A Final Destination Only Ruleset

[Admiral Pit]

how do we know that it would only buff certain characters?
How do we know CG is back?
We are talking about this if every character was balanced for FD (not saying its true)

There's always certain stages that certain characters are good on. That's why we need to see how big of an advantage or disadvantage each character has, which will take time, hence why I said we need to do research on the characters.
Refer to what I said about researching the characters and how it will take time.
Well, IF every character was balanced on that stage (it wont, I can tell), then we'll see, but I certainly wouldn't want to be limited to one stage, especially when there's also Battlefield, too.

 

[LancerStaff]

2. Every character is made to at least be decently good at zoning.

3. Every character has a way of dealing with zoning.

Why does everybody have to be good at zoning or outright have a counter to it? Let's turn this around for a minute. What if instead, zoning was extremely nerfed? Look at Pit for example, his arrows don't travel forever anymore and he has significantly more endlag when firing. Or Olimar, who was essentially destroyed. Nothing's stopping Marth from getting nerfed damage dealing, and most other characters we haven't seen alot of to judge.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

In most other fighting games that stage doesn't have as much of an impact as in Smash. Again bad example.

So you'd rather ***** about the stages, instead of the characters? It can only be one or the other if we're discussing the idea of playing on Final Destination, and I would think the first instinctual response would be to balance the characters, not the stages.

Marth is one of the best zoners in the game, wtf are you talking about?

His sword gives him great range, which actually is very important to zoning, not to mention his absurd grab. To try and elaborate however; zoning is the act of keeping your opponent away and limit their approaches, and thanks to the range of his sword, and his incredible DD game in Melee, he is a constant threat to approach because of how good he can limit your options and keep you out with his incredible range.

Maybe you should learn more about the game and it's characters before you claim that I don't have any experience or knowledge of the game.

Oh, you're doing this. Completely derailing in to your tome of smash knowledge in order to drive home a non-existent point.

First of all, you're going off of the general definition of zoning, which for all intents and purposes is not relegated to any specific character. Zoning is a skill that anyone is capable of and can do to relatively different effect depending on what character you're playing. Call it footsies, call it zoning, call it whatever. What everyone whines about when it comes to FD-only game play is that of ranged zoning (or "keep away"). Without platforms, a sandbag has no chance of avoiding ranged damage from the other end of the stage.

Good thing people aren't sandbags, and are capable of figuring out ways to counter other characters, because that's generally what people do in a game where they main anywhere from 1-3 characters on average, at most, in a game with over 40+ characters.

History repeats itself.

It happened in 2 games that were rather different from each. Pretty ****ing fair comparison when you think about it like that.

This is just a terrible excuse to whinge.

If this, if that, if everything.

We have literally nothing to base on how FD only will work in Smash 4 except based on past history.

Past history suggests that FD is not a optimal stage to be the only viable one, the very first game didn't have a true FD, however in the two games after it, it hasn't been enough.

If the transition from melee to brawl is any indication, past history means about as much as you define comparing smash to other fighting games.

 

[mimgrim]

So you'd rather ***** about the stages, instead of the characters? It can only be one or the other if we're discussing the idea of playing on Final Destination, and I would think the first instinctual response would be to balance the characters, not the stages.

Missing the point.

Oh, you're doing this. Completely derailing in to your tome of smash knowledge in order to drive home a non-existent point.

First of all, you're going off of the general definition of zoning, which for all intents and purposes is not relegated to any specific character. Zoning is a skill that anyone is capable of and can do to relatively different effect depending on what character you're playing. Call it footsies, call it zoning, call it whatever. What everyone whines about when it comes to FD-only game play is that of ranged zoning (or "keep away"). Without platforms, a sandbag has no chance of avoiding ranged damage from the other end of the stage.

Good thing people aren't sandbags, and are capable of figuring out ways to counter other characters, because that's generally what people do in a game where they main anywhere from 1-3 characters on average, at most, in a game with over 40+ characters.

Definitely missing the point and going off tangent.

This is just a terrible excuse to whinge.

Can't think of a better response.

If the transition from melee to brawl is any indication, past history means about as much as you define comparing smash to other fighting games.

Ignoring a fact.

Yeeeeah. That's all I need to know about you.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

Missing the point. Definitely missing the point and going off tangent. Can't think of a better response. Ignoring a fact. Yeeeeah. That's all I need to know about you.

This is the point at which you've lost the argument, based on this next-to-content-less response but it's interesting to see how different people deal with such things.

 

[LancerStaff]

Missing the point.





Definitely missing the point and going off tangent.





Can't think of a better response.




Ignoring a fact.

Yeeeeah. That's all I need to know about you.

Why don't you just admit you're grating on people and like to derail things? I, of all people, would know.

Anyway, your "going on past games" idea is far from foolproof. Yaknow why? This is the first SSB to ever made to be played competitively and to have a significant amount of work on balance. 64, Melee and Brawl were horribly balanced and the fact that any of them, much less all of them, are remotely playable competitively is a huge coincidence.

We also have experienced fighting game developers on board. While they're not in direct control of balancing, these people would be able to weed out most infinites/chaingrabs/locks immediately. And really, do you expect one of the major new modes to essentially be unplayable? Even if something somehow slipped past them then there's always patches, and Nintendo would notice right away because of fG. Might take six months to patch, but it'll happen.

And let's think about FD only on other games for a minute. How much would it effect 64? Not much to my (admittedly narrow) knowledge. I can't think of a single OP chaingrab. (...That doesn't already work everywhere.) Camping is basically a non-issue.

Melee? ICs notwithstanding, Marth would be hurt a bit, and F/F/S would rise, mostly Falco, but I otherwise can't think of any other huge changes.

Brawl? ICs notwithstandingagain, Falco would rise, Diddy, DeDeDe, and alot of Brawl's campy cast would all rise. Some rise, some fall, but I can't imagine any giant upheavals.

To say if any of these would be more or balanced would require significant testing of course, but I think we can broadly say the games wouldn't become much more unbalanced then they already are.

 

[Road Death Wheel]

In the end i can only imagine we are going to have to do this anyway.
especially if this get bigger for the competitive scene.
New players buying the game get into the competitive side. think FD is the staple.
And its way more than possible for the amount of newer players to out number us older.
Ther ether going to end up making the more popular meta or we are going to get over shadowed again.
especially if nintendo invitational tournament is in for glory stand point.

 

[Pazzo.]

