Talk:Tournament rulesets (SSBB)
From SmashWiki, the Super Smash Bros. wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
I fixed all the grammar and spelling errors I found. I don't know which Yoshi's Island stage he is talking about though. If someone who knows which one it is could fix it, this article would be free of the evil red links. Thanks, BEN!
Nevermind, I fixed it. BEN!
Evo/All-Brawl rulesets?[edit]
Though from a practical standpoint it would probably be a horrible idea, I think these rulesets should *technically* be mentioned. I personally think they're stupid, but mentioning them might remove possible perceived bias in the article. capefeather (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Everything I've seen from other discussion areas for Smash Bros. utterly rejects the Evo ruleset. Also, as Evo was held before the SBR released this, there is no way of knowing if they would have followed these or not. If the next evo uses their dumb rules, maybe we'll consider mentioning them here. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 22:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly why Brawl isn't played at EVO. 81.141.68.50 05:13, 3 May 2012 (EDT)
"Effective governing body?"[edit]
For who? Sure as blazes not for me. I've never played in a Smash tournament that uses their rules and I never will. I refuse to recognize them as official, de facto or otherwise. Thanos6 (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- I could care less whose rules you subscribe to. Ken, Isai, Mew2King, PC Chris, Korean DJ, Gimpyfish, and every other significant pro level player and every major tournament except Evo (which is not always considered legit by the pros) uses the SBR as their governing body. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 16:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- That's like saying because Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, and Magic Johnson all play basketball one way, that is THE ONLY TRUE AND RIGHTFUL OFFICIAL WAY TO PLAY. No it isn't. There's a million variations of basketball. Is the one the NBA uses more widespread? Yes, but it's not "official." Same with baseball, or football (American or otherwise), or Smash. Thanos6 (talk)
- I hate to break it to you, but your comparison doesn't really work (at least in so far as it doesn't prove what you want it to). First off, rule variance between professional basketball leagues is actually very, very minimal. Second off, technically speaking, basketball does have a de jure international governing body (the International Basketball Federation) which produces a single set of standard, intentional rules (though it is true that, for the purposes of intra-league play, each league may govern its own rules). Now consider Smash. In the same way that every individual basketball league is free to govern its own rules, every individual tournament is technically free to use whatever rules it so chooses. That said, however, in the same way that the FIBA produces a single set of internationally accepted rules for basketball, the SBR produces a single set of internationally accepted rules for Smash. Here's the difference though. When it comes to basketball, there are several rule sets that are important enough (in so far as how widely they're used -- and just because you could potentially use an infinite number of rule sets doesn't mean that there exist an infinite number of noteworthy rule sets, nor does it mean that noteworthy rule sets do not exist) rule sets to merit mention, FIBA's, the NBA's, possibly the CBA's, etc (I'm not actually sure that there exist any other accepted rule sets for basketball, to be frank). In Smash, there's only one, the SBR's. Oh, and by the way, it's entirely irrelevant whether you choose to accept that rule set. It doesn't claim to be "THE ONLY TRUE AND RIGHTFUL OFFICIAL WAY TO PLAY." The only thing that matters is that the SBR rule set is almost universally accepted for the purposes of professional tournament play (thus making it, by definition, the de facto governing body). I can organize a tournament in which the players don't have to ever dribble the ball and call it basketball, but I suspect you'd agree that my tournament's rules don't belong next to the NBA's on Wikipedia's Rules of Basketball page. In the same way, you can play Smash however you like (and you can go to tournaments that use whatever rules they like), but this is still the accepted standard for tournament legal. – Defiant Elements +talk 06:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I do NOT agree with that. If you set up a basketball tournament like that, I would totally support listing it on the rules of basketball page. I do not believe in "noteworthiness;" if something EXISTS, it is noteworthy. And while the SBR rules may be the most widespread, they are no more official than the "anything goes" rules at the tournaments I play in. If you want to put that those rules are the accepted standard, go ahead, but don't call them official, because they're not. Thanos6 (talk) 06:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- OK, now you're just being thick. Just the fact that something exists doesn't make it notable. As defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary, something is notable if it is "remarkable, distinguished and/or prominent." Let me make something painfully clear to you: In the context of Smash rules, you and your rule set are none of the above, ergo, they and you are not notable. You can have whatever problems with these rules that you want, but quite frankly, it's irrelevant. Oh, and as for your comment that the basketball rules aren't "official" either, why do they call the refs "officials" then? Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 11:49, January 20, 2009
