A Reevaluation of Stage Hazards

[mimgrim]

I know this is about stages and all that but on the subject of how stages affects tiers.What if a system was adopted that works somewhat similar to how Smogon handles competitive Pokemon? Then have different stages legal for the different levels of play? Just an idea, feel free to tear it down into a million pieces.

 

[LiteralGrill]

I know this is about stages and all that but on the subject of how stages affects tiers.What if a system was adopted that works somewhat similar to how Smogon handles competitive Pokemon? Then have different stages legal for the different levels of play? Just an idea, feel free to tear it down into a million pieces.

That's.... Interesting.

Hmm... How do you propose the idea would work? I know I've suggested grouping things from "no way it should be banned" to "if you have this legal you are crazy" (but not as bluntly lol) but are you meaning more like casual to competitive, or most used to least used? I'm curious now.

 

[TimeSmash]

I know this is about stages and all that but on the subject of how stages affects tiers.What if a system was adopted that works somewhat similar to how Smogon handles competitive Pokemon? Then have different stages legal for the different levels of play? Just an idea, feel free to tear it down into a million pieces.

That's actually not bad. I like that idea a lot, actually, except for the fact that people will try to determine which level of play is the most hardcode/ requires the most skill. This would allow, though, more stages to choose from, and so maybe one could say "PlayerX is so good at non-hazard stages (or something of the like), but he can't handle hazard-level play."

 

[LiteralGrill]

That's actually not bad. I like that idea a lot, actually, except for the fact that people will try to determine which level of play is the most hardcode/ requires the most skill. This would allow, though, more stages to choose from, and so maybe one could say "PlayerX is so good at non-hazard stages (or something of the like), but he can't handle hazard-level play."

In that case, just make a recommended ruleset like the BBR did with 3.1 where they said which stages were best to worst for competition, we do that already and argue over which is best already

 

[TimeSmash]

In that case, just make a recommended ruleset like the BBR did with 3.1 where they said which stages were best to worst for competition, we do that already and argue over which is best already

No no, haha I mean having stages that are the strictest of the strict like Battlefield for one level and more hazardous stages for the other, and defining stages in each criteria. Which would really be more focused on the hazardous stages since the strict ones most likely would be included in the hazardous level as well. Coming up with stages that actually work and don't destroy a match and be used to increase the competitive level.

Which, is kind of more or less what you just said. Haha

 

[mimgrim]

That's.... Interesting.

Hmm... How do you propose the idea would work? I know I've suggested grouping things from "no way it should be banned" to "if you have this legal you are crazy" (but not as bluntly lol) but are you meaning more like casual to competitive, or most used to least used? I'm curious now.

Well in competitive Pokemon, for Smogon anyway, you have stuff like Ubers, OU, BL, UU, BL2, RU, and NU for where Pokemon are located and different set-ups for each one. Ubers are the insanely OP Pokemon, like Metwo or Arceus, and in Uber play any Pokemon is allowed. Over Used is the most popular level of play and Ubers aren't allowed, it's basically the top tier play. Under Used is like the mixed tier and anything above BL is not allowed into it. You see where this is going.

Now I'm sure you know about the side event known as top tier play, mid tier play, and low tier play. Well what if instead of theme being side events they became more mainstream and got adapated into how it works for competitive Pokemon in Smogon. It's a long shot, but it could allow more stages to be played in a sense by allowing more stages for the mids and lows.

 

[WindMajor]

My reasoning for why Halberd should be banned - it introduces an element of chance, which is a direct antithesis of competition.

That is not to say that we should ban everything that has a random influence on the outcome of the match, which is what I've been trying to say.

^ The contradiction. This stage should be banned because it introduces randomness, but just because it introduces randomness doesn't mean we should ban it. Because it contradicts, it makes me believe that randomness is not even an issue. You confirmed my suspicion here:

Explain the contradiction plz
I pointed out a NEGATIVE of Halberd that CONTRIBUTES to the stage being banned
This is also a NEGATIVE of Peach/Dedede/Smashville, but the POSITIVES out-weight this negative
No contradictions there bro

If I'm following correctly, you're saying that Smashville, Peach, Dedede, self-destructs, Halberd, etc. are all ban-worthy because they introduce elements of randomness that give unearned rewards to players. However, when I pointed this out, you told me to stop being so black and white about it. We can make exceptions wherever we choose, and in your case, those exceptions come up in the form of redeeming qualities. You're willing to look the other way as long as there's a redeeming quality. I don't particularly think that's incorrect, I just think that you're not looking for the right redeeming qualities. I say this because I have no idea why you think Halberd brings nothing of worth compared to other stages, yet Dreamland does in comparison to Battlefield. You never stated it.