I'd like to vote now, but It's too early to tell yet. Even then, I do like me some platforms.

 

[LiteralGrill]

To those commenting on how having FD only might be a bias in balance, you realize that by saying "We need platforms!" you are perpetrating a bias as well correct? If it's bad to go only FD because it might help certain kinds of characters more then others, isn't it bad to add in a stage for the same reasons? Just a thought, but a lot of people are saying "add platforms" for the same reasons they think we shouldn't have FD only which is a really curious thing to look at.

My personal opinion is just as everyone else's, a personal one. I live in Japan and play with random Japanese smash communities very often so I'm quite accustomed to seeing only Final Destination, while still seeing the same breadth and variety of winning characters we have current in Melee/Brawl. There really isn't a drastic difference in which characters see superiority most of the time, but when those high tier a-types aren't dominating, what I will tell you is that you very often see characters over here that you see almost never on the western side of things.

First of all, it's great to see someone with a lot of hands on experience in an FD based meta game commenting.

Second, I absolutely agree with you. I see much more character variety and some people playing characters that in the sates we consider extremely low tier not even worthy of playing and brutalizing top tier characters. I've seen this in every iteration of smash out of the Japanese meta, and part of why I think this happens is by keeping the game to the one signature stage you learn all of your fundamentals that much more and have to worry less about every little stage gimmick and how to win in a flawed counterpick system. You know your opponent's character, your character, and the game that much better and get to practice in a fully developed meta that much more quickly as well. It's why I listed it as a pro.

You see, I'm under a (possibly misguided) impression that while there are many hot topics out there about tiers and stage viability worth having, that many people tend to be a "follower" on most subjects. Somebody reads on Smashboards that a character is overpowered, then one day they get beat in an online match by one person playing that character and they say to themselves "Damn, that character IS overpowered". From then on, that person feels validated in parroting what they've read, like they've seen it firsthand, even though they may have just been outplayed by a terrible version of that character. It's sort of like balance criticism in this game is a bit like an interesting game of telephone. One high profile player says something about a thing, all of the sudden everyone notices that thing at 10x worse a level than the original player ever meant to criticize.

This does happen, you aren't wrong here. The sad part is, many of the times when people bring actually proof of a subject out people don't listen either or change their minds. A great thing that came to mind was the banning of Rainbow Cruise. People said it was MK's best stage which wasn't actually true at the time the decision was made. Statistics showed that Smashville was actually the stage he did the best on. I'm not saying RC should have stayed legal or not, I am just pointing out how a vocal group of people saying something can change the opinions on things much more then facts sadly. Don't get me started on Jigglypuff and Brinstar, the stage banned for a match that doesn't exist. Grr...

It's been stated by pros at the international level (mostly western gamers) that platforms are beneficial to character variety so I'm not about to clout and doubt their judgment, but I think that grand over arcing generalizations about how platforms will be necessary in the upcoming smash are just too premature.

It is a rather western concept I agree. I think some of it comes from the ideas that you shouldn't ban something until it's proven ban worthy (Sirlin Philosophy). The only issue there is that people don't use that method to the exact, and only keep things they kind of like that aren't ban worthy so the concept doesn't work as well.

It's also worth noting that the "Fox only, Final Destination" is a stereotype perpetuated by Smashers, within the Smashing community itself. It's not like that's a stereotype that resonates as comedically with new players as it does you or me.

Essentially what I'm saying is I don't really see that as a "con". It's more of an inside joke.

It's actually something the entire fighting game community knows and even has some references in pop culture in a way. 4chan even has a banner image that references the joke, it's known outside our community at least a little.

The fact that FD only can buff characters would irritate me. That's like giving ICs, Diddy, Falco (who are top tiers), and D3 buffs if this actually was a rule in Brawl. *eyetwitch*

So here's my idea: Start with the most basic of 3 stages, with Battlefield and FD being 2 of them, and we can choose to expand on that later on or not after research.

Having Battlefield would also buff certain characters, just like having a larger stagelist can do the same. If you have Rainbow Cruise legal, Frigate Orpheon, a lot more examples are available. So it's bad to just have FD for this reason, is it also bad to add stages if it does the same?

However, I will tell you straight up starting with a smaller list and adding later doesn't work. No one is going to want to take months upon months of practice and effort and throw it away to work on a new meta with more stages. It almost permanently killed PSASBR with their patching, it was impossible to make work in Brawl despite some serious efforts and it won't happen now. The fact of the matter is even if a stage is good competitively if people don't like it it will leave. Many TOs have admitted to doing that as well.

Again, I personally regard Final Destination and Battlefield as the quintessential competitive Smash Bros. stages.

Limiting the competitive environment to just Final Destination will heavily give characters with longer range and projectiles an advantage over ones who do not (example = Fox>Bowser)

Adding Battlefield could nerf characters that have long range projectiles and give advantages to those who do not. It's okay to nerf one kind of character but not another?

There's always certain stages that certain characters are good on. That's why we need to see how big of an advantage or disadvantage each character has, which will take time, hence why I said we need to do research on the characters.
Refer to what I said about researching the characters and how it will take time.
Well, IF every character was balanced on that stage (it wont, I can tell), then we'll see, but I certainly wouldn't want to be limited to one stage, especially when there's also Battlefield, too.

See here's the problem, certain characters are going to be better with certain numbers of stages too. The difference here is a personal preference. I know I'm repeating myself a lot, but why is it okay to have balance done your way with more stages then to just have FD if by doing both you just do the same thing in different ways?

In the end i can only imagine we are going to have to do this anyway.
especially if this get bigger for the competitive scene.
New players buying the game get into the competitive side. think FD is the staple.
And its way more than possible for the amount of newer players to out number us older.
Ther ether going to end up making the more popular meta or we are going to get over shadowed again.
especially if nintendo invitational tournament is in for glory stand point.

That is one of the major reasons I made this thread. When Brawl came out people wanted more stages and maybe even items and everyone shut the idea down when the hero Ken was beaten in an items tournament. A huge fight started and eventually driving things down turned a ton of players off to playing Brawl.

If the large out pour of new players is asking for FD only it would be a phenomenal reason to use that as a ruleset. I'm not about to alienate a change to expand our community even if FD only isn't to my personal taste.[/quote][/quote]

 

[mimgrim]

To those commenting on how having FD only might be a bias in balance, you realize that by saying "We need platforms!" you are perpetrating a bias as well correct? If it's bad to go only FD because it might help certain kinds of characters more then others, isn't it bad to add in a stage for the same reasons? Just a thought, but a lot of people are saying "add platforms" for the same reasons they think we shouldn't have FD only which is a really curious thing to look at.

