A Final Destination Only Ruleset

[Deleted member 245254]

no.

There could/would inevitably be some character(s) who truly dominate on FD. Making sure we have other stages as well as a counterpicking system and stage striking will ensure these characters won't always get their best stage.

If moderate balance is achievable in any other game where a chocked cast full of characters punch each other in platform-less setups, why wouldn't this be applicable to Smash?

You don't know, at any level, that any character in SSB4 can and will dominate in a FD-only meta. It's perfectly feasible the game could be balanced around a flat, platform-less stage. There's just no reason to believe it's impossible, because it has already been done, many, many, many times before in other games.

The past literally dictates nothing in the upcoming Smash game, except possible returning roster characters and the fact you lose a life by falling off the stage.

 

[Road Death Wheel]

Well. I'm not trying claiming or trying to speak for the person, but, it generally comes from past experiences.

In Melee you have a character like Marth and Falco, arguably the 2 best Zoners in the game, who are extremely good at abusing the stage. There is also ICs, but I shouldn't have to go into detail with them.

Brawl also has Marth, Falco, and ICs who are are still good at abusing the stage along with Diddy, Olimar, DDD, and Snake.

And despite Melee and Brawl being different, FD still overly supported zoners or characters with CGs more then other characters.

Basically, past dictates that this trend will most likely continue with smash 4.

But you of all people should know things change drastically for every rendition of smash. im not saying that history does not make a point because it does. But hes making it seem like its impossible. "inevitable"
Im not saying that unbalance can't happen im just saying balance can this time around. Even if it is unlikely.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

If this is anything other than an attempt to be passive-aggressively patronizing then I would eat my hat. I'm a new poster but I have lurked Smashboards since Melee. I tend to judge a person by the quality of their words, not the quantity of their post count, it wouldn't hurt you in the least to attempt the same.

You can't deny there is a strong correlation between being new (ignorance) and having unrealistic ideas. This applies everywhere. Nobody is an exception. Take a look at all the pro-item, pro-Rainbow Cruise junk. Most of the proponents expect to change the status quo to a scene to which they are new or don't belong.

Take this FD-Only discussion for example. There is no way in hell that, barring severe Nintendo encroachment into every major tournament, that there will ever be a Final Destination only rule set. Stage lists tend to get smaller, but they don't disappear completely. We'll continue playing Smash Bros. pretty much the same way we always have. If Smash 4 had marked the first entry in the series, I might have conceded there would be a FD-Only, time based ruleset because there was no precedent, no experience, and especially no culture that drives the way we already play.

And yes, you are being defensive. No, he's not being passive aggressive because there's no aggressive part. Patronization is not the same as aggression. Learn the difference. He's not pushing your ****. Relax. For someone who is 25 years old you, you should know better than to puff up so much when someone goes off-topic about a very real thing. If you want people to take you seriously, don't make an issue out of imaginary ad homs.

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

Gods & mods be good, this will never happen. Every Time match will boil down to getting ahead a point and then building up slag insulation while evading. No thank you. This is Super Smash Bros., not Cat & Mouse Bros.

You make it seem like your making the game with the counter pick system in mind?
like can you justify your point?
Iv heard way better ones than this.
How are you sure this is inevitable?
how would the counter pick system really change the game?
give me a concrete reason so i can dismiss you as opinionated.

He's not making it sound like he's designed the game at all, Lol. We've told you constantly why we know a counter-pick system is better. Not a single person besides you cares if you dismiss it because you think it's opinionated. You're so impossible to please - after participating in and making threads about this issue, you're still not satisfied with any answers given to you. You are not some function through which we divine celestial truths about how to play smash.

However, I am sure you know that. No one else will call you out on it, but you only join these discussions for the sake of arguing.

 

[mimgrim]

But you of all people should know things change drastically for every rendition of smash. im not saying that history does not make a point because it does. But hes making it seem like its impossible. "inevitable"
Im not saying that unbalance can't happen im just saying balance can this time around. Even if it is unlikely.

Yet, despite the drastic differences between Melee and Brawl, FD still stayed the same in how it functioned and favored characters. The chances of FD being any different in Smash 4 is low. I don;t know what else to say lol.

Gods & mods be good, this will never happen. Every Time match will boil down to getting ahead a point and then building up slag insulation while evading. No thank you. This is Super Smash Bros., not Cat & Mouse Bros.

Just to clear things up. You do realize I was being satirical right?

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

Just to clear things up. You do realize I was being satirical right?

no

r00d

You should make your satire more like satire. You know, at least including a clause that highlights the absurdity of an idea.

 

[mimgrim]

no

r00d

You should make your satire more like satire. You know, at least including a clause that highlights the absurdity of an idea.

I thought it was obvious from the start.

The internet beats me again I see.

 

[Road Death Wheel]

You can't deny there is a strong correlation between being new (ignorance) and having unrealistic ideas. This applies everywhere. Nobody is an exception. Take a look at all the pro-item, pro-Rainbow Cruise junk. Most of the proponents expect to change the status quo to a scene to which they are new or don't belong.

Take this FD-Only discussion for example. There is no way in hell that, barring severe Nintendo encroachment into every major tournament, that there will ever be a Final Destination only rule set. Stage lists tend to get smaller, but they don't disappear completely. We'll continue playing Smash Bros. pretty much the same way we always have. If Smash 4 had marked the first entry in the series, I might have conceded there would be a FD-Only, time based ruleset because there was no precedent, no experience, and especially no culture that drives the way we already play.

And yes, you are being defensive. No, he's not being passive aggressive because there's no aggressive part. Patronization is not the same as aggression. Learn the difference. He's not pushing your ****. Relax. For someone who is 25 years old you, you should know better than to puff up so much when someone goes off-topic about a very real thing. If you want people to take you seriously, don't make an issue out of imaginary ad homs.



Gods & mods be good, this will never happen. Every Time match will boil down to getting ahead a point and then building up slag insulation while evading. No thank you. This is Super Smash Bros., not Cat & Mouse Bros.



He's not making it sound like he's designed the game at all, Lol. We've told you constantly why we know a counter-pick system is better. Not a single person besides you cares if you dismiss it because you think it's opinionated. You're so impossible to please - after participating in and making threads about this issue, you're still not satisfied with any answers given to you. You are not some function through which we divine celestial truths about how to play smash.

However, I am sure you know that. No one else will call you out on it, but you only join these discussions for the sake of arguing.

Oh hey quilt. Im playing devil advocate don't go ape on me Xd
Im for Fd meta but im completely ok with our meta in fact you convinced me in other threads. I would just like to see a counter character meta over counter pick. Iv seriously givin up on literally trying to change peoples mind. Im just giving food for thought. I apologize if i upset you friend.

I miss your old avatar Xd.