 

[BlueXenon]

(Side note characters that need TONS of rules just to attempt to level them out for play *coughMKcough* should have just been banned in the first place instead of banning things just to keep him around, we lost WAY more then we got from keeping MK legal. Thankfully next smash should have the capability for patches so we don't do anything as stupid as we did with MK).

Banning a character isn't that simple. A lot of people play metaknight, especially a lot of the top players. I think all the mk regulations worked decently. MK still has no bad match ups, but if you outplay him, he is very beatable. It would be a lot better if he had at least one bad match up, even on one stage, but at least he is beatable.

 

[Burning Boom]

Banning a character isn't that simple. A lot of people play metaknight, especially a lot of the top players. I think all the mk regulations worked decently. MK still has no bad match ups, but if you outplay him, he is very beatable. It would be a lot better if he had at least one bad match up, even on one stage, but at least he is beatable.

To hell with those players! It's not the community's responsibility to keep everyone happy, it's to achieve a fair and diverse meta-game, which will inherently please most reasonable people. If someone plays a broken character that should be banned, that's their problem. Say if in boxing, a decent number of top competitors started putting lead in their glove, does that mean it should be legalized? One character wouldn't have been a huge loss to Brawl, especially a character that slants the meta-game so much towards repetitivity. However, all the stuff that was done to keep Meta-Knight legal (and even so he's still easily the best character and overpopulates the meta-game) significantly detracted from play, and made us have to really watch for certain techs that, if not banned, would make him too powerful.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

^ The contradiction. This stage should be banned because it introduces randomness, but just because it introduces randomness doesn't mean we should ban it. Because it contradicts, it makes me believe that randomness is not even an issue.

That's not a contradiction. I don't even know what else I can say, because it's just blatantly not contradictory :/
You even explain why it isn't contradictory in this next paragraph - "redeeming" qualities (though that's a stupid way of looking at it because it implies that we have to immediately ban everything with a hint of randomness and then 'bring it back' through redemption).

If I'm following correctly, you're saying that Smashville, Peach, Dedede, self-destructs, Halberd, etc. are all ban-worthy because they introduce elements of randomness that give unearned rewards to players. However, when I pointed this out, you told me to stop being so black and white about it. We can make exceptions wherever we choose, and in your case, those exceptions come up in the form of redeeming qualities. You're willing to look the other way as long as there's a redeeming quality. I don't particularly think that's incorrect, I just think that you're not looking for the right redeeming qualities. I say this because I have no idea why you think Halberd brings nothing of worth compared to other stages, yet Dreamland does in comparison to Battlefield. You never stated it.

Dreamland exists in a game with very few legal stages; the more the merrier, the slight differences on Dreamland actually make a significant difference to the metagame in the long run and the community has decided that it's worth keeping around, not to mention that the wind has a negligible affect on results.

Halberd allows for sharking, yay, another stage that MK is amazing on (and please don't say he isn't just because he dies early - Halberd is an MK counterpick in many match-ups if he doesn't have Deflino, etc...). The randomnness has a larger effect on the outcome of matches than the wind in Dreamland (though not by a lot, Halberd isn't that bad really, I'm just explaining the rationale behind banning it), and we already have SV/BF/FD/YI/LC/PS1/possibly more stages, so it's not as important to hold onto Halberd as it is to hold onto Dreamland.

 

[Thor]

To hell with those players! It's not the community's responsibility to keep everyone happy, it's to achieve a fair and diverse meta-game, which will inherently please most reasonable people. If someone plays a broken character that should be banned, that's their problem. Say if in boxing, a decent number of top competitors started putting lead in their glove, does that mean it should be legalized? One character wouldn't have been a huge loss to Brawl, especially a character that slants the meta-game so much towards repetitivity. However, all the stuff that was done to keep Meta-Knight legal (and even so he's still easily the best character and overpopulates the meta-game) significantly detracted from play, and made us have to really watch for certain techs that, if not banned, would make him too powerful.

I would rage-post but I'll just say that MK is not inherently "unfair" because nothing but your own ego prevents you from also choosing MK, so if you can't beat him it's because you're too stuck up to join him. I also really disagree with "to hell with those players!" [which is what would prompt an angry post]. And I don't think it detracts from play - we still have high skill players who play non-MK characters (Salem, DEHF, Nietono, Reflex, Mr. R, I'd go on but I think you understand what I'm saying, regardless of whether you agree with it). Yeah ROB and TL are less prevalent but that's like 2 characters, and we should be glad about a 1/3 of the cast is reasonably well-repped between teams and doubles.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Salem, DEHF, Nietono, Reflex, Mr. R

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueZ6tvqhk8U

 

[Burning Boom]

I would rage-post but I'll just say that MK is not inherently "unfair" because nothing but your own ego prevents you from also choosing MK, so if you can't beat him it's because you're too stuck up to join him. I also really disagree with "to hell with those players!" [which is what would prompt an angry post]. And I don't think it detracts from play - we still have high skill players who play non-MK characters (Salem, DEHF, Nietono, Reflex, Mr. R, I'd go on but I think you understand what I'm saying, regardless of whether you agree with it). Yeah ROB and TL are less prevalent but that's like 2 characters, and we should be glad about a 1/3 of the cast is reasonably well-repped between teams and doubles.