I haven't said anything in regards to us needing more platforms.

I am stating why I am against FD only and what will need to happen for me to support it. However based on past history, that is not likely to happen.

That and I don't trust Sakurai's judgment in regards to balance all that much anyway, we have 3 games that can support that.

Second, I absolutely agree with you. I see much more character variety and some people playing characters that in the sates we consider extremely low tier not even worthy of playing and brutalizing top tier characters. I've seen this in every iteration of smash out of the Japanese meta, and part of why I think this happens is by keeping the game to the one signature stage you learn all of your fundamentals that much more and have to worry less about every little stage gimmick and how to win in a flawed counterpick system. You know your opponent's character, your character, and the game that much better and get to practice in a fully developed meta that much more quickly as well. It's why I listed it as a pro.

Japan is extremely different from how we play in the west. The reason you see more character variety in Japan is not because of FD only but rather that Japan tournaments are free, aka they don't play for money, which is, like it or not, a huge factor on characters people might pick otherwise.

Even with FD only, America wouldn't have as much character variety as Japan does because we play extremely differently. We play for money.

This does happen, you aren't wrong here. The sad part is, many of the times when people bring actually proof of a subject out people don't listen either or change their minds. A great thing that came to mind was the banning of Rainbow Cruise. People said it was MK's best stage which wasn't actually true at the time the decision was made. Statistics showed that Smashville was actually the stage he did the best on. I'm not saying RC should have stayed legal or not, I am just pointing out how a vocal group of people saying something can change the opinions on things much more then facts sadly. Don't get me started on Jigglypuff and Brinstar, the stage banned for a match that doesn't exist. Grr...

That goes both ways in all honesty.

When people actually bring counter evidence to their proof the people who brought the proof will often ignore the counter evidence as well. Just something to keep in mind

It is a rather western concept I agree. I think some of it comes from the ideas that you shouldn't ban something until it's proven ban worthy (Sirlin Philosophy). The only issue there is that people don't use that method to the exact, and only keep things they kind of like that aren't ban worthy so the concept doesn't work as well.

Along with the western concept, it should also be kept in mind that America has the largest competitive Smash Bros community and thus has the most prominent one. Just because other cultures can do something else well doesn;t mean we can, due to different cultures.

Having Battlefield would also buff certain characters, just like having a larger stagelist can do the same. If you have Rainbow Cruise legal, Frigate Orpheon, a lot more examples are available. So it's bad to just have FD for this reason, is it also bad to add stages if it does the same?

But having both FD and BF arguably creates an overall better balance between the characters however. There are multiple stages that give different buffs and nerfs and because of all that it arguably gives overall better balance.

However, I will tell you straight up starting with a smaller list and adding later doesn't work. No one is going to want to take months upon months of practice and effort and throw it away to work on a new meta with more stages. It almost permanently killed PSASBR with their patching, it was impossible to make work in Brawl despite some serious efforts and it won't happen now. The fact of the matter is even if a stage is good competitively if people don't like it it will leave. Many TOs have admitted to doing that as well.

I know you don't like to hear it Capps but, what the majority of the community wants is a huge factor to how rules are developed.

The only exception is MK. As the majority of the community wanted him ban. But a vocal minor part of the community wanted him to be kept, albeit this minority had prominent TOs and players among it.

Adding Battlefield could nerf characters that have long range projectiles and give advantages to those who do not. It's okay to nerf one kind of character but not another?

Again. Adding both makes overall better alance.

See here's the problem, certain characters are going to be better with certain numbers of stages too. The difference here is a personal preference. I know I'm repeating myself a lot, but why is it okay to have balance done your way with more stages then to just have FD if by doing both you just do the same thing in different ways?

Because, based on past history of 3 games, having just one stage isn't enough for the American community and having multiple stages, yet at the same time not too many stages, will arguably creat overall better balance then just one stage.

Imagine FD only with the American community of Melee or Brawl. Character variety would probably go down, not up.

That is one of the major reasons I made this thread. When Brawl came out people wanted more stages and maybe even items and everyone shut the idea down when the hero Ken was beaten in an items tournament. A huge fight started and eventually driving things down turned a ton of players off to playing Brawl.

There are many other things that turned players off from Brawl.

 

[LiteralGrill]

I haven't said anything in regards to us needing more platforms.

I am stating why I am against FD only and what will need to happen for me to support it. However based on past history, that is not likely to happen.

That and I don't trust Sakurai's judgment in regards to balance all that much anyway, we have 3 games that can support that.

I never said you specifically did, but in response anyways Sakurai has never really acknowledged competitive play until now. Plus there is no way we (without modding) can even dream of figuring out balance better then the creator of the game. It is not our job to balance the game with rules, it's our job to play the game as presented to us. I'm willing to give his vision a shot as from what we know it is the way to play the game competitively as intended.

Japan is extremely different from how we play in the west. The reason you see more character variety in Japan is not because of FD only but rather that Japan tournaments are free, aka they don't play for money, which is, like it or not, a huge factor on characters people might pick otherwise.

Even with FD only, America wouldn't have as much character variety as Japan does because we play extremely differently. We play for money.

A strength of Japan is not playing for money... But that's another thread. You are correct that there are other differences and that not playing for money they might be a little more open on character selection. Not to be punny, but they fight For Glory, a very different beast, and a motivating beast in its own right however. Still, you haven't said anything against the fact that it allows the meta and player ability to improve faster which I do believe happens in Japan.

That goes both ways in all honesty.

When people actually bring counter evidence to their proof the people who brought the proof will often ignore the counter evidence as well. Just something to keep in mind

I also wont deny this is true, and sucks to be true. It hurts us as a community a lot...

Along with the western concept, it should also be kept in mind that America has the largest competitive Smash Bros community and thus has the most prominent one. Just because other cultures can do something else well doesn;t mean we can, due to different cultures.

No it doesn't, but it doesn't mean we can't either. An international standard could create bigger international events which brings a lot of hype, sponsors, and media interest.

But having both FD and BF arguably creates an overall better balance between the characters however. There are multiple stages that give different buffs and nerfs and because of all that it arguably gives overall better balance.

This may be true, but the way we select stages for one makes those skewed, the cp system is flawed and unfair at its core negating a good amount of the overall possible balance help we receive from more stages. That or everyone just "plays Smashville anyways" defeating the purpose.