Oh and yeah i really love to argue. seriously i do. Its one of the traits i look for in a mate Xd
*edit* srry to admit it but i was kinda waiting for you to voice your opinion as well Xd ur one of my favorite people to argue with. So take that as your will.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

You can't deny there is a strong correlation between being new (ignorance) and having unrealistic ideas. This applies everywhere. Nobody is an exception. Take a look at all the pro-item, pro-Rainbow Cruise junk. Most of the proponents expect to change the status quo to a scene to which they are new or don't belong.

FD-only isn't an unrealistic idea. It's an idea that is reality and being implemented in the very game we're all hyping for, buckle up amigo.

Take this FD-Only discussion for example. There is no way in hell that, barring severe Nintendo encroachment into every major tournament, that there will ever be a Final Destination only rule set. Stage lists tend to get smaller, but they don't disappear completely. We'll continue playing Smash Bros. pretty much the same way we always have. If Smash 4 had marked the first entry in the series, I might have conceded there would be a FD-Only, time based ruleset because there was no precedent, no experience, and especially no culture that drives the way we already play.

I'm not really arguing over the possibility of there being a Final Destination rule-set at tournaments, despite that being the ulterior question of the thread. I'm only making the statement that balance is possible on Final Destination simply because it is an opportunity to focus on the characters. To state that such a thing is impossible, and that certain characters will have an advantage is to not only miss the point, but to basically ignore two things : 1. Many games already do this (every other fighting games), and 2. The fact that Smash 4 is going to be a brand new game with (expectedly) new mechanics going in to its meta.

And yes, you are being defensive. No, he's not being passive aggressive because there's no aggressive part. Patronization is not the same as aggression. Learn the difference. He's not pushing your ****. Relax. For someone who is 25 years old you, you should know better than to puff up so much when someone goes off-topic about a very real thing. If you want people to take you seriously, don't make an issue out of imaginary ad homs.

I'm not sure who made you the grown-up here, but my last interest out of this discussion is to make things personal, which you have attempted to do here by mentioning my age (wtf?) as if it's relevant in any form. You should know better than that, friend, if you've spent any decent amount of time having any rational form of debate on a message board.

Judging by how you're simply attempting to knock me down a peg by playing side-kick with this paragraph here, I'm not really expecting this tangent to turn in to anything constructive, so I'll just leave that there.

The ones making the real point are the people you are arguing against. It's a very real point that things may as well be balanced on FD, moderately well for all characters. To simply ignore it and continue to parrot the old ways as if they are not subject to change makes you the one putting your fingers in your ears, not us.

 

[Road Death Wheel]

Okay there to many personal jabs being thrown around now im requesting the fourm be locked the last thing i want if for this thread to become like the (why do people disagree with tech skill) fourm but i think im to late. lets get falkoopa in this ***** Xd

 

[mimgrim]

Okay there to many personal jabs being thrown around now im requesting the fourm be locked the last thing i want if for this thread to become like the (why do people disagree with tech skill) fourm but i think im to late. lets get falkoopa in this ***** Xd

Wait for Capps to come back. meaningful discussion will happen again then.

 

[Road Death Wheel]

Wait for Capps to come back. meaningful discussion will happen again then.

yeah i tried to keep topic but he seems better at it than I.
i personally think he would be disappointed that it degraded to this Xd

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

FD-only isn't an unrealistic idea. It's an idea that is reality and being implemented in the very game we're all hyping for, buckle up amigo.

For Glory != Competitive scene. It's not the reality. All online tournaments will (so far) need to take place between friends, which means custom settings. Real life tournament will not change their rule sets for the sake of probably laggy online features.

FD-only isn't an unrealistic idea. It's an idea that is reality and being implemented in the very game we're all hyping for, buckle up amigo.

I'm only making the statement that balance is possible on Final Destination simply because it is an opportunity to focus on the characters.

...The ones making the real point are the people you are arguing against. It's a very real point that things may as well be balanced on FD, moderately well for all characters. To simply ignore it and continue to parrot the old ways as if they are not subject to change makes you the ignorant one, not us.

But every Smash game has been balanced on a stage like Final Destination, and look how well that turned out, right?

I'm not sure who made you the grown-up here, but my last interest out of this discussion is to make things personal, which you have attempted to do here by mentioning my age (wtf?) as if it's relevant in any form. You should know better than that, friend, if you've spent any decent amount of time having any rational form of debate on a message board.

Judging by how you're simply attempting to knock me down a peg by playing side-kick with this paragraph here, I'm not really expecting this tangent to turn in to anything constructive, so I'll just leave that there.

I'm not trying to be a grownup, though. I'm not here to be your friend and I'm definitely not playing side-kick (I have no idea where you are getting this from). I think your age is relevant because all I said is that by now you should have the experience to recognize an off-topic point and not waste energy on it, especially an off-topic point that actually has a basis. mimgrim even admitted it was off-topic, Lol. Relax.

So far you've called me amigo and friend, but you still stand to accuse mimgrim of being patronizing. Making things personal couldn't be the last thing you wanted because in addition to over-reacting, you made a post that's a diatribe against mimgrim:

Oh dear me, you've pushed pretentious-ness to new heights.

I'm not defensive at all. He initiated with attitude so I responded in kind. If he wants to continue failing to have his own opinion and instead opting to "speak for the people" ignorantly, that's his loss of worth, not mine.

--

Okay there to many personal jabs being thrown around now im requesting the fourm be locked the last thing i want if for this thread to become like the (why do people disagree with tech skill) fourm but i think im to late. lets get falkoopa in this ***** Xd

The thread doesn't need to be locked. We just have a hyper-sensitive Sonic main and an admitted contrarian who's brand new to competitive play.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

Guys...c'mon. We all know the best stage to play on.

 

[Road Death Wheel]

For Glory != Competitive scene. It's not the reality. All online tournaments will (so far) need to take place between friends, which means custom settings. Real life tournament will not change their rule sets for the sake of probably laggy online features.



But every Smash game has been balanced on a stage like Final Destination, and look how well that turned out, right?



I'm not trying to be a grownup, though. I'm not here to be your friend and I'm definitely not playing side-kick (I have no idea where you are getting this from). I think your age is relevant because all I said is that by now you should have the experience to recognize an off-topic point and not waste energy on it, especially an off-topic point that actually has a basis. mimgrim even admitted it was off-topic, Lol. Relax.

So far you've called me amigo and friend, but you still stand to accuse mimgrim of being patronizing. Making things personal couldn't be the last thing you wanted because in addition to over-reacting, you made a post that's a diatribe against mimgrim:



--



The thread doesn't need to be locked. We just have a hyper-sensitive Sonic main and an admitted contrarian who's brand new to competitive play.

