetypical nonstandard counterpick stage that favors very few characters in very few matchups to a noticeable extent, with "weird" qualities that extend but neither cheapen nor centralize gameplay. There is no reason to ban it that does not immediately reveal itself as either special pleading or easily extended to a few other stages.

TOs? Seriously?

(if you're talking about moving it to starter, then never mind; I support that completely)

 

[Supreme Dirt]

We're banning more stages.

Figured as much.

 

[infiniteV115]

^
He didn't imply that at all.

 

[Deleted member]

The fact that they're discussing a current legal stage is pretty discouraging when they could be discussing others that should be legal.

 

[infiniteV115]

You know, they could be deciding between starter/CP for PS2 instead of CP/banned.
Or renaming it, just like "Battleship Halberd" and "Pokemon Stadium 1" are being renamed.

Though I'd definitely prefer it if they were discussing the legality of Norfair and Japes, but I suppose any action on that topic is not going to be taken until after the MK ban takes full effect (and the experimentation period isn't even over yet)

 

[DeLux]

Just to clarify, the discussion going on is about the legality of the stage. Based on what I've seen, it sort of is becoming the first battleground on which direction to take the stage list (larger or smaller).

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Ugh, of all the stupid ****ing stages...

Brinstar and RC are both arguably broken in half. Beyond that, Brinstar has random hazards and all but permanent sharking available and RC moves. They are both unique, bizarre, and incredibly polarizing.

PS2 shares all but one of those traits: it's unique and bizarre, but get this: it's totally not polarizing. And the results show it as well. It was shown viable for testing in theory, and then essentially proven through testing to be viable. Unless I missed some big tournament recently? I saw gay **** on YI, I saw gay **** on Halberd, I've seen tons of gay **** on RC, Brinstar, Delfino, and Frigate, but I have yet to see gay **** on PS2.

 

[[FBC] ESAM]

And that's why I left the URC~

 

[WindMajor]

Just look at how flamboyantly homosexual PS2 is, BPC.

JUST LOOK AT IT.

Even the crowd was disgusted by it!!!!