I know you don't like to hear it Capps but, what the majority of the community wants is a huge factor to how rules are developed.

The only exception is MK. As the majority of the community wanted him ban. But a vocal minor part of the community wanted him to be kept, albeit this minority had prominent TOs and players among it.

I know I don't because honestly it shouldn't. Possibly making the game worse just to to preference then being unable to fix it could destroy a huge portion of the scene. This is the closest we've ever been to Nintendo handing us an official ruleset, the designer himself is leaning towards it, why not consider it? Usually companies make the rules and not the players for very good reason. If Nintendo said it would hold FD only events, would you say no and turn your back on them the first time they've opened up to us?

Because, based on past history of 3 games, having just one stage isn't enough for the American community and having multiple stages, yet at the same time not too many stages, will arguably creat overall better balance then just one stage.

Imagine FD only with the American community of Melee or Brawl. Character variety would probably go down, not up.

I honestly disagree but only slightly. I think the types of representation we would see would change, maybe the tier list a bit but no major upheavals honestly. With such a strong focus on one stages players could bring their characters to their fullest potential learning them better and faster as well.

Each matchup in theory has the best stages for a closest to matchup ratio match. Not 50/50, matchup ratio. The way we select them now creates a strong bias to certain characters as it stands, I see little difference in having a similar bias PLUS possibly supported by Nintendo and Sakurai, with balancing put into THAT stage.

There are many other things that turned players off from Brawl.

Certainly, but none turned away brand new players quite as much (maybe MK, MAYBE). We'll all grow old someday, a new influx of players can bring us hype, new heroes and villains, and make us larger then ever before so we can do things bigger then ever before. We can't afford to not do that can we?

You know especially that I WANT larger stage variety, I wasn't shy in mentioning it at the start of the thread (I've even considered the taboo of items) so I'm an open guy to things. I'm playing a little devil's advocate here, but I keep my stance to the middle, I can't deny FD only has its strengths and I could support it based on them if it was the best way to go.

 

[mimgrim]

I never said you specifically did, but in response anyways Sakurai has never really acknowledged competitive play until now. Plus there is no way we (without modding) can even dream of figuring out balance better then the creator of the game. It is not our job to balance the game with rules, it's our job to play the game as presented to us. I'm willing to give his vision a shot as from what we know it is the way to play the game competitively as intended.

I really wouldn't call For Glory something specifically for the competitive scene, since the competitive community will use friends instead to be able to make their own rulesets for online anyway. I would argue that For Glory mode is more of a bone throw for the casual-competitive play along with online statistics from Brawl (FD is the most played stage online lol).

I really don't like the whole, play the game like the creator intended. I bought the game with money, so shouldn't I be able to play the game like I want instead? If he wants the game played in a specific way then why present options to take that speciifc way away? I don't think it is a matter of him having a intended way for us to play the game, but rather a bone throw to tell us that he knows we are here.

A strength of Japan is not playing for money... But that's another thread. You are correct that there are other differences and that not playing for money they might be a little more open on character selection. Not to be punny, but they fight For Glory, a very different beast, and a motivating beast in its own right however. Still, you haven't said anything against the fact that it allows the meta and player ability to improve faster which I do believe happens in Japan.

That is all rather subjective. There really isn't any proof that their meta develops faster, it just develops differently.

This may be true, but the way we select stages for one makes those skewed, the cp system is flawed and unfair at its core negating a good amount of the overall possible balance help we receive from more stages. That or everyone just "plays Smashville anyways" defeating the purpose.

How is it flawed and unfair?

Stages skewer towards particular character, but more stages arguably skewer towards more characters then only one stage.

I know I don't because honestly it shouldn't. Possibly making the game worse just to to preference then being unable to fix it could destroy a huge portion of the scene. This is the closest we've ever been to Nintendo handing us an official ruleset, the designer himself is leaning towards it, why not consider it? Usually companies make the rules and not the players for very good reason. If Nintendo said it would hold FD only events, would you say no and turn your back on them the first time they've opened up to us?

Worse is subjective. If the majority likes it and thinks of it as better, and if it's the majority I fail to see how it will damage the scene.

As for the Nintendo stuff. I point you to the Pokemon scene. What I'm looking at is the player's competitive scene, not a potential scene from Nintendo. And something else to consider is that Smash has started out player focused and has been ever since, something else that is important to keep in mind. This is new territory for both sides.

I honestly disagree but only slightly. I think the types of representation we would see would change, maybe the tier list a bit but no major upheavals honestly. With such a strong focus on one stages players could bring their characters to their fullest potential learning them better and faster as well.

I, personally, think having multiple stages, but again not too many, allow people to learn their characters to the fullest potiental better and faster, but eh.

Each matchup in theory has the best stages for a closest to matchup ratio match. Not 50/50, matchup ratio. The way we select them now creates a strong bias to certain characters as it stands, I see little difference in having a similar bias PLUS possibly supported by Nintendo and Sakurai, with balancing put into THAT stage.

I think things I said above covers this part of the post as well.



Certainly, but none turned away brand new players quite as much (maybe MK, MAYBE). We'll all grow old someday, a new influx of players can bring us hype, new heroes and villains, and make us larger then ever before so we can do things bigger then ever before. We can't afford to not do that can we?

You know especially that I WANT larger stage variety, I wasn't shy in mentioning it at the start of the thread (I've even considered the taboo of items) so I'm an open guy to things. I'm playing a little devil's advocate here, but I keep my stance to the middle, I can't deny FD only has its strengths and I could support it based on them if it was the best way to go.[/quote]

 

[LiteralGrill]

I really wouldn't call For Glory something specifically for the competitive scene, since the competitive community will use friends instead to be able to make their own rulesets for online anyway. I would argue that For Glory mode is more of a bone throw for the casual-competitive play along with online statistics from Brawl (FD is the most played stage online lol).

I really don't like the whole, play the game like the creator intended. I bought the game with money, so shouldn't I be able to play the game like I want instead? If he wants the game played in a specific way then why present options to take that speciifc way away? I don't think it is a matter of him having a intended way for us to play the game, but rather a bone throw to tell us that he knows we are here.

I can't deny you are wrong, but can't prove it either. You make a solid point though since we're working with some conjecture here.