Hmm? i know im the contrarian. but i don't think im new to competitiveness i was at the canada tourney not to long ago. not to mention a few home run tourney is my neighborhood for yeahs using smash boards rule set. Im just argumentative.
I know counter picks is the better choice i just like this idea is that wrong?
*edit* we shall now only discuss hyrule temple meta game since it's clearly the most Superior of all smash levels.
Second place is the palutena temple.

 

[mimgrim]

I'm not trying to be a grownup, though. I'm not here to be your friend and I'm definitely not playing side-kick (I have no idea where you are getting this from). I think your age is relevant because all I said is that by now you should have the experience to recognize an off-topic point and not waste energy on it, especially an off-topic point that actually has a basis. mimgrim even admitted it was off-topic, Lol. Relax.

So far you've called me amigo and friend, but you still stand to accuse mimgrim of being patronizing. Making things personal couldn't be the last thing you wanted because in addition to over-reacting, you made a post that's a diatribe against mimgrim:

Someone called you my side-kick? LOL! Robin, go fetch me the Batmobile.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

Someone called you my side-kick? LOL! Robin, go fetch me the Batmobile.

Ah, okay, I see what he meant by side-kick now. It can't be true, though - we're not Facebook official.

 

[mimgrim]

Ah, okay, I see what he meant by side-kick now. It can't be true - we're not even Facebook official.

Who needs Facebook when we fight crime.

 

[Road Death Wheel]

Who needs Facebook when we fight crime.

Yeah who needs parents too!

 

[Deleted member 245254]

Okay there to many personal jabs being thrown around now im requesting the fourm be locked the last thing i want if for this thread to become like the (why do people disagree with tech skill) fourm but i think im to late. lets get falkoopa in this ***** Xd

For Glory != Competitive scene. It's not the reality. All online tournaments will (so far) need to take place between friends, which means custom settings. Real life tournament will not change their rule sets for the sake of probably laggy online features.

True.

But every Smash game has been balanced on a stage like Final Destination, and look how well that turned out, right?

Citation, please.

I'm not trying to be a grownup, though. I'm not here to be your friend and I'm definitely not playing side-kick (I have no idea where you are getting this from). I think your age is relevant because all I said is that by now you should have the experience to recognize an off-topic point and not waste energy on it, especially an off-topic point that actually has a basis. mimgrim even admitted it was off-topic, Lol. Relax.

Your statements are antagonizing, whether you mean them to be or not. You're citing my age (which is of zero relevance to anything, it can only be interpreted as talking down to me), and you're approaching the discussion from a standpoint of having a better understanding of the content than me, which isn't useful for debate it just makes you look pompous.

You even tell me to relax, which is probably a cardinal sin in the area of debate/arguments. You're taking it upon yourself to assume you know me, and my personal, real-life reactions to this subject. Like I'm over here tearing my hair out at the computer monitor. You sir, are the one patronizing, along with your "side kick".

To be a side kick is to assist a friend in getting high ground in a debate without actually adding anything to the debate, instead just putting down the opponent with personal attacks/assumptions of their person. That's you right now.

So far you've called me amigo and friend, but you still stand to accuse mimgrim of being patronizing. Making things personal couldn't be the last thing you wanted because in addition to over-reacting, you made a post that's a diatribe against mimgrim

That's not a diatribe. It's an observation. If you are so full of yourself and your opinion that you ignore people who oppose your opinion, well, you can do the math there. Though I do admit, calling you "friend" and "amigo" was meant to be patronizing, but let's be fair here, you struck first.

The thread doesn't need to be locked. We just have a hyper-sensitive Sonic main and an admitted contrarian who's brand new to competitive play.

I'm not a Sonic main, nor am I hyper-sensitive, I never have been a Sonic main (though I'd like to be in the upcoming Smash). I'm not new to competitive play either. See, right here, two direct assumptions, made in-directly in an effort to insult me or invalidate my opinion.

This can go back and forth forever, but I'd honestly rather be talking about Final Destination and the implications For Glory mode will have on the competitive scene. It'd probably be intelligent to respond on topic rather than continue this turn-based chiding.

In short, Final Destination is a simple stage that lends itself to the art of balancing characters easier. If Sakurai approaches this game with the intention of balancing characters' performance to the tune of flat stages, then I don't see a problem.

Where disagreements start to happen is when folks look at past games, and draw from those as a reason for why it absolutely can't work. My argument is that the difference between the games is much to staggering to make such absolute assumptions on the balance of the game in an FD-only mode in the upcoming SSB4.

I have not made any points to the contrary of this as of yet.

 

[RODO]

I think it'd be more likely for FD to be the only starter stage and have every other legal stage be a counter pick. But FD being the only stage?? Probably not very likely since there is nothing wrong with most of the stages.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

I think it's really important to try and look at this issue from a different perspective. It's easy to read it and initially let your top spin, instantly rejecting the concept, there's several years of a certain type of format ingrained in to the way you know how to play competitive Smash.

It's incredibly difficult to think outside of that box, but I think this discussion really demands it. With that in mind, ask yourself this question...

Is it possible or absolutely impossible to balance our roster of characters around a flat stage?

 

[RODO]

I think it's really important to try and look at this issue from a different perspective. It's easy to read it and initially let your top spin, instantly rejecting the concept, there's several years of a certain type of format ingrained in to the way you know how to play competitive Smash.

It's incredibly difficult to think outside of that box, but I think this discussion really demands it. With that in mind, ask yourself this question...

Is it possible or absolutely impossible to balance our roster of characters around a flat stage?

It's definitely possible and I'm starting to think that the game is indeed being balanced around it since that's one of the main online modes. Sakurai would want it to be as balanced as possible for online matches so I'm sure they are focusing hard on it. If you look up to my post above yours I wouldn't be surprised if FD became THE starting stage in the meta game, leaving other legal stages open only for counter picks.

 

[LiteralGrill]

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.

Just making sure, there are people who don't know of the random stage selection days, and it's worthy to note it as an option (a bad one though) and know we used it in the past.

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

Also FD though. Though part of what you bring up is why that system is no longer used, the randomly chosen stage could seriously swing the outcome of a match with game 1 being insanely important.

Strong campers will most likely be the ones to dominate the FD-only ruleset, and that isn't fair to some of the characters. who struggle a lot against them. Without a counterpick to ease their time against said campers... you see where I'm going with this? That's what different stages are for, within reason, fairness balance that could be tested.

A disturbing trend I'm seeing amongst the supporters is "it's okay, characters who prefer platform stages will just be low-tier". That's true. That's very true. But is it right? Why SHOULD we just neglect a significant number of characters because of their playstyle being more idealistic on stages that aren't FD? Especially when, you know, we could just add another stage like Battlefield.

As for what Alax said, I actually took this into account when pondering For Glory mode once. I drew the overly simplistic conclusion of "some FD varients would be better for X character than others, but ultimately you'd still be playing on FD".

This is a big point, but as I said before, why should we favor the characters that could do better on Battlefield? Is there an actual reason? It's really the same thing, just down to personal preference.