- Actually, I'd say you're the one being thick, but I'm not trying to make this personal. If something exists and has been observed, it has been noted. And if it has been noted, it is distinguished. Therefore, noteworthy (that whole "notability" guideline that threatens to spread through the wikis like a plague will doom them eventually). As for your last question, wow, that's a wonderful attempt to play semantics. They're called officials because they officiate. They enforce the rules that have been agreed on for that game; not universal, completely agreed upon rules. Again: if you want to say they're a largely accepted standard, go ahead, but official they are not. Thanos6 (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ummmm... I just figured that I'd point out that according to your logic, everyone and everything is distinguished and noteworthy seeing as how everyone and everything "exists and has been observed." Seeing as how the definition of distinguished is "made conspicuous by excellence; eminent; famous," what you're essentially arguing is that everyone is eminent and famous and made conspicuous by excellence. Indeed, not only that, but that everyone is eminent and famous to the same degree given that you're arguing that my hypothetical basketball tournament's rules are equal in notability to those of the NBA. By that logic, everyone and everything is as famous, noteworthy, prominent, and distinguished as, to use an example that seems appropriate, Barack Obama. Can you see how that logic doesn't really work? If you can't... well... then this is a pointless discussion. – Defiant Elements +talk 18:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, you at last understand. I believe that everyone and everything is noteworthy and prominent. Every human being, every animal, every plant, every object that can be proven to exist deserves its own Wikipedia page. Every single set of rules that Smash is played by deserves equal consideration. Wookieepedia, largely regarded as the single best, most successful spinoff Wiki there is, doesn't discriminate by noteworthiness. Why should this one? Thanos6 (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia, largely regarded as the single best, most successful Wiki there is, discriminates by noteworthiness. Why shouldn't this one? – Defiant Elements +talk 22:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- And if you ever browse the Wikipedia philosophy pages, you'll note that there's a fairly large movement underway to remove that noteworthiness rule, because unlike documentation, noteworthiness is completely subjective (I feel all things that exist are noteworthy. You obviously don't.), and this has caused much strife and even banning over there. Wookiee, on the other hand, has no such rule, and everyone gets along fine. Also note the rise of several Wikipedia mirrors (in particular Wikinfo) that also do away with noteworthiness and aer quickly ascending. Encyclopediae should be objective, not subjective. And my original point still stands; call the SBR rules "widespread" or even "largely accepted" if you wish, but not "official." Thanos6 (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Wookipedia really isn't analogous in this case. Wookiepeida deals strictly with a (relatively) well-defined canon, which is to say that all the material that they're dealing is objectively either in a book, movie, game, etc., or it's not, so the standard for notability can afford to be exceedingly clear-cut; it's either in said canon (notable), or it's not (not notable). What that means is that notability is essentially a non-issue on Wookiepedia. SmashWiki, on the other hand, has articles about Crews, Smashers, and Tournaments, which may or may not be notable. – Defiant Elements +talk 22:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, Wookiee does have analogous articles on, for instance, several fans (if you're such a huge fan that Lucasfilm themselves accepts your ideas, you're in, and are treated just like any other creator, like Timothy Zahn etc.). And as I said before, it's my belief that anything that exists is notable. Anyone who's ever played, let them have their own Smasher page. The Three Person Backwoods Middle Of Nowhere Tournament? Sure, add it to the wiki. You can't just assume that your definition of notable applies to everyone else. But at any rate, we're severely digressing, I freely admit. Can we not agree on that "widely acccepted" compromise? Thanos6 (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- By definition, rules which are sufficiently "widely accepted" are de facto rules. As such, I've added the phrase "de facto" to the article. As amusing as this conversation is, it's getting old. – Defiant Elements +talk 23:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- OK, let's dispense with the notion that philosophical discussions about the definition of a word that might eventually launch a movement to change something constitutes that it is somehow an idea we should