The "playing the game the creator intended" thing kinda comes from Sirlin as well with "do not ban until proven banworthy", but only slightly. The idea is the game presented to you is what you came to play and you should play it as close to the letter as possible. The reason why we use stock instead of time is a good example of when and why we should change things. Since we can seriously customize our fighter more then any other fighting game things get fuzzy for sure. Still, that method could apply to smash.

That is all rather subjective. There really isn't any proof that their meta develops faster, it just develops differently. I, personally, think having multiple stages, but again not too many, allow people to learn their characters to the fullest potiental better and faster, but eh.

It's straightforward, having less to learn means you can learn it faster. No denying that one. It does reduce game depth though, I may need to add that to the cons, thanks for that one.

How is it flawed and unfair?

Stages skewer towards particular character, but more stages arguably skewer towards more characters then only one stage.

Part of it is how we qualify stages as starter or counterpick, and another is how we pick stages.

Starter stages are skewed to certain types of characters. Game one is the most important game. Thus those characters get a serious buff. Even with banning the can fight on one of their best stages at least twice, the two games they need. Even if they loose game 2 they get their good stage back.

If all stages legal stages were struck from this would help enormously and end that problem as it would always give both characters the most equal stage for game one as possible. Some people aren't much open to that either though and it has its own set of pros and cons. However with this stage selection model I would agree with you wholeheartedly! It's the way we choose stages now that has flaws and is unfair, not the stages themselves as much.

Worse is subjective. If the majority likes it and thinks of it as better, and if it's the majority I fail to see how it will damage the scene.

We've done things in the past the have hurt our numbers as a scene and the competitive viability of the game "because we liked it better." The worse part is after the damage is done you can't fix it.

As for the Nintendo stuff. I point you to the Pokemon scene. What I'm looking at is the player's competitive scene, not a potential scene from Nintendo. And something else to consider is that Smash has started out player focused and has been ever since, something else that is important to keep in mind. This is new territory for both sides.

I very much can agree with that, it is a very new experience. But if Nintendo did step in and say "these are our rules" I have a strong feeling we would end up playing by them, especially if Nintendo sponsored events.

 

[mimgrim]

It's straightforward, having less to learn means you can learn it faster. No denying that one. It does reduce game depth though, I may need to add that to the cons, thanks for that one.

Personally. I think the multiple stages does actually allow you to learn your character better and faster. This is because you are put into more situations in which you need to adapt and stuff much more often, which I would argue that being put in such situations more often will make you learn just as fast even if there are overall more things.

Part of it is how we qualify stages as starter or counterpick, and another is how we pick stages.

Starter stages are skewed to certain types of characters. Game one is the most important game. Thus those characters get a serious buff. Even with banning the can fight on one of their best stages at least twice, the two games they need. Even if they loose game 2 they get their good stage back.

If all stages legal stages were struck from this would help enormously and end that problem as it would always give both characters the most equal stage for game one as possible. Some people aren't much open to that either though and it has its own set of pros and cons. However with this stage selection model I would agree with you wholeheartedly! It's the way we choose stages now that has flaws and is unfair, not the stages themselves as much.

Do remember however, nothing is perfect. In the end it really does come down to preference. America has always preferred having more then 1 stage, but only stages the community deems fair. Basically, the stages are based around the metagame we deem to be the best, whether you or I think this is good or bad is irrelevant as it is what the majority wants and that's what ultimately matters. If I had my way I would make PS2 a starter in Brawl. I would ban PS1 in Melee, Brawl, and PM. Rainbow Cruise would be legal in Melee and Brawl. I would have DP legal in Brawl. But I'm just a single person where not many people share my views. So instead I base things on how the community wants it instead, or how the community has treated stages in the past and stuff.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

Nintendo's Pokemon VGC is not suffering from a lack of attendance, all the greatest Pokemon players still consistently attend despite the existence of Smogon.

Smogon is like the "Project M" of Pokemon.

Here's the thing...

If certain characters wind up (somehow) sucking dung on FD, people will simply avoid playing that character and they move down the tier list. Just like any character does when they become less applicable.

It's up to Sakurai/Namco to simply not allow this fate to befall any of the roster. As long as their are no major outliers, it will be the most fair and balanced mode the game will have to offer for random online matches.

Platforms are really not as big a deal as being made out to be. I'm not even against Battlefield being part of the mix, but I can recognize the benefits of going toe to toe with absolutely no obstacles or environmental advantages/disadvantages when it comes to random online matches.

 

[Canuckduck]

Nintendo's Pokemon VGC is not suffering from a lack of attendance, all the greatest Pokemon players still consistently attend despite the existence of Smogon.

Smogon is like the "Project M" of Pokemon.

Here's the thing...

If certain characters wind up (somehow) sucking dung on FD, people will simply avoid playing that character and they move down the tier list. Just like any character does when they become less applicable.

It's up to Sakurai/Namco to simply not allow this fate to befall any of the roster. As long as their are no major outliers, it will be the most fair and balanced mode the game will have to offer for random online matches.

Platforms are really not as big a deal as being made out to be. I'm not even against Battlefield being part of the mix, but I can recognize the benefits of going toe to toe with absolutely no obstacles or environmental advantages/disadvantages when it comes to random online matches.

Precisely. I would like if Sakuari would focus more on game balance this time; obviously, he'll probably focus more on gameplay and graphics than balance.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Personally. I think the multiple stages does actually allow you to learn your character better and faster. This is because you are put into more situations in which you need to adapt and stuff much more often, which I would argue that being put in such situations more often will make you learn just as fast even if there are overall more things.

That's exactly why it takes longer though, you have to learn to adapt to new things that only happen on one stage then learn those kinds of things on all legal stages. with just one stage to learn those on it goes faster.

Do remember however, nothing is perfect. In the end it really does come down to preference. America has always preferred having more then 1 stage, but only stages the community deems fair. Basically, the stages are based around the metagame we deem to be the best, whether you or I think this is good or bad is irrelevant as it is what the majority wants and that's what ultimately matters. If I had my way I would make PS2 a starter in Brawl. I would ban PS1 in Melee, Brawl, and PM. Rainbow Cruise would be legal in Melee and Brawl. I would have DP legal in Brawl. But I'm just a single person where not many people share my views. So instead I base things on how the community wants it instead, or how the community has treated stages in the past and stuff.

I understand that and can't blame you for representing the community as it stands, we wouldn't be here without... us... That sounds silly even if it is true. I bet there's a better way to word that...

Here's the thing...

If certain characters wind up (somehow) sucking dung on FD, people will simply avoid playing that character and they move down the tier list. Just like any character does when they become less applicable.