Something else to keep in mind with what Sakurai needs to balance, as well.

The competitive community if predominantly 1v1 and that is where are primary concern for balance is concerned. Sakurai has to worry about that and everything else, FFAs, single play stuff, ect.... Which makes it a lot more spread out much further, to where it once again leads to where we can't really trust the balance stuff he does anyway.

Ganondorf may be considered the worst in competitive community but he isn't nearly as bad as in FFAs as he is in 1v1.

Ganondorf with items is also absolutely insane. Certain characters are just better in different modes as well, that's part of the game so Smash. Heck see some of the awesome 2v2 combos with characters unthinkable in 1v1! Each mode does have characters that fill nitches or are better in those modes. Smash also does have the "fun factor" so I can understand if some characters just aren't great in 1v1 if they are true to their game and work better in other modes. Our 1v1 balance will never be perfect, there will always be low tiers, but it can still be entertaining and good regardless as every smash has shown (yes even Brawl some people DO like watching MK fights).

no.

There could/would inevitably be some character(s) who truly dominate on FD. Making sure we have other stages as well as a counterpicking system and stage striking will ensure these characters won't always get their best stage.

Well. I'm not claiming or trying to speak for the person, but, it generally comes from past experiences.

In Melee you have a character like Marth and Falco, arguably the 2 best Zoners in the game, who are extremely good at abusing the stage. There is also ICs, but I shouldn't have to go into detail with them.

Brawl also has Marth, Falco, and ICs who are are still good at abusing the stage along with Diddy, Olimar, DDD, and Snake.

And despite Melee and Brawl being different, FD still overly supported zoners or characters with CGs more then other characters.

Basically, past dictates that this trend will most likely continue with smash 4.

As I explained before our current method doesn't change this at all. All of the stages are still flat/plat in style, and most of the stages that have anything special get banned. Those characters will still get those huge advantages just a LITTLE less. Plus I didn't explain how the current system is also flawed to help those characters EVEN MORE. Honestly, FD only might be close to the same with only a few minor shifts.

You can't deny there is a strong correlation between being new (ignorance) and having unrealistic ideas. This applies everywhere. Nobody is an exception. Take a look at all the pro-item, pro-Rainbow Cruise junk. Most of the proponents expect to change the status quo to a scene to which they are new or don't belong.

Take this FD-Only discussion for example. There is no way in hell that, barring severe Nintendo encroachment into every major tournament, that there will ever be a Final Destination only rule set. Stage lists tend to get smaller, but they don't disappear completely. We'll continue playing Smash Bros. pretty much the same way we always have. If Smash 4 had marked the first entry in the series, I might have conceded there would be a FD-Only, time based ruleset because there was no precedent, no experience, and especially no culture that drives the way we already play.

But is that a right thing to do? do it the same because it's always been that way? That's a bad logical fallacy man. We're also about to more then likely have a large number of new players coming in here. They will be just as much a part of the scene as the old guard, they'll enter and pay for events just like we do. We gotta listen to everyone.

We've told you constantly why we know a counter-pick system is better.

The current system is still flawed badly, I discussed that earlier in the thread and in this friggin massive post... Crap this is gonna get long...

For Glory != Competitive scene. It's not the reality. All online tournaments will (so far) need to take place between friends, which means custom settings. Real life tournament will not change their rule sets for the sake of probably laggy online features.

A ton of new players will associate competition with For Glory as it will be all they know of trying to be extra competitive. It's happened in other games and is likely to happen in this one. It's a psychological connection.

Wait for Capps to come back. meaningful discussion will happen again then.

This massive wall of text definitely should count as discussion!

 

[mimgrim]

This is a big point, but as I said before, why should we favor the characters that could do better on Battlefield? Is there an actual reason? It's really the same thing, just down to personal preference.

What we are getting at those is having both, basically, not having BF over FD. At least that is what I am getting at. Having just one or the other does favor or disfavor certain characters more. Having both favor and disfavors more characters overall making it more fair because it isn't as limited.

As I explained before our current method doesn't change this at all. All of the stages are still flat/plat in style, and most of the stages that have anything special get banned. Those characters will still get those huge advantages just a LITTLE less. Plus I didn't explain how the current system is also flawed to help those characters EVEN MORE. Honestly, FD only might be close to the same with only a few minor shifts.

But they have platforms. A zoner or CGer is a lot less powerful on a stage like BF then a stage like FD, because the platforms allows other characters. BF really isn't that great stage for zoners or Cgers, thanks to the plat layout. So the advantage they have isn't a little less.

But is that a right thing to do? do it the same because it's always been that way? That's a bad logical fallacy man. We're also about to more then likely have a large number of new players coming in here. They will be just as much a part of the scene as the old guard, they'll enter and pay for events just like we do. We gotta listen to everyone.

You know the saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", right? You need to prove the current system is broken first.

Sure, I can see new players seeing FD as the norm from For Glory, but I can only see a minority complaining about it not being the only stage played in the real competitive. We should be welcoming of new players, but at the same time they should be accepting of our ways of playing as well.

The current system is still flawed badly, I discussed that earlier in the thread and in this friggin massive post... Crap this is gonna get long...

You've discussed it, but you haven't really explained why or how it is flawed, in all honesty.

 

[Admiral Pit]

This is a big point, but as I said before, why should we favor the characters that could do better on Battlefield? Is there an actual reason? It's really the same thing, just down to personal preference.

To turn this around, why should we favor the dominant camper characters only by adopting an FD-only ruleset? And this coming from a Pit main, and we know Pit has some good camping capabilities. Would you rather see some characters (bringing up Bowser and DK again here) suffer because they get eaten alive by campers? I still say start with BF and FD. Campers have their FD, others have BF. You're not against platforms on stages, are you? I'm not saying you are, but I'm just concerned that you want an FD-only because some characters need to suffer.
I'm aware you say having multiple stages is flawed, but so is having FD only, and I said my reasons. But that's why we do research and test things out. It could be tourneys testing out different rules and stage sets, see what's game-breaking to the point where something has to be banned or not. By doing this we can decrease the amount of flaws in a ruleset and make things enjoyable for everyone if we can. Granted, I'm sure some are gonna complain no matter what, but balance and variety is important.

Remember: FD only makes sad.

 

[LiteralGrill]

What we are getting at those is having both, basically, not having BF over FD. At least that is what I am getting at. Having just one or the other does favor or disfavor certain characters more. Having both favor and disfavors more characters overall making it more fair because it isn't as limited.

But they have platforms. A zoner or CGer is a lot less powerful on a stage like BF then a stage like FD, because the platforms allows other characters. BF really isn't that great stage for zoners or Cgers, thanks to the plat layout. So the advantage they have isn't a little less.