follow. There's a "fairly large" movement of people having "philosophical discussions" about why we should supplicate ourselves to the Devil and kill all the chickens in the world. Does that mean that do that on this wiki? Hell no, that's stupid. So just the fact that there is a discussion in no way means that a change to the status quo is necessary. And as for the change in question, it is also stupid. You see, I have three Gatorade bottles sitting on my desk where I compose music. Now, by the guidelines that I agree with, I am no where near notable enough to consitute a page about me as a composer. But under your standards, not only would I get a page, but each of the three Gatorade bottles would also get a page as they are notable in that each one was drank while I was writing a different piece of music, each of which would also get a page. All this for some kid living in Iowa City without a degree in anything and no notable contest winnings. Yeah, it's dumb. And, no we can't compromise. You're wrong. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 23:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, how handy to just dismiss anyone whose opinion you disagree with as wrong. Remember that discussion on your very own talk page? About the NPOV rule and how we're suppose to note the existence of different opinions but not take a side? At any rate, I'm happy to accept DE's edit. Thanos6 (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- While Star Wars is an effectively finite universe, with the movies, books, etc., tournaments and combos and smashers are bordering on the (effectively) inifinite. Sorry, we don't care about backwater tournaments or smashers who've never played in a tournament at all. My school had a Smash tournament last year, and guess what? It doesn't have an article. Why? Because it's not important to anyone else. You're in the minority here, Thanos6, and with a sysop, a bcrat and a rollback'r all disagreeing with you, don't expect the wiki's policy to change in your favor on this point. Miles (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- CHawk: I fully agree with you when it comes to notability, but adding "de facto" actually has nothing to do with notability; it's merely as opposed to "de jure." And, with that said, no matter how well-accepted the SBR rules are (and I also agree that they're the only particularly notable rules), they're still not de jure, so it's appropriate to label them as de facto. – Defiant Elements +talk 23:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- No, I don't have to be neutral in my argumentation. We should aim for the writing to be neutral, but it also should be written from a high level. We can argue over if this is actually "official" but I can have my own opinion on it. The fact is that I don't feel that you've provided any arguments to the contrary that I or DE haven't thoroughly debunked. And my argument here isn't based on my "opinion" per se, but on my interpretation of the evidence. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 23:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- @ Miles: Legit point. Feel free to put it back up. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 23:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, how handy to just dismiss anyone whose opinion you disagree with as wrong. Remember that discussion on your very own talk page? About the NPOV rule and how we're suppose to note the existence of different opinions but not take a side? At any rate, I'm happy to accept DE's edit. Thanos6 (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- OK, let's dispense with the notion that philosophical discussions about the definition of a word that might eventually launch a movement to change something constitutes that it is somehow an idea we should follow. There's a "fairly large" movement of people having "philosophical discussions" about why we should supplicate ourselves to the Devil and kill all the chickens in the world. Does that mean that do that on this wiki? Hell no, that's stupid. So just the fact that there is a discussion in no way means that a change to the status quo is necessary. And as for the change in question, it is also stupid. You see, I have three Gatorade bottles sitting on my desk where I compose music. Now, by the guidelines that I agree with, I am no where near notable enough to consitute a page about me as a composer. But under your standards, not only would I get a page, but each of the three Gatorade bottles would also get a page as they are notable in that each one was drank while I was writing a different piece of music, each of which would also get a page. All this for some kid living in Iowa City without a degree in anything and no notable contest winnings. Yeah, it's dumb. And, no we can't compromise. You're wrong. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 23:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- By definition, rules which are sufficiently "widely accepted" are de facto rules. As such, I've added the phrase "de facto" to the article. As amusing as this conversation is, it's getting old. – Defiant Elements +talk 23:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, Wookiee does have analogous articles on, for instance, several fans (if you're such a huge fan that Lucasfilm themselves accepts your ideas, you're in, and are treated just like any other creator, like Timothy Zahn etc.). And as I said before, it's my belief that anything that exists is notable. Anyone who's ever played, let them have their own Smasher page. The Three Person Backwoods Middle Of Nowhere Tournament? Sure, add it to the wiki. You can't just assume that your definition of notable applies to everyone else. But at any rate, we're severely digressing, I freely admit. Can we not agree on that "widely acccepted" compromise? Thanos6 (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Wookipedia really isn't analogous in this case. Wookiepeida deals strictly with a (relatively) well-defined canon, which is to say that all the material that they're dealing is objectively either in a book, movie, game, etc., or it's not, so the standard for notability can afford to be exceedingly clear-cut; it's either in said canon (notable), or it's not (not notable). What that means is that notability is essentially a non-issue on Wookiepedia. SmashWiki, on the other hand, has articles about Crews, Smashers, and Tournaments, which may or may not be notable. – Defiant Elements +talk 22:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- And if you ever browse the Wikipedia philosophy pages, you'll note that there's a fairly large movement underway to remove that noteworthiness rule, because unlike documentation, noteworthiness is completely subjective (I feel all things that exist are noteworthy. You obviously don't.), and this has caused much strife and even banning over there. Wookiee, on the other hand, has no such rule, and everyone gets along fine. Also note the rise of several Wikipedia mirrors (in particular Wikinfo) that also do away with noteworthiness and aer quickly ascending. Encyclopediae should be objective, not subjective. And my original point still stands; call the SBR rules "widespread" or even "largely accepted" if you wish, but not "official." Thanos6 (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia, largely regarded as the single best, most successful Wiki there is, discriminates by noteworthiness. Why shouldn't this one? – Defiant Elements +talk 22:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, you at last understand. I believe that everyone and everything is noteworthy and prominent. Every human being, every animal, every plant, every object that can be proven to exist deserves its own Wikipedia page. Every single set of rules that Smash is played by deserves equal consideration. Wookieepedia, largely regarded as the single best, most successful spinoff Wiki there is, doesn't discriminate by noteworthiness. Why should this one? Thanos6 (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ummmm... I just figured that I'd point out that according to your logic, everyone and everything is distinguished and noteworthy seeing as how everyone and everything "exists and has been observed." Seeing as how the definition of distinguished is "made conspicuous by excellence; eminent; famous," what you're essentially arguing is that everyone is eminent and famous and made conspicuous by excellence. Indeed, not only that, but that everyone is eminent and famous to the same degree given that you're arguing that my hypothetical basketball tournament's rules are equal in notability to those of the NBA. By that logic, everyone and everything is as famous, noteworthy, prominent, and distinguished as, to use an example that seems appropriate, Barack Obama. Can you see how that logic doesn't really work? If you can't... well... then this is a pointless discussion. – Defiant Elements +talk 18:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I'd say you're the one being thick, but I'm not trying to make this personal. If something exists and has been observed, it has been noted. And if it has been noted, it is distinguished. Therefore, noteworthy (that whole "notability" guideline that threatens to spread through the wikis like a plague will doom them eventually). As for your last question, wow, that's a wonderful attempt to play semantics. They're called officials because they officiate. They enforce the rules that have been agreed on for that game; not universal, completely agreed upon rules. Again: if you want to say they're a largely accepted standard, go ahead, but official they are not. Thanos6 (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- OK, now you're just being thick. Just the fact that something exists doesn't make it notable. As defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary, something is notable if it is "remarkable, distinguished and/or prominent." Let me make something painfully clear to you: In the context of Smash rules, you and your rule set are none of the above, ergo, they and you are not notable. You can have whatever problems with these rules that you want, but quite frankly, it's irrelevant. Oh, and as for your comment that the basketball rules aren't "official" either, why do they call the refs "officials" then? Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 11:49, January 20, 2009
