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!
But it doesn't work that way, when players at mlg often didn't bother striking and just started on battlefield. The stages do indeed interact with recoveries for better or worse. It's still not desired terrain for game 1 by anyone, so they'll be simply ignored and agree on another neutral unless it is metaknight.
How many players did this? Do you have information to support this claim? If striking was there and players of versatile characters didn't take advantage of it, however skilled they may be, that was pretty ******** of them.
This whole stagelist is ******** from the start. I'm not at home, but I know atomsk's mk started out on battlefield by agreements every set.
Well apparantly to you guys it's a starter.
No.. it was every stage imaginable that was possibly legal or currently illegal. Stages no longer have definitions in that case.
Balanced in what way??? Many chrs. just by camping in the middle become unapproachable because of the slants. But i guess u meant "balanced" in another way.
Wyatts wrong...Plenty of people took advantage of it. Mainly mk mains. Most other chr. mains matches just ended up on smashville/battlefield/fd. for the first match.
That's dodging the question, but if Atomsk was starting out on BF by agreement, that tells me two things.
Balanced in that it's a legitimate starter stage, since people's biggest gripe is always the lack of the ledge on phase 1, which it spends very little time on.greatness_007 said:
We've been over this 9000 times. It's so it forces a strike. It's basically just to counter-act the effect of FD, which is THE ground stage.
No stages should be forcing a strike because it belongs in the counterpick list.
Are you even paying attention to the arguments? Like, at all?
Why are you even on these forums, when you want to make the game anticompetitive? Just go to the IGN boards or something. That's the only reason you are fighting for this, lol. You will fight for anything that promotes some form of randomness or burden to skill. You, personally, I feel are here merely not because of character versatility or all that jazz, but because items will never be legal so you must tamprr with stagelists, which are the next best thing. You will never have any effect on the metagame, I don't know why you bother typing.
The reason why I chose those stages in my opening post over all other ones is quite simple. These stages have been played in tournament as neutrals and counterpicks and there haven't been issues. I am not claiming that ever stage from Flat Zone to Sky World is fine. We aren't arguing for every stage to be a neutral or every stage to be a counterpick. This would be complete and utter BS.
This is exactly the point that ADHD continues to miss. Thank you for getting it.
Because there aren't 1 or 2 stages that cover everything (in theory at least).
Because the matchup is unfavorable on that stage, not because of ridiculous hazards, and the extreme nature of the stage. FD is not a counterpick, nor is fighting Ice Climbers on FD as harsh as Metaldyke or Game & Watch on RC.
The whole point of stage striking is to find a median or close to "neutral" stage for a matchup. It only makes sense to have an equal number of "heavy" grounded stages vs. "heavy" aerial stages, an equal number of "soft" grounded stages vs. "soft" aerial stages, and a few stages roughly in between. If you start in the "middle" of the ground/air stage spectrum and build a starter (not neutral) list from there, you WILL end up with one RC for every FD.
lol
ICs on FD may not be as good as MK on RC, but they gain just as much of a boost from the stage.
..and I'm saying that's wrong. You want to start on a stage where each character has an even advantage against eachother, not some stage where both hate and the aerial character wins just because he is aerial!
Basically what Luxor said. When you make a list and include a stage where air and ground characters excel to the same amount, that stage should be used as set point, let's describe it with '0'. The whenever you include a stage from either side, so in other words you go X stages into the direction of the ground stages, you also have to go X steps into the direction of air stages (from 0 of course). If you do that, then it doesn't matter how many starter stages you have, the more you have, the more exact the result is though.
Well, RC isn't really a difficult stage to play on, it moves a bit, but otherwise there are no hazards at all. Also, I suppose you could ban any single stage (or take it off the starter list or whatever) with the argument MK excels on it. That would leave G&W on RC and ICs on FD, it doesn't seem to be much of a difference to me, both force you to strike it when you're up against that character.
So why should game 1 be in one's favor because of striking order? That's not even the main point that they set the 9-starter system to accomplish in the first place. Also GnW is fine by successfully camping vs ice climbers on battlefield.
Aerial characters are better because they are more versatile. This advantage should not be negated for Game 1, merely lessened, by providing an equal mix of ground and air stages.
Nothing Sakurai said means jack, he put in tripping.
*facepalm.jpg*
I'm going to suggest you start referring to aerial characters as metaknight, because the only versatile characters that actually have potential to place (lol) are wario and pikachu (GnW is kind of bad in 1v1). Both are *** vs metaknights that know the matchup, as well as numerous other matchups that are marginally against them. What is my point? Metaknight is obviously going to grow in dependency through clusters, and stomp out all other versatile characters, as well as the only ones that were viable against him through neutrals. Falco, ICs, Diddy, Snake? Can't start out on a favorable area, lose game 1, win game 2 perhaps, and then are counterpicked to some extreme environment despite stage banning because YOU ALLOWED HIM TO.
Well, then I say to you, If MLG was insufficient testing to prove your argument that MK is too dominant, why are you so opposed to a tourney like Apex running the MLG stagelist to see how valid your claim is?