The scene is pretty dominated by Meta and icies though. The same way I'd say that only the top say, 8 characters are regularly used in Melee, you will only commonly see people picking up MK and IC. It's not that I could just join him, or that he's beatable, it's that the meta-game became way too centered on him, and thus play is very limited because of him. It just makes the scene a lot less interesting. The game as a whole would've been way better off if he'd simply been banned, it wouldn't have been a huge loss, and would've been a great gain in balance, freedom, and variety.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Well in competitive Pokemon, for Smogon anyway, you have stuff like Ubers, OU, BL, UU, BL2, RU, and NU for where Pokemon are located and different set-ups for each one. Ubers are the insanely OP Pokemon, like Metwo or Arceus, and in Uber play any Pokemon is allowed. Over Used is the most popular level of play and Ubers aren't allowed, it's basically the top tier play. Under Used is like the mixed tier and anything above BL is not allowed into it. You see where this is going.

Now I'm sure you know about the side event known as top tier play, mid tier play, and low tier play. Well what if instead of theme being side events they became more mainstream and got adapated into how it works for competitive Pokemon in Smogon. It's a long shot, but it could allow more stages to be played in a sense by allowing more stages for the mids and lows.

I know how the tier list works, and I get the concept. People have done things like that on occasion, and I'd love to see more of it ESPECIALLY early in in the lifespan of the game.

Banning a character isn't that simple. A lot of people play metaknight, especially a lot of the top players. I think all the mk regulations worked decently. MK still has no bad match ups, but if you outplay him, he is very beatable. It would be a lot better if he had at least one bad match up, even on one stage, but at least he is beatable.

I know it isn't that simple NOW. At one point it would have been, and at that point people had crazy data on how MK was. Instead of possibly thinking of the health of the scene for years to come, they thought of only themselves in that moment. I do get that he is beatable, but I personally beleive a game without him would have benefited a LOT of people and the Brawl scene would be stronger today.

 

[Thor]

EDIT: Adding the quote here

The scene is pretty dominated by Meta and icies though. The same way I'd say that only the top say, 8 characters are regularly used in Melee, you will only commonly see people picking up MK and IC. It's not that I could just join him, or that he's beatable, it's that the meta-game became way too centered on him, and thus play is very limited because of him. It just makes the scene a lot less interesting. The game as a whole would've been way better off if he'd simply been banned, it wouldn't have been a huge loss, and would've been a great gain in balance, freedom, and variety.

I mean, I picked up Pikachu... and like, then ban ICs too, because I'd much rather pocket MK than pocket TL (trying anyway), ZSS, or Peach (or be stuck playing Pikachu or Falco the whole set against ICs). MK is a very helpful check on ICs in my opinion, but that's besides the point I guess.

Like, you can still see people pick up Falco and Snake now. Also, I'm at least partly convinced banning some characters just slides the best characters down - Marth would have one bad MU (Dedede) and Dedede would lose his (second?) biggest issue (both with ICs gone), while Falco can still chain-throw the **** out of people and has lasers. And Snake has utilt + 20% damage ftilt. Like, now people just pick up Falco, Marth, Snake, and Dedede instead (and many probably also pick up Olimar and Diddy Kong, but I'd argue they require more work to be played competently (because it's the newer players doing this). Or if MK's gone, people REALLY start picking up ICs. So I'm not sure how a ban fixes the problem? (I'm not familiar with the time MK was banned - if someone wants to tell me this is all empirically denied I'm more than willing to listen but want statistics just so I can compare myself).

This is the situation in Melee you ID'd [parallels to Brawl in brackets] - Fox/Falco/Sheik/Marth [MK maybe ICs] beat nearly everyone well below them, except Peach, Jigglypuff, Captain Falcon, and Ice Climbers [characters 2-9 or 2-10 on the list] keep up better (so do Axe and Shroomed and maybe Kage) [Trela] so you'd have to ban at least the top 3 and probably all 4 to fix it there. But then CF, Peach, ICs, and probably Doc become broken [Falco, Snake, Dedede or ICs, Marth], so do you ban them next?

Second edit: I do not understand how the video relates to what I said, but whatever.