- Actually, I do NOT agree with that. If you set up a basketball tournament like that, I would totally support listing it on the rules of basketball page. I do not believe in "noteworthiness;" if something EXISTS, it is noteworthy. And while the SBR rules may be the most widespread, they are no more official than the "anything goes" rules at the tournaments I play in. If you want to put that those rules are the accepted standard, go ahead, but don't call them official, because they're not. Thanos6 (talk) 06:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- I hate to break it to you, but your comparison doesn't really work (at least in so far as it doesn't prove what you want it to). First off, rule variance between professional basketball leagues is actually very, very minimal. Second off, technically speaking, basketball does have a de jure international governing body (the International Basketball Federation) which produces a single set of standard, intentional rules (though it is true that, for the purposes of intra-league play, each league may govern its own rules). Now consider Smash. In the same way that every individual basketball league is free to govern its own rules, every individual tournament is technically free to use whatever rules it so chooses. That said, however, in the same way that the FIBA produces a single set of internationally accepted rules for basketball, the SBR produces a single set of internationally accepted rules for Smash. Here's the difference though. When it comes to basketball, there are several rule sets that are important enough (in so far as how widely they're used -- and just because you could potentially use an infinite number of rule sets doesn't mean that there exist an infinite number of noteworthy rule sets, nor does it mean that noteworthy rule sets do not exist) rule sets to merit mention, FIBA's, the NBA's, possibly the CBA's, etc (I'm not actually sure that there exist any other accepted rule sets for basketball, to be frank). In Smash, there's only one, the SBR's. Oh, and by the way, it's entirely irrelevant whether you choose to accept that rule set. It doesn't claim to be "THE ONLY TRUE AND RIGHTFUL OFFICIAL WAY TO PLAY." The only thing that matters is that the SBR rule set is almost universally accepted for the purposes of professional tournament play (thus making it, by definition, the de facto governing body). I can organize a tournament in which the players don't have to ever dribble the ball and call it basketball, but I suspect you'd agree that my tournament's rules don't belong next to the NBA's on Wikipedia's Rules of Basketball page. In the same way, you can play Smash however you like (and you can go to tournaments that use whatever rules they like), but this is still the accepted standard for tournament legal. – Defiant Elements +talk 06:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- That's like saying because Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, and Magic Johnson all play basketball one way, that is THE ONLY TRUE AND RIGHTFUL OFFICIAL WAY TO PLAY. No it isn't. There's a million variations of basketball. Is the one the NBA uses more widespread? Yes, but it's not "official." Same with baseball, or football (American or otherwise), or Smash. Thanos6 (talk)
Since when is there politics in Smash Bros.? i say that if these are the only set of rules, then refer to them if you want. But one can't say that because Pro's use it it's THE rules.s SBR a 'governing body" os Smash? is that morally right?
- What the hell? Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 17:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Item Rules[edit]
"Items are turned to off and none." Isn't this redundant? Zixor (talk) 04:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- No -- with frequency on none, Waddle Dee Toss can still generate Capsules, Vegetable can generate Beam Swords, etc. With each item also set to off, there are no items like those -- period. Miles (talk) 04:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
It also cancels out the evil Pity final smashes! :D 98.246.22.113 00:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Let's be honest; this is exactly why having a Smash Ball let you use an FS wasn't really the best idea. They could have had it in a similar fashion to the Ultra guage from SFIV, so once you've taken 50% damage, then you can use your FS. --92.28.203.65 06:27, 1 November 2011 (EDT)
If time runs out, the winner is determined by stock, and then by percent.[edit]
When time runs out and both players are on the same stock doesn't it go to sudden death to decide the winner? Thats how the game system works doesn't it? Or do you just stop and declare the lower percent person the winner? 60.242.169.170 18:24, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
- The game goes to sudden death. But whoever has the lower percentage is the winner, regardless of how the sudden death turns out. Think of it this way - in a tournament, shouldn't a tie be broken in a way that involves the players' skill, rather than by a 300% fling that quite honestly is as bad a fair tiebreaking system as overtime in American football? Toomai Glittershine
The Table Designer 18:43, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
- But what happens if they're at the same %? 98.117.158.220 19:44, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know what the official rule is on that, but there are a few options - replay the match, count the sudden death, or just call it a tie. That said, the chances of having two players time out of a tournament match with identical percentage and stock are exceedingly small. Toomai Glittershine The Stats Guy 20:23, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
- Not if neither takes any damage, which can happen a lot.