It's still arbitrarily buffing and nerfing characters. I don't disagree that having more stages could create a better footing, I'm just saying the way it is done now it doesn't, it just creates the same kind of biases in advantage for a certain type of character.

You know the saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", right? You need to prove the current system is broken first. ]You've discussed it, but you haven't really explained why or how it is flawed, in all honesty.

Which brings us back here. I'll try to sit down and do this again but go into extreme detail to hopefully not miss anything and help it be clearer, let me know where I can clarify anything.

Currently, we have certain types of stages as starter stages and others as counterpick stages.

Game one is the most important game in an entire set as the winner has the most control in terms of counterpicking stages, it's a serious advantage. In theory this means the first match should be played on as equal ground as possible to ensure the system is as fair as possible for most players. The problem is it isn't.

Currently, starter stages are general stages with no special effects of any kind and are flat with possibly a few platforms of varying number and positions. This favors characters stronger on "flat/plat" stages. (This is the meta we currently live in where they are stronger, it is of our own creation.) Let's look at characters that have more adaptability and can function in other kinds of stages and stages with special effects, movement, or any other gimick better. They are put at a disadvantage by having these as the stage they must play on first as the most important game.

Now, this could easily be argued against as "this is the meta, some characters will be good and others wont" but there is another problem: this style of stage selection gives ANOTHER advantage to those flat/plat characters.

We'll look at two scenarios. With stage striking, the flat/plat character get's a flat/plat stage since those are the only ones available (HUGE advantage getting one of your top 5 best stages if we're looking at Brawl right?). Let's say the flat/plat character won the first round. Now, the more adaptable character picks a counterpick stage to help them boost that adaptable quality they have, thus beating the flat/plat character (which there are VERY few of now a days since most just get banned even if they are perfectly good for play as I've pointed out in too many threads by TOs just because they don't personally like them and/or get beaten on them making this even more of a disadvantage). So game three comes along! Even with a ban, a flat plat character can go to optimally their 2nd best stage for game 3 and is likely to do so giving them an INSANE advantage that shuts down a lot of characters.

Now maybe that adaptable character manages to snag game one by luck. The flat/plat character can easily go to any flat/plat they want, there is NO way that banning the stages can effect this, there are so many legal. They WILL get at a minimum their second best stage for the second match, while the adaptable character may be stuck with anywhere from their 3rd to 4th best stage if they were in this position.

In short, just like in having an all FD ruleset our current ruleset favors heavily a certain type of character with a huge bias and is no better then an FD only ruleset in that manner.

The better solution comes in striking from a full list of legal stages. This allows for the most neutral stage possible for match one and keeps match one as fair as possible eliminating many of these issues. When I say neutral, I mean the stage closest to their actual matchup ratio, a stage that favors neither in a hugely significant way.

For this to work you need to have a decent number of stages, and the best part is certain stages that can't be legal because a few characters can exploit them in some way CAN be legal for all of the matchups it doesn't effect, as players can strike those stages in the relevant matchups. This allows not only for more variety, but a fairer ruleset as well.

To turn this around, why should we favor the dominant camper characters only by adopting an FD-only ruleset? And this coming from a Pit main, and we know Pit has some good camping capabilities. Would you rather see some characters (bringing up Bowser and DK again here) suffer because they get eaten alive by campers? I still say start with BF and FD. Campers have their FD, others have BF. You're not against platforms on stages, are you? I'm not saying you are, but I'm just concerned that you want an FD-only because some characters need to suffer.
I'm aware you say having multiple stages is flawed, but so is having FD only, and I said my reasons. But that's why we do research and test things out. It could be tourneys testing out different rules and stage sets, see what's game-breaking to the point where something has to be banned or not. By doing this we can decrease the amount of flaws in a ruleset and make things enjoyable for everyone if we can. Granted, I'm sure some are gonna complain no matter what, but balance and variety is important.

Remember: FD only makes sad.

You raise a great point! Read above, and see that we already pose a strong bias towards certain kinds of characters. If the current method is okay, then FD only doing the same should be okay as well shouldn't it?

Just to make this clear again I'm not honestly for an FD only stagelist, I just wanted to have an open discussion about it and think on the idea. I have no issues with platforms I promise!

I'm all up for testing new things though, so if people wanted to test FD only I'd tell them to go for it as they might find and awesome meta there. Or heck, if you have some other crazy idea, try it! ISP in Brawl is pretty cool and helps Brawl in a lot of ways.

BUT the huge problem is most people aren't open to testing and change, "just do it how we always have" is a VERY dangerous mentality and hurt us quite a bit transitioning from Melee to Brawl in terms of rulesets. We can't do that again.

 

[mimgrim]

Meant to reply sooner but got side tracked.

It's still arbitrarily buffing and nerfing characters. I don't disagree that having more stages could create a better footing, I'm just saying the way it is done now it doesn't, it just creates the same kind of biases in advantage for a certain type of character.

That's exactly what I'm getting at.

Obviously the stages we have legal are going to affect the metagame and and will be shaped around what we perceive to be the best metagame for us. However more stages will, overall, end up with more viable characters then less stages.

Game one is the most important game in an entire set as the winner has the most control in terms of counterpicking stages, it's a serious advantage. In theory this means the first match should be played on as equal ground as possible to ensure the system is as fair as possible for most players. The problem is it isn't.

Let me ask you this;

Are the starter stages for Melee and Brawl truly unfair in the metagame we have created for them? Really think about the metagame for both games.

Currently, starter stages are general stages with no special effects of any kind and are flat with possibly a few platforms of varying number and positions. This favors characters stronger on "flat/plat" stages. (This is the meta we currently live in where they are stronger, it is of our own creation.) Let's look at characters that have more adaptability and can function in other kinds of stages and stages with special effects, movement, or any other gimick better. They are put at a disadvantage by having these as the stage they must play on first as the most important game.

Even with these extra stages, would these lower tiered characters really get all that better? They have other major problems that need fixing that doesn't include the stage list.

We'll look at two scenarios. With stage striking, the flat/plat character get's a flat/plat stage since those are the only ones available (HUGE advantage getting one of your top 5 best stages if we're looking at Brawl right?). Let's say the flat/plat character won the first round. Now, the more adaptable character picks a counterpick stage to help them boost that adaptable quality they have, thus beating the flat/plat character (which there are VERY few of now a days since most just get banned even if they are perfectly good for play as I've pointed out in too many threads by TOs just because they don't personally like them and/or get beaten on them making this even more of a disadvantage). So game three comes along! Even with a ban, a flat plat character can go to optimally their 2nd best stage for game 3 and is likely to do so giving them an INSANE advantage that shuts down a lot of characters.

Now maybe that adaptable character manages to snag game one by luck. The flat/plat character can easily go to any flat/plat they want, there is NO way that banning the stages can effect this, there are so many legal. They WILL get at a minimum their second best stage for the second match, while the adaptable character may be stuck with anywhere from their 3rd to 4th best stage if they were in this position.