That is VERY true, a strong point.

It's up to Sakurai/Namco to simply not allow this fate to befall any of the roster. As long as their are no major outliers, it will be the most fair and balanced mode the game will have to offer for random online matches.

Precisely. I would like if Sakuari would focus more on game balance this time; obviously, he'll probably focus more on gameplay and graphics than balance.

He couldn't have patched Brawl even if he wanted, the game wasn't able to be patched. I remember him saying in the past if he could we would have fixed MK as he understood how much it was an issue for ALL kinds of players. We have patches this time, insane imbalance isn't as likely to happen especially since this is one of their biggest most popular titles.

 

[Admiral Pit]

To those commenting on how having FD only might be a bias in balance, you realize that by saying "We need platforms!" you are perpetrating a bias as well correct? If it's bad to go only FD because it might help certain kinds of characters more then others, isn't it bad to add in a stage for the same reasons? Just a thought, but a lot of people are saying "add platforms" for the same reasons they think we shouldn't have FD only which is a really curious thing to look at.

Having Battlefield would also buff certain characters, just like having a larger stagelist can do the same. If you have Rainbow Cruise legal, Frigate Orpheon, a lot more examples are available. So it's bad to just have FD for this reason, is it also bad to add stages if it does the same?

However, I will tell you straight up starting with a smaller list and adding later doesn't work. No one is going to want to take months upon months of practice and effort and throw it away to work on a new meta with more stages. It almost permanently killed PSASBR with their patching, it was impossible to make work in Brawl despite some serious efforts and it won't happen now. The fact of the matter is even if a stage is good competitively if people don't like it it will leave. Many TOs have admitted to doing that as well.

Battlefield is probably more balanced than FD, believe it or not. FD is just a big flat stage, suitable for campers and runners (provided they aren't against projectile users). Battlefield is smaller with some platforms, still decent for campers, but also not terrible for the slower more powerful characters. I know I use Bowser as an example a lot, but he's probably the perfect example since he probably would be one of those characters not seen much after a few months to 2 years tops even with his buffs shown.

See here's the problem, certain characters are going to be better with certain numbers of stages too. The difference here is a personal preference. I know I'm repeating myself a lot, but why is it okay to have balance done your way with more stages then to just have FD if by doing both you just do the same thing in different ways?

Well, would you rather have the SAME characters have an advantage ALL THE TIME because there's only 1 stage, the one that gives them a major edge? In such a scenario, a character that's highly vulnerable to camping (say Bowser for example) would never make it far when it's FD all the time. I'm gonna use Brawl as an example for this. As such, Diddy, ICs, Falco, and D3 to an extent would be dominating if FD was the only stage... with OP'd MK there too just because he's OP'd. Having a few other stages gives those other characters a chance if it helps them, and I certainly wouldn't want to play a competitive with just lame old FD. The existence of counterpicks is to give characters better chances. Sure some may have it better than others, and sometimes we have stages that will eventually be banned after long-enough research, but that's why we take time to evaluate these things.
Once we know the game's mechanics, the nature and hazards (if any) of the stages, characters and all, then we can establish a stage list, but if anything, BF and FD have to be in it, not just FD.

 

[Road Death Wheel]

I don't know why people have such a hard time understanding
that FD can be balanced for all character when done right.
Besides this thread is more like we should test drive the for glory rule set when the game comes out.
If its as solid as the few people on smashboards like myself say. Than perhaps we can adopt (not adapt to)
the for glory rule set as well. If its a bust than back to our usual.
People have such issues with change -..-

 

[LiteralGrill]

Battlefield is probably more balanced than FD, believe it or not. FD is just a big flat stage, suitable for campers and runners (provided they aren't against projectile users). Battlefield is smaller with some platforms, still decent for campers, but also not terrible for the slower more powerful characters. I know I use Bowser as an example a lot, but he's probably the perfect example since he probably would be one of those characters not seen much after a few months to 2 years tops even with his buffs shown.

Well, would you rather have the SAME characters have an advantage ALL THE TIME because there's only 1 stage, the one that gives them a major edge? In such a scenario, a character that's highly vulnerable to camping (say Bowser for example) would never make it far when it's FD all the time. I'm gonna use Brawl as an example for this. As such, Diddy, ICs, Falco, and D3 to an extent would be dominating if FD was the only stage... with OP'd MK there too just because he's OP'd. Having a few other stages gives those other characters a chance if it helps them, and I certainly wouldn't want to play a competitive with just lame old FD. The existence of counterpicks is to give characters better chances. Sure some may have it better than others, and sometimes we have stages that will eventually be banned after long-enough research, but that's why we take time to evaluate these things.
Once we know the game's mechanics, the nature and hazards (if any) of the stages, characters and all, then we can establish a stage list, but if anything, BF and FD have to be in it, not just FD.

See though this was just mentioned earlier, the tier list would just be a list that didn't show those characters being as strong. Is there anything wrong with that?

 

[Ravio_Yo]

Or Olimar, who was essentially destroyed.

lol

I disagree with an FD only stagelist, as Battlefield is, in Melee, Brawl, and Project M, more balanced than FD, and I find that unlikely to change/

 

[mimgrim]

I don't know why people have such a hard time understanding
that FD can be balanced for all character when done right.

It's not a matter of when. It's a matter of if. And it's a very very big if.

Besides this thread is more like we should test drive the for glory rule set when the game comes out.

I suppose we should do time instead of stock as well, since that will most likely what For Glory will have.

If its as solid as the few people on smashboards like myself say. Than perhaps we can adopt (not adapt to)

Again. That's a big if.

People have such issues with change -..-

If that were true then Melee wouldn't be where it is today.

People don't like change when they feel it is for the worse and not for the better.

Nintendo showing they know about the competitive scene? That's great.

Totally changing how we have developed stuff over the past 13 or so years. Yea no. Many people are not going to find that change to be for the better.


EDIT - It's very interesting to note that most people talking about change and stuff are *mostly* new members, not trying to insinuate anything here as I'm still rather new to Smashboards myself. Just something that is on the interesting side.

 

[MM3K]

The way I see the current rules for stage picking is (the way I understand it) "First match: Player 1 wins in starter stage, Second match: Player 2 counterpicks to its advantage, wins; Last match: Player 1 counterpicks to its advantage, wins", so I really think it's flawed since it favors the winner of the first match a whole lot (again to my understanding, I've never played that way since the few of us who play here in Mexico favor FD only, if just for tradition), whereas the FD only ruleset allows for absolute test of skill.

