Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Your comment is hilarious because all you're arguing is making the "Casual Scene" (Aka FOR GLORY!) into the competitive scene. Take your own advice and stop trying to mix up the competitive arena with the casual scene! xD
You can play For Glory and not believe it is a truly competitive rule set. I certaintly don't, and I would think most people would agree. It completely removes any semblance of platform play, and enhances the usefulness of zoners and ground based characters, while hurting air fighters. It's not balanced, and flies in the face of what people actually want to play. Most people want three stock eight minutes, and we don't want to use SD as win determination. Any hypothetical For Glory tournaments would likely get a few supporters, but fail to attract the majority of the fan base.
That's a fair stance. Personally, I don't see the divide getting any worse than it already is (as I expressed above), so dividing the community is less of a concern to me than it is to many.
I've observed (at least in my own play) that Villager's customs effectively function to extend any regular advantage he has in a matchup. If a matchup favors him, then the trip sapling and exploding balloons make it unbearable. If a matchup doesn't favor him, they won't help. My personal practice against a Janky Kang player has perhaps dulled my sensitivity to issues others have dealing with Kong Cyclone, the best I can suggest there is to practice punishing it, and don't go to Battlefield. Naturally, the voice of the attendees matters most, and while yours may reasonably be opposed to customs, I've fair reason to think my attendance would have been halved with the customs off.
Simply put, I think there is no standard, and that's an issue. What I call a "viable" stage includes at least 5 or more stages that very highly skilled players would call utter nonsense. But my point is that we, as the players, must make the call. Do we run with an unfair system (we always have, realistically speaking) and accept it as status-quo, letting the tiers fall where they will, or do we manually adjust that system iteratively until we reach a point we feel is better? Customs are the same - some characters benefit greatly, and the best characters see no change, so at a practical level, the highest levels of competition don't get anything but salt and time consumption from implementing them. Likewise with stage selection. The simplest method is Final Destination. The most complex solution is literal full-list stage striking. The degree to which we're willing to add procedural complexity for the sake of balance will (and does) determine competitive validity for a number of characters.
I believe the current Builder is vastly more flexible than Brawl's with respect to making competitively "viable" stages. I toy around with making things inspired by "Close but not quite" stages (Stages inspired by Brinstar and Temple are some favorites in my personal friend group), and there're threads elsewhere demonstrating how we can use the builder to either emulate past successes (Stadium 2 without transformation, for instance), or create new ones through thoughtful design. There could, however, arise consistency issues that could only be resolved through a fully-obeyed honor code (idealistic at best) or a lengthy setup and verification time. For instance, running a version of Fountain of Dreams that has a platform cycle more quickly than the rest of the setups, due to tampering. Avoidable, but just like running an online tournament with customs, exploitable and difficult to notice, and even harder to find a culprit.
It's an inevitable issue with any emerging scene. Even within the Smash series, we've seen changes come about due to analysis of things that used to be accepted. It's very good, and useful, to have theorists and skilled players both spend time analyzing rules before carrying them over (for instance, debates on walkoffs with the removal of chaingrabs, or the impact of stock and time amounts, or even stages of the same name and nearly-identical design).
Personally, I'm not sure that's the way to go. I'd be interested in seeing what happens, but like you say, I don't expect the general community to adopt. It's too large an unexplored area to accurately predict the impact. But whether we grow up and accept the designer's rules, or grow up and cement our own as a community, we need to grow up somehow if we want our game to thrive.
Lmao what? Good players win regardless of the rules and this is a BAD thing?
I mean allow Mii fighters (at least default hight weight 1111), Battlefield, Smashville, other competitive stages, change stock to 3 and time to 8 minuets. base the winner off of stock #, then percent instead of sudden death mode, allow DLC characters if they have them. use stock for doubles. allow people to choose stages
A) You clearly don't get why sudden death is prohibited.
I understand why sudden death is prohibited.
I would say ether ban them, limit them to a 1111 custom move set, or let everyone use custom moves. You see from the point of view of a non Mii player if Mii fighters get to use custom moves and custom height and weight it can seem unfair to others who don't get to use custom moves. so I would say ether ban Miis or let everyone use custom moves. I think that's probably one reason why people are allowing custom moves in tournaments now, because Mii fighters wont be restricted as much any more.
I see your point.
It's too bad most people don't see it the way you do. Although i prefer giving them 1-1-1-1, 2-2-2-2, or 3-3-3-3 movesets, it is nice to see someone else with a viewpoint that allows the Miis to be playable without giving every character customs.
That's really wrong. The only rule which would help TO is 2min late=dq. Really i don't know if you ever try to run a tournament, but the biggest loss of time come from player who are hard to find, or who don't give the result fast enough. And the lack of wiiU too (plus the issue when a WiiU bug lol) These things are the real nightmare, and are not fixed at all by FG rules
While it doesn't fix the major issues, removing the stage selection process (as FG rules do) entirely is roughly as valid a solution as "un-adding" the time it takes to choose custom moves by removing them. It addresses tournament time issue through "fixing" a non-major contributor. Ultimately, if a scene doesn't have enough willing players to get setups, the TO really should strongly consider foregoing pot bonuses (or profit) in exchange for getting more setups. Heck, I ran a 14-man tournament for a bunch of casual friends and we still had five setups, four of which were complete with the adapter and all. There are a myriad of other potential time-savers that add up significantly more than ruleset changes.
Not in my experience. Most people I see go pretty aggro because they'd rather not have it come down to the coin flip that is SD.
I have the players play out Sudden Death at events I run and most try to KO their opponent instead of play defensive. It plays out much like how you have played it in For Glory online.
You are deeply mistaken in thinking I was proposing that the PLAYERS who play on For Glory was representational of the Competitive Arena - this is not to be found online or even in the mundane realm, this is of the spirit realm - the psyche of competitors found in the spirit of the samurai and in the heart of every competitive Smasher.
"Belief" in a "competitive rule set" is highly subjective. The "Glory" I referred to in my post was not the online "For Glory", but was a definition of mindset.
You seem to me to be mistaking "balance" with "competition".
Implying that was what I said is a gross misrepresentation of my thoughtful post. I should find it offensive, but if this was actually a "kettle calling the pot black" post then that would be what was aimed for, so I'll just leave your post to speak for itself.
Intricacies which include items, random bombs, and farming for custom parts to use in Smash Tour.
Okay, so what you are saying is, running an unpopular ruleset, that most player dislike, with extremely limited stage choice that artificially narrows down character selection to characters who excel in ground combat and zoning, is a good idea, because it seperates the competitive players from the non-competitive.
I don't see where I sad that anywhere. Could you explain why you are trying to create a strawman here?
No, that assumption would be groundless and against my idea of what competitive is (please read my guide on this site)
Could you explain how FD artificially decreases balance?
The problem of only using one stage for matchups is that it does artificially decrease character balance. If a character has their best stages in the played list, and their worst in the unplayed list, then the value is artifically increased compared to the rest of the cast, and visa versa. It artificially unbalances the Smash metagame, by saying characters who are good on stage A are the best characters. Characters who are good on stages B-K are not as good, as they will never play on stages B-K. Only stage A. This creates character select forcing, by saying the best characters are these characters who are good on stage A, anyone else is not as good. We saw this with Ice Climbers in Brawl. As their worst stages got banned, they rose up to become the number 2 spot on the tier list.
Keep trying.