This is why I would like to see tourney's adopt a Bo5 flex standard instead.

Bo5 flex set is where you have a match, but it isn't necessarily a Bo3 or Bo5 at the beginning. Instead what the set ends up being is based solely on the first 2 matches. If player A wins the first matches then it is a Bo3. But if each player wins one match the set becomes a Bo5.

This would overall create a more fair balance for that issue then changing stage lists.

In short, just like in having an all FD ruleset our current ruleset favors heavily a certain type of character with a huge bias and is no better then an FD only ruleset in that manner.

Except that our ruleset, overall, will have more viable characters still.

The better solution comes in striking from a full list of legal stages. This allows for the most neutral stage possible for match one and keeps match one as fair as possible eliminating many of these issues. When I say neutral, I mean the stage closest to their actual matchup ratio, a stage that favors neither in a hugely significant way.

I already posted what I consider to be a better solution.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

Just making sure, there are people who don't know of the random stage selection days, and it's worthy to note it as an option (a bad one though) and know we used it in the past.

Also FD though. Though part of what you bring up is why that system is no longer used, the randomly chosen stage could seriously swing the outcome of a match with game 1 being insanely important.

This is a big point, but as I said before, why should we favor the characters that could do better on Battlefield? Is there an actual reason? It's really the same thing, just down to personal preference.

You really have to understand where they're coming from to understand this.

In their mind, certain characters in the upcoming Smash 4 will inevitably be weak on Final Destination, and certain characters will be inevitably stronger on Battlefield (though I agree they seem to ignore that some characters become weaker on Battlefield). Even though we know next to nothing about how the game will actually play, alongside the fact Sakurai is acknowledging competitive Smash through a FD-only rule-set while admitting to balancing around it this time around, from their point of view they believe that likely very little is going to change of the characters' major strengths/weaknesses, and not enough of the games mechanics will change that makes this truth objectionable. They quite literally believe the game is incapable of creating its own unique meta, as they believe the past dictates 100% what this game will play like. That includes chain grabbing, and projectile zoning abilities, etc.

That being said, if we are to assume that actually is the case, then they are right about this. If the mode randomly picked between FD and Battlefield, then at least both sides of the spectrum get their chance to both have the home field advantage, and also play on less than advantageous ground. FD-only simply means only the one side of the spectrum gets their time to be in the advantageous position. There's really no two ways about it, having both (randomized) would be more 'fair' to the full roster.

That's a lot of assumptions though. I'm of the like that I believe things can change enough to where that perception is anachronistic. That the characters can be balanced around an FD-only rule-set, thus rendering much of the worry over it inert.

But is that a right thing to do? do it the same because it's always been that way? That's a bad logical fallacy man. We're also about to more then likely have a large number of new players coming in here. They will be just as much a part of the scene as the old guard, they'll enter and pay for events just like we do. We gotta listen to everyone.

A ton of new players will associate competition with For Glory as it will be all they know of trying to be extra competitive. It's happened in other games and is likely to happen in this one. It's a psychological connection.

Preach.

You know the saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", right? You need to prove the current system is broken first.

Sure, I can see new players seeing FD as the norm from For Glory, but I can only see a minority complaining about it not being the only stage played in the real competitive. We should be welcoming of new players, but at the same time they should be accepting of our ways of playing as well.

This is a rather short-sighted way of looking at things, because the same can honestly be applied in your direction.

I doubt many will refer to For Glory mode as 'broken' assuming characters maintain at least a healthy reverberation of a balance going in to Smash 4, so why do you think it's necessary to 'fix' it? You need to prove that For Glory mode is confirmed broken on release to think about suggesting the mode be re-structured to include other stages, and you can't do that, since you've never played the game. Sakurai has put a massive amount of effort in to allowing players to have a FD mode of every single stage locale, that's a pretty massive undertaking and pretty big sign that he fervently believes that in the upcoming Smash 4 game, that Final Destination is the most efficient and straight forward way to compare skill with the games roster.

To turn this around, why should we favor the dominant camper characters only by adopting an FD-only ruleset? And this coming from a Pit main, and we know Pit has some good camping capabilities. Would you rather see some characters (bringing up Bowser and DK again here) suffer because they get eaten alive by campers? I still say start with BF and FD. Campers have their FD, others have BF. You're not against platforms on stages, are you? I'm not saying you are, but I'm just concerned that you want an FD-only because some characters need to suffer.
I'm aware you say having multiple stages is flawed, but so is having FD only, and I said my reasons. But that's why we do research and test things out. It could be tourneys testing out different rules and stage sets, see what's game-breaking to the point where something has to be banned or not. By doing this we can decrease the amount of flaws in a ruleset and make things enjoyable for everyone if we can. Granted, I'm sure some are gonna complain no matter what, but balance and variety is important.

Remember: FD only makes sad.

Yet there has been zero research or testing with Smash 4 in order to prove any of this to be viably true. I'm only saying, try to evaluate your own advice here. Let's test out For Glory mode before criticizing it, let's do our research on the roster viability on an FD-only rule-set/no items and be faithful that Sakurai will have a good hand in making it work.

In my opinion it's more constructive for us to discuss what would need to happen with characters in order to make this happen, rather than simply believing it's impossible and just saying Sakurai should add another stage to the mix.

 

[RascalTheCharizard]

You really have to understand where they're coming from to understand this.

In their mind, certain characters in the upcoming Smash 4 will inevitably be weak on Final Destination, and certain characters will be inevitably stronger on Battlefield (though I agree they seem to ignore that some characters become weaker on Battlefield). Even though we know next to nothing about how the game will actually play, alongside the fact Sakurai is acknowledging competitive Smash through a FD-only rule-set while admitting to balancing around it this time around, from their point of view they believe that likely very little is going to change of the characters' major strengths/weaknesses, and not enough of the games mechanics will change that makes this truth objectionable. They quite literally believe the game is incapable of creating its own unique meta, as they believe the past dictates 100% what this game will play like. That includes chain grabbing, and projectile zoning abilities, etc.

That being said, if we are to assume that actually is the case, then they are right about this. If the mode randomly picked between FD and Battlefield, then at least both sides of the spectrum get their chance to both have the home field advantage, and also play on less than advantageous ground. FD-only simply means only the one side of the spectrum gets their time to be in the advantageous position. There's really no two ways about it, having both (randomized) would be more 'fair' to the full roster.

That's a lot of assumptions though. I'm of the like that I believe things can change enough to where that perception is anachronistic. That the characters can be balanced around an FD-only rule-set, thus rendering much of the worry over it inert..

Just because Sakurai acknowledges competitive play doesn't mean he understands it. Sakurai is the man who thought C.Falcon was "top tier" in Brawl, despite being seen as amongst the worst (competitive) characters in the game in both the NTSC and Japanese tier lists.