As for the problem of ranged zoning, well I can only ask one question, does Falco/Fox/"high-tier character with zoning capabilities" win EVERY match against, say Marth/Jiggs/"high-tier character with inferior/close-ranged zoning capabilities"? It might become difficult for them, but not outright impossible, and if it was, they would just be moved to a lower position, wouldn't they?

 

[LiteralGrill]

The way I see the current rules for stage picking is (the way I understand it) "First match: Player 1 wins in starter stage, Second match: Player 2 counterpicks to its advantage, wins; Last match: Player 1 counterpicks to its advantage, wins", so I really think it's flawed since it favors the winner of the first match a whole lot (again to my understanding, I've never played that way since the few of us who play here in Mexico favor FD only, if just for tradition), whereas the FD only ruleset allows for absolute test of skill.

As for the problem of ranged zoning, well I can only ask one question, does Falco/Fox/"high-tier character with zoning capabilities" win EVERY match against, say Marth/Jiggs/"high-tier character with inferior/close-ranged zoning capabilities"? It might become difficult for them, but not outright impossible, and if it was, they would just be moved to a lower position, wouldn't they?

That's the case honestly, if they couldn't handle they'd just be in a lower tier, like characters who can't handle now.

 

[mimgrim]

The way I see the current rules for stage picking is (the way I understand it) "First match: Player 1 wins in starter stage, Second match: Player 2 counterpicks to its advantage, wins; Last match: Player 1 counterpicks to its advantage, wins", so I really think it's flawed since it favors the winner of the first match a whole lot (again to my understanding, I've never played that way since the few of us who play here in Mexico favor FD only, if just for tradition), whereas the FD only ruleset allows for absolute test of skill.

It's more like this (I am going to assume 5 stage start and 8 stage allowed in all with 1 ban allowed and a Bo3);

First the two players play RPS to decide who gets to strike first;

After player A wins the stage strike will go as 1-2-1, meaning the player who won RPS will ultimately get to define the final stage to be played on (Don't worry, this is completely fair since if the player who lost RPS got to ultimately pick the final stage they would be at more of an advantage then player A because they can base their strikes on the stage player A striked)

Player A takes the stage to, say, Lylat Cruise and wins.

Player B can counter pick now. Player A however has 1 ban and bans Player B's best CP stage making him go to second best. Player B wins.

Player B does the same thing to player A now. Player A wins.

This is just an example, but ultimately you can manipulate the stages to be not quite as unfavorable for you.

You also have Dave's Stupid Rule, and variations to it, to where the same stage can't be picked twice in a row or be played on twice in a round.

This is how we have played for forever and there really hasn't been anything wrong with it. I would argue it is fairer then an FD only ruleset.

As for the problem of ranged zoning, well I can only ask one question, does Falco/Fox/"high-tier character with zoning capabilities" win EVERY match against, say Marth/Jiggs/"high-tier character with inferior/close-ranged zoning capabilities"? It might become difficult for them, but not outright impossible, and if it was, they would just be moved to a lower position, wouldn't they?

Marth is highly considered to go even or very close to even with the spacies, because his zoning isn't inferior to them, and even beat them on FD.

Jiggs can weave past their projectiles, so it isn't a problem for it.

 

[Road Death Wheel]

It's not a matter of when. It's a matter of if. And it's a very very big if.



I suppose we should do time instead of stock as well, since that will most likely what For Glory will have.



Again. That's a big if.



If that were true then Melee wouldn't be where it is today.

People don't like change when they feel it is for the worse and not for the better.

Nintendo showing they know about the competitive scene? That's great.

Totally changing how we have developed stuff over the past 13 or so years. Yea no. Many people are not going to find that change to be for the better.


EDIT - It's very interesting to note that most people talking about change and stuff are *mostly* new members, not trying to insinuate anything here as I'm still rather new to Smashboards myself. Just something that is on the interesting side.

What we consider big if's are two different things.
When sakurai and his team state there working alot more on balance this time around. That dose not come of as a big if . especially when hes never focused on balance before.
And we don't know what for glory time/stock rule is. so made an assumption on the stock part im human.

*edit* and yeah it is interesting that only new members are talking about change.
iv been on this forum for 2 years i only made an account recently so i could talk about smash 4.
But if only new members are talking about FD format than thats something to think about to. we don't want to push away potential community members with our unwillingness to bend a little beside like i said before i don't want our community to be overshadowed by another newer bigger and more popular community.
like how smogon is dominant to pokemon online. even though all the pro's play pokemon online.

 

[mimgrim]

What we consider big if's are two different things.
When sakurai and his team state there working alot more on balance this time around. That dose not come of as a big if . especially when hes never focused on balance before.

Yeeeeeeah. I don't have that much faith in Sakurai. And I have doubts in how much he is actually focusing on balance even, pretty sure he said in an interview balance wasn't one of the most important thing but I'll have to find it again.

 

[MM3K]

It's more like this (I am going to assume 5 stage start and 8 stage allowed in all with 1 ban allowed and a Bo3);

First the two players play RPS to decide who gets to strike first;

After player A wins the stage strike will go as 1-2-1, meaning the player who won RPS will ultimately get to define the final stage to be played on (Don't worry, this is completely fair since if the player who lost RPS got to ultimately pick the final stage they would be at more of an advantage then player A because they can base their strikes on the stage player A striked)

Player A takes the stage to, say, Lylat Cruise and wins.

Player B can counter pick now. Player A however has 1 ban and bans Player B's best CP stage making him go to second best. Player B wins.

Player B does the same thing to player A now. Player A wins.

This is just an example, but ultimately you can manipulate the stages to be not quite as unfavorable for you.

You also have Dave's Stupid Rule, and variations to it, to where the same stage can't be picked twice in a row or be played on twice in a round.

This is how we have played for forever and there really hasn't been anything wrong with it. I would argue it is fairer then an FD only ruleset.



Marth is highly considered to go even or very close to even with the spacies, because his zoning isn't inferior to them, and even beat them on FD.

Jiggs can weave past their projectiles, so it isn't a problem for it.

Thanks for the clarification, I never really did pay to much attention to the stage picking procedure.

As for the answer to my question, and I'm not actually talking about just Marth and Jiggs, especially since I play P:M the most, as it stands, I really do believe most of the cast has a chance against proyectile-heavy characters EVEN playing only FD, as for the rest I believe it comes down to specific match ups and they wouldn't have much of a chance anyway.