- Improbable. IIRC the rule in the case of equal stock and % is that the players play a two-minute, one-stock match with the same characters on the same stage. But the odds of such an occurrence are incredibly small. Miles (talk) 02:09, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
- If both stock and percentage are identical, or a game ends with both players being KO'd simultaneously (typically because of a Sacrificial KO via Bowser's Flying Slam or Ganondorf's Flame Choke), then a tiebreaker is played. A tiebreaker is a 1 stock, 3 minute match with the same characters and the same stage. The edge grab limit in the tiebreaker is 18 (or 13, for Meta Knight).
- Not if neither takes any damage, which can happen a lot.
- I don't know what the official rule is on that, but there are a few options - replay the match, count the sudden death, or just call it a tie. That said, the chances of having two players time out of a tournament match with identical percentage and stock are exceedingly small. Toomai Glittershine
- But what happens if they're at the same %? 98.117.158.220 19:44, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
- It was right in the article what happens. And neither player taking any damage at all for a whole 8 minutes is not going to happen under any circumstances unless both players intentionally refuse to attack each other, in which case, the TO would DQ them for stalling. Omega Tyrant
10:19, 1 November 2011 (EDT)
- This conversation is years old. Mr. Anon
talk 20:33, 1 November 2011 (EDT)
- I know that, when I saw an IP earlier comment on the section above, I thought they created this section here, where a quick glance at the time stamp seemed like it was just posted. Plus, there was that utterly ridiculous comment of neither player taking damage happening a lot :| Omega Tyrant 22:27, 1 November 2011 (EDT)
- I know that, when I saw an IP earlier comment on the section above, I thought they created this section here, where a quick glance at the time stamp seemed like it was just posted. Plus, there was that utterly ridiculous comment of neither player taking damage happening a lot :| Omega Tyrant
- This conversation is years old. Mr. Anon
- It was right in the article what happens. And neither player taking any damage at all for a whole 8 minutes is not going to happen under any circumstances unless both players intentionally refuse to attack each other, in which case, the TO would DQ them for stalling. Omega Tyrant
Meta Knight BANNED?![edit]
Why is Meta Knight being banned? --92.26.219.152 02:55, 18 November 2011 (EST)
- Read here. I'll warn you now however, do not argue his banning here. Omega Tyrant 03:58, 18 November 2011 (EST)
One stock ruleset[edit]
How much does it differ from this one? Either way, it needs to be covered or at least mentioned, but should it have its own page? - Ceci n’est pas un Smiddle. 14:39, 11 May 2014 (EDT)
- The usage of a one-stock ruleset is heavily limited to side-events and the TOs usually take very creative liberties with the rulesets for such matches. Some tournaments flat out banned MK and IC while others just add or limit stages to balance out the characters. Its rising popularity could easily just be a fad, but noting the presence of one-stock match popularity should be mentioned on another page. MegaTron1XD
15:33, 11 May 2014 (EDT)
Controller ports?[edit]
Wouldn't this only apply to Gamecube controllers? Or does it refer to the four color-coded boxes that appear on the bottom half of the character select screen? (I've never played in a Smash Bros. tournament, but for Brawl, I use the Nunchuk control scheme, so I wouldn't need a controller port.) Or is using something other than a Gamecube controller so rare that it's never come up in the rulings? 108.23.67.187 12:47, 4 November 2014 (EST)
- At tournaments, people mostly use GC controllers because of the supposed lag of using other controllers. PikaSamus (talk)
13:22, 4 November 2014 (EST)
- All right. I thought it was out of tradition; I used the Gamecube controller for Melee (obviously) but stayed away from it for the entirety of Brawl. Since the Wii U does not have any wired ports, does this also mean that SSBB tournaments are played predominantly on the Wii and that playing on the Wii U is discouraged? 108.23.67.187 04:09, 10 November 2014 (EST)
Bridge of Eldin[edit]
Can someone confirm that this stage is indeed legal in Japanese doubles tournaments? Seems odd that the MOST restrictive ruleset would allow a BANNED stage as a doubles counterpick. 149.150.236.196 06:58, 21 October 2015 (EDT)