So why do we focus on the past? Because Smash 4 isn't released yet and thus we don't have enough evidence to assume that the game will work in an "FD only" meta. We don't have proof of what WILL happen, we only know what HAS happened before. This is also why people like me use Battlefield is a go-to example of a neutral stage with platforms. It worked in Melee and Brawl. However, in Brawl, Smashville was often the favourite amongst competitive players; many people loved that stage and from the 5 or 6 tournaments I've been to, hardly anyone stage striked it when given the opportunity. So why not say the Town and City will be a good stage? Because it's not Smashville lol. We don't know how the minor differences will affect the upcoming game.

Brawl's infamous chaingrabs and chainthrows were likely an oversight from improper testing (or perhaps Mr Sakurai simply thought no-one would find out, but I think that's a pretty ridiculous claim). If this is the case, we can put our faith in him that he will not repeat this mistake, but it's not out of the realm of possibility that it'll happen again.

TL;DR - The game could be balanced around Final Destination, but there isn't much reason to believe so until more information about Smash 4 is revealed.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

Just because Sakurai acknowledges competitive play doesn't mean he understands it. Sakurai is the man who thought C.Falcon was "top tier" in Brawl, despite being seen as amongst the worst (competitive) characters in the game in both the NTSC and Japanese tier lists.

So why do we focus on the past? Because Smash 4 isn't released yet and thus we don't have enough evidence to assume that the game will work in an "FD only" meta. We don't have proof of what WILL happen, we only know what HAS happened before. This is also why people like me use Battlefield is a go-to example of a neutral stage with platforms. It worked in Melee and Brawl. However, in Brawl, Smashville was often the favourite amongst competitive players; many people loved that stage and from the 5 or 6 tournaments I've been to, hardly anyone stage striked it when given the opportunity. So why not say the Town and City will be a good stage? Because it's not Smashville lol. We don't know how the minor differences will affect the upcoming game.

Brawl's infamous chaingrabs and chainthrows were likely an oversight from improper testing (or perhaps Mr Sakurai simply thought no-one would find out, but I think that's a pretty ridiculous claim). If this is the case, we can put our faith in him that he will not repeat this mistake, but it's not out of the realm of possibility that it'll happen again.

TL;DR - The game could be balanced around Final Destination, but there isn't much reason to believe so until more information about Smash 4 is revealed.

I keep citing the difference between 64 > Melee > Brawl and I really think that keeps getting ignored.

Who's to say this transition won't be just as staggering? If anything, the past should be evidence that *anything* can happen in this upcoming game.

 

[Admiral Pit]

Yet there has been zero research or testing with Smash 4 in order to prove any of this to be viably true. I'm only saying, try to evaluate your own advice here. Let's test out For Glory mode before criticizing it, let's do our research on the roster viability on an FD-only rule-set/no items and be faithful that Sakurai will have a good hand in making it work.

In my opinion it's more constructive for us to discuss what would need to happen with characters in order to make this happen, rather than simply believing it's impossible and just saying Sakurai should add another stage to the mix.

Waiting for the game to be released prior to researching is the just of it It's not like we can figure out what's good and what's not until we actually our hands on the game and do all that stuff. The only thing we can do now is just think of what to do for when the game comes out. Trying to fool me into thinking FD only is a good idea is bad. Many of us already prefer if For Glory also had Battlefield on it than just FD. The only thing I'll be okay with is if they do test this little FD-only thing (not For Glory, but rather ruleset to adopt) for a bit, I guarantee it will go badly once we figure out who the best campers are. I mean we'll see, but I still say bad idea.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

Waiting for the game to be released prior to researching is the just of it It's not like we can figure out what's good and what's not until we actually our hands on the game and do all that stuff. The only thing we can do now is just think of what to do for when the game comes out. Trying to fool me into thinking FD only is a good idea is bad. Many of us already prefer if For Glory also had Battlefield on it than just FD. The only thing I'll be okay with is if they do test this little FD-only thing (not For Glorly, but rather ruleset to adopt) for a bit, I guarantee it will go badly once we figure out who the best campers are.

I'm not trying to fool you in to thinking anything, I'm trying to get you to be open-minded, there's a serious difference. Were all hyped for the upcoming game (which looks fantastic, don't you agree?).

 

[Admiral Pit]

I'm not trying to fool you in to thinking anything, I'm trying to get you to be open-minded, there's a serious difference. Were all hyped for the upcoming game (which looks fantastic, don't you agree?).

My point of view is that it's gonna do more bad than good once things get a lot more competitive and we figure out what characters are capable of. I mean if we did this FD-only thing for Brawl with all the data we have for that, we'd have Diddy, ICs, Falco, D3, TL, and MK being the likely dominant ones, and most of em are campers. While it is true that Smash 4 has different mechanics with changes to characters, but after a period of time, FD-only may become a bad idea depending on how the game works and how we, the people, play it, such as campy, or aggressive. I will try it, but I'm sure I'll get bored of it quickly due to the staleness of having only 1 stage is. New stages adds new capabilities for others, even for a few campers. But whatever. I'll give it 1 year, 2 tops before I do the "I told you so" thing if I was right.

I'm excited for the game too, but I just have my concerns.

 

[Canuckduck]

Great.

Once again, the short answer is NO. There should be NO rule that places Final Destination as the only stage in competitive mode.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

Great.

Once again, the short answer is NO. There should be NO rule that places Final Destination as the only stage in competitive mode.

As a random online mode I think it's fine. Tournaments will likely be the same as they always were...decided after extensive testing and experimentation. For Glory is not meant to define our tournament standard.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Meant to reply sooner but got side tracked.

No worries man!

That's exactly what I'm getting at.

Obviously the stages we have legal are going to affect the metagame and and will be shaped around what we perceive to be the best metagame for us. However more stages will, overall, end up with more viable characters then less stages.

I think we gotta figure out what your definition of viable is compared to what mine is. Maybe a tier will do? Or is it something else? Let's align this one quick so the discussion can continue.

How about this, who falls into "viable" for you in Brawl? (Melee has seen almost everyone win a tournament and 64, especially 64 won't work well for this with Isai.) For me, it's EXTREMELY difficult to put anything after Falco there just by looking at common results, but MAYBE Pika, Zero Suit, and REALLY PUSHING IT Wario. Anything beyond B tier really isn't viable to me. What is it for you?

Let me ask you this;

Are the starter stages for Melee and Brawl truly unfair in the metagame we have created for them? Really think about the metagame for both games.