What do I think this means for Smash 4, especially since Sakurai is supposedly balancing the game in a FD-only manner? I think it would end up being mostly the same way (mostly because P:M is heavily influenced by Melee, and Smash 4 leans heavily for a Brawl styled experience).

That's the case honestly, if they couldn't handle they'd just be in a lower tier, like characters who can't handle now.

Worst case scenario it really turns out to be "Fox only. FD only" kinda deal, no? can't really say that I'm too big of a supporter on that either.

 

[Road Death Wheel]

Yeeeeeeah. I don't have that much faith in Sakurai. And I have doubts in how much he is actually focusing on balance even, pretty sure he said in an interview balance wasn't one of the most important thing but I'll have to find it again.

I believe i read that to.
But he never stated what was the most important though. he could be focusing and pleasing the community or he could be making another MK Xd.
If your faith is the only thing being problematic. like i said before we can just try it. and i think thats the goal here.

ps. i edited my previous post have a look at it.

 

[mimgrim]

What do I think this means for Smash 4, especially since Sakurai is supposedly balancing the game in a FD-only manner?

Yea. That's a misconception I should have addressed sooner.

I know for a fact that the way he balance characters is by starting out on a flat stage but then adding more and more elements to the process.

@ Dr. James Rustles , I think you were the one who has quick access to the interview I'm thinking of.

*edit* and yeah it is interesting that only new members are talking about change.
iv been on this forum for 2 years i only made an account recently so i could talk about smash 4.
But if only new members are talking about FD format than thats something to think about to. we don't want to push away potential community members with our unwillingness to bend a little beside like i said before i don't want our community to be overshadowed by another newer bigger and more popular community.
like how smogon is dominant to pokemon online. even though all the pro's play pokemon online.

Well the thing is. I have doubts on how many of these new members are going to actually stick around, one way or another, as many of them are probably jsut here for the Smash 4 hype and won;t stick around that long after release more then likely, that's how a lot of game communities go when they get new games, and looking at the poll, we can see the majority prefers no FD anyway

 

[Admiral Pit]

See though this was just mentioned earlier, the tier list would just be a list that didn't show those characters being as strong. Is there anything wrong with that?

I'm aware that the tier list doesn't show the true potentials of characters. It's just we know that a tier list will appear eventually, then the bad stuff will happen and all. But what I'm saying is that an FD-only ruleset is a bad idea.

 

[Road Death Wheel]

Yea. That's a misconception I should have addressed sooner.

I know for a fact that the way he balance characters is by starting out on a flat stage but then adding more and more elements to the process.

@ Dr. James Rustles , I think you were the one who has quick access to the interview I'm thinking of.

Well the thing is. I have doubts on how many of these new members are going to actually stick around, one way or another, as many of them are probably jsut here for the Smash 4 hype and won;t stick around that long after release more then likely, that's how a lot of game communities go when they get new games, and looking at the poll, we can see the majority prefers no FD anyway

You are quite correct.
I myself technically being new would probably take a break from smash boards when the game comes out. But i think would come back when the serious talking about tourny rules and stages come by. I love a good discussion. (i hope you don't consider us arguing. D;
edit* i think more of these votes come from core community.

 

[mimgrim]

It still shows something that over 3/4s of the voters have voted for no and under 1/4 of the voters for yes.

 

[Road Death Wheel]

It still shows something that over 3/4s of the voters have voted for no and under 1/4 of the voters for yes.

You are very correct. I am for FD only meta to coexist with our rule set.
And that's only if nintendo supports us with more tourney's and perhaps VGC in the likely FD rule set.
That is a big if. but it does not sound impossible. im a optimist.
if nintedo dose support us with tourney's in FD rule set than well have to do something or another community will.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

Yea. That's a misconception I should have addressed sooner.

I know for a fact that the way he balance characters is by starting out on a flat stage but then adding more and more elements to the process.

@ Dr. James Rustles , I think you were the one who has quick access to the interview I'm thinking of.

Here is the article for the interview you are thinking of, mimgrim.

There is an older interview where he talks about balance on a flat stage as well but I can't find it.

 

[LiteralGrill]

This is how we have played for forever and there really hasn't been anything wrong with it. I would argue it is fairer then an FD only ruleset.

WOAH! Quick fact check, that isn't the way we have ALWAYS done it. Melee has the period of time when random was how stages were selected and we've had other home brew kinda things in the interim before Random, then what we use now.

I'm aware that the tier list doesn't show the true potentials of characters. It's just we know that a tier list will appear eventually, then the bad stuff will happen and all. But what I'm saying is that an FD-only ruleset is a bad idea.

I figured that much, I'm just looking for a more concrete "why" and to make you think a little on the subject. (I wont lie, I don't want FD only either, am I playing good devil's advocate?) I just want to open up discussion and think about this a little as it's an important subject.

 

[mimgrim]

WOAH! Quick fact check, that isn't the way we have ALWAYS done it. Melee has the period of time when random was how stages were selected and we've had other home brew kinda things in the interim before Random, then what we use now.

By for forever, I generally just mean a very long time and am exaggerating. :L

I know there was a time with Melee where items were played with them being on and other stuff.

 

[Canuckduck]

WOAH! Quick fact check, that isn't the way we have ALWAYS done it. Melee has the period of time when random was how stages were selected and we've had other home brew kinda things in the interim before Random, then what we use now.

Keep in mind though, the only applicable stages were ones with no hazards or enemies, with a balanced environment (usually consisting of 3 platforms).

 

[Road Death Wheel]

Keep in mind though, the only applicable stages were ones with no hazards or enemies, with a balanced environment (usually consisting of 3 platforms).

the only stages we really use are BF FD and smashvile

 

[MM3K]

Yea. That's a misconception I should have addressed sooner.

I know for a fact that the way he balance characters is by starting out on a flat stage but then adding more and more elements to the process.

@ Dr. James Rustles , I think you were the one who has quick access to the interview I'm thinking of.

Would that be like, testing and balancing the characters on different environments for strictly competitive purposes, or just to see how would they fare on the different game modes' scenarios (Event mode, Classic mode, etc.)? If it's the latter, I can see it being so that, for example, a character with poor jumping prowess can at least make it through, say adventure mode; if not, well, FD-only rulesets lose hope.

On a different note, if we see Nintendo-sponsored events, these would be FD-only, right? if so how many people from this community do you think would be eager to assist?