In Melee I would say it works fine. The game is a very different beast, and even with their small selection of stages even the worst characters have a stage they thrive on. In Brawl yes, the stages were unfair, and the metagame is a reflection of this. While things wouldn't fluctuate insanely, there would be a good bit of movement in the tier list. See where IC's are now? That just plain couldn't have happened back when we had a large variety to choose from. With just flat/plat stages they are the monsters they are today. Mk? We not only cut some of the only stages he was bad on (insisting it would weaken him) but kept some of the stages he is BEST on. When the stage list started to shrink a lot of characters started shifting down the tier list, it is not a coincidence. Even then, the way we have starter and counterpick now IS flawed and is unfair and could be done better.

Even with these extra stages, would these lower tiered characters really get all that better? They have other major problems that need fixing that doesn't include the stage list.

Depends on the character and tier. The worst of the worst (probably E and F tier) wouldn't move that much, but a few would bump up standing a better chance. D tier might see changes, and C tier characters might even shift into B and A tier areas, possibly even expanding the sizes of the tiers. Wario, Game and Watch, Toon Link, Pit, and R.O.B. I seriously suspect would be large candidates to move up.

The viability of characters and the number of them MIGHT go up. I say might because after it all balances out there is still a chance the same number of characters could stay the same. In all honesty even with FD only the number could stay the same, the characters that are viable would just change.

This is why I would like to see tourney's adopt a Bo5 flex standard instead.

Bo5 flex set is where you have a match, but it isn't necessarily a Bo3 or Bo5 at the beginning. Instead what the set ends up being is based solely on the first 2 matches. If player A wins the first matches then it is a Bo3. But if each player wins one match the set becomes a Bo5.

This would overall create a more fair balance for that issue then changing stage lists.

It changes nothing, the first game still has an extreme advantage bias towards flat/plat and allows them to keep that advantage. It just possibly adds one more match to the equation.

Except that our ruleset, overall, will have more viable characters still.

That's not entirely true, you MIGHT have more really is better. An FD only ruleset may have the same and yes EVEN MORE viable characters. If there isn't a platform stage, characters that don't need those platforms just step up to take the place of those characters in viability. There's honestly a huge chance NOTHING would change in terms of viable characters.

I think the big thing is either way creates its own meta and probably even has the same number of characters that are viable, just the order of viability switched around a bit. That being the case, not having to have all of the arguing on a stage list AND having a possible universal standard becomes incredibly attractive.

Great.

Once again, the short answer is NO. There should be NO rule that places Final Destination as the only stage in competitive mode.

I don't like short answers. I like hard facts and at least conjecture and reasoning. Just saying NO in big capital bold and underlined letter doesn't make you any more right, nor does it aid the discussion.[/quote]

 

[mimgrim]

I think we gotta figure out what your definition of viable is compared to what mine is. Maybe a tier will do? Or is it something else? Let's align this one quick so the discussion can continue.

How about this, who falls into "viable" for you in Brawl? (Melee has seen almost everyone win a tournament and 64, especially 64 won't work well for this with Isai.) For me, it's EXTREMELY difficult to put anything after Falco there just by looking at common results, but MAYBE Pika, Zero Suit, and REALLY PUSHING IT Wario. Anything beyond B tier really isn't viable to me. What is it for you?

I can't comment on 64 that well anyways.

Anyways for Melee I would call anyone in A tier or higher as viable.

For Brawl, I would at least draw the line of viable characters at Wolf or higher, if not all of Upper Mid, for the current metagame. Things might change if YOLO becomes to norm however.

In Melee I would say it works fine. The game is a very different beast, and even with their small selection of stages even the worst characters have a stage they thrive on. In Brawl yes, the stages were unfair, and the metagame is a reflection of this. While things wouldn't fluctuate insanely, there would be a good bit of movement in the tier list. See where IC's are now? That just plain couldn't have happened back when we had a large variety to choose from. With just flat/plat stages they are the monsters they are today. Mk? We not only cut some of the only stages he was bad on (insisting it would weaken him) but kept some of the stages he is BEST on. When the stage list started to shrink a lot of characters started shifting down the tier list, it is not a coincidence. Even then, the way we have starter and counterpick now IS flawed and is unfair and could be done better.

Let me ask you this first, when we the IC's infinite CG discovered?

That's not entirely true, you MIGHT have more really is better. An FD only ruleset may have the same and yes EVEN MORE viable characters. If there isn't a platform stage, characters that don't need those platforms just step up to take the place of those characters in viability. There's honestly a huge chance NOTHING would change in terms of viable characters.

I think there is a huge chance the number of viable characters would dwindle in a FD only ruleset. I honestly can't see Brawl or Melee having the same amount of viable characters in a FD only ruleset. We have no idea how Smash 4 will play, so all we have to go on is past history, and you know what I mean anyways.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

We have no idea how Smash 4 will play, so all we have to go on is past history, and you know what I mean anyways.

Which is about equivalent to having squat. Having no idea how Smash 4 plays doesn't mean the first rational course of thought is to assume it will be a clone of it's predecessors.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Let me ask you this first, when we the IC's infinite CG discovered?

The exact date? I don't know without searching, the first time they jumped up past their normal tier placement was in 2010. 2010, the era and time of MLG with one of the largest stagelists ever. Ever since that time, they have slowly crept higher and higher as the number of stages got lower and lower until they are where so see them today. Some of this can be attributed to IC players getting stronger no doubt, but it happened even more quickly thanks to the way we biased our stagelist.

I think there is a huge chance the number of viable characters would dwindle in a FD only ruleset. I honestly can't see Brawl or Melee having the same amount of viable characters in a FD only ruleset. We have no idea how Smash 4 will play, so all we have to go on is past history, and you know what I mean anyways.

It depends on where you draw the line at viable. Is viable the top 10 best characters? If so that number NEVER changes. When you think about it from the angle, the number NEVER changes. Now if you think that number is variable and based on tier it could change, but I'm guessing nothing more drastic then 1 to 2 characters. Some of the characters limited or stronger now would just change places.

You also didn't answer me about my analysis of the flawed stage selection system after I wrote it all over again. I am VERY disappoint

Which is about equivalent to having squat. Having no idea how Smash 4 plays doesn't mean the first rational course of thought is to assume it will be a clone of it's predecessors.

The last time we did that, we were going into Brawl and it worked out VERY badly. Stages were banned without testing, people made wild claims that when later proven false changes weren't made and lots of things decided on because we thought it would be like Melee were bad choices for Brawl.

Using past games when discussing this one is almost always a HORRIBLE idea I agree. If we come at this game with "same old same old" we're going to make stupid mistakes that could hurt the scene of the game FOREVER.

 

[MM3K]

It seems the most logical path is to see what happened at the time of Brawl's release, there were a lot of problems because people thought it would be the same as Melee; so the most logical is, ironically, to look at the past and avoid looking at the past for future reference?

Real talk tho, we should tackle Smash 4 with a open mind and take past games as reference strictly when/if applicable, right? I don't want to sound as if I've been a part of this community for a long time or anything, I'm just expressing what I think IS the most logical way, after all this is a new game we're dealing with.