 

[WindMajor]

I wanted to point out that it still was a contradiction, but you just said that Halberd isn't really that bad, which was a point that I was going to make had you mentioned randomness again. Since you reached my same conclusion before I had the chance to make it, we're pretty much done with the topic lol.

You did mention MK and the stage list though, which I have a few brief words on.
1) MK - **** Metaknight
2) The stage list - Melee has a total of 6 stages in singles, Brawl has 8. On top of that, 4 out of those 6 stages have a similar flat plat layout (Yoshi's, Battlefield, Dream Land and Fountain of Dreams) with only minor alterations to them, whereas Halberd is the only legal stage in Brawl with a main floor that can be sharked, and that's only temporarily. This is all based off the Apex 2014 ruleset. Halberd would be the only stage that would bring sharking, but to say that Halberd only brings sharking to the table is pretty shallow. That is all.

 

[Thor]

MK - **** Metaknight

I honestly hope they nerf MK in Smash 4 only so people stop saying "**** Metaknight." Because I really liked Meta Knight in the TV shows and video games (he's cool).

 

[LiteralGrill]

I honestly hope they nerf MK in Smash 4 only so people stop saying "**** Metaknight." Because I really liked Meta Knight in the TV shows and video games (he's cool).

I think a LOT of people would agree with wanting him nerfed a more then a bit (I've seen more then enough people saying they should just cut him, but I think he'd be okay with some serious work, here's hoping ICs lose thee chaingrab too.)

 

[Thor]

No I just want him nerfed for a lot of people would call "the wrong reasons." I don't mind him in Brawl (yeah he's annoying but I can play him too if I want, and I play Pikachu so the MU is fine, maybe not 0 [not gonna start that here] but certainly not bad (like it's certainly not 63:37 or worse)), I just wish characters weren't hated on for being so good [OP is the term]. Like, Pikachu in SSB 64 never got this kind of hate (to my knowledge) (also I really like Pikachu so I'm glad that never happened).

So, if Sakurai gave everyone competitive the finger and buffed MK, I'd laugh, but I'd also probably be disheartening because I couldn't actually play MK, cuz he'd be banned (unless Sakurai goes Brawl- on us for Smash 4).

 

[Burning Boom]

EDIT: Adding the quote here



I mean, I picked up Pikachu... and like, then ban ICs too, because I'd much rather pocket MK than pocket TL (trying anyway), ZSS, or Peach (or be stuck playing Pikachu or Falco the whole set against ICs). MK is a very helpful check on ICs in my opinion, but that's besides the point I guess.

Like, you can still see people pick up Falco and Snake now. Also, I'm at least partly convinced banning some characters just slides the best characters down - Marth would have one bad MU (Dedede) and Dedede would lose his (second?) biggest issue (both with ICs gone), while Falco can still chain-throw the **** out of people and has lasers. And Snake has utilt + 20% damage ftilt. Like, now people just pick up Falco, Marth, Snake, and Dedede instead (and many probably also pick up Olimar and Diddy Kong, but I'd argue they require more work to be played competently (because it's the newer players doing this). Or if MK's gone, people REALLY start picking up ICs. So I'm not sure how a ban fixes the problem? (I'm not familiar with the time MK was banned - if someone wants to tell me this is all empirically denied I'm more than willing to listen but want statistics just so I can compare myself).

This is the situation in Melee you ID'd [parallels to Brawl in brackets] - Fox/Falco/Sheik/Marth [MK maybe ICs] beat nearly everyone well below them, except Peach, Jigglypuff, Captain Falcon, and Ice Climbers [characters 2-9 or 2-10 on the list] keep up better (so do Axe and Shroomed and maybe Kage) [Trela] so you'd have to ban at least the top 3 and probably all 4 to fix it there. But then CF, Peach, ICs, and probably Doc become broken [Falco, Snake, Dedede or ICs, Marth], so do you ban them next?

Second edit: I do not understand how the video relates to what I said, but whatever.

There will always be better and worse characters, that's just common sense, but MK simply forces a meta-game to revolve around him. Sure ICs (and even Olimar) are really good too, but there are a few CP to them (aside from MK), they don't automatically destroy everyone, and they don't require half of the rule set to be tailored to them. Anyway, this argument can go back and forth for however long people decide to keep typing (it's happened before), and is getting rather off-topic.

Also, I beleive Grim's vid was supposed to say that one of those competitors shouldn't be clumped in with the rest.

 

[LiteralGrill]

No I just want him nerfed for a lot of people would call "the wrong reasons." I don't mind him in Brawl (yeah he's annoying but I can play him too if I want, and I play Pikachu so the MU is fine, maybe not 0 [not gonna start that here] but certainly not bad (like it's certainly not 63:37 or worse)), I just wish characters weren't hated on for being so good [OP is the term]. Like, Pikachu in SSB 64 never got this kind of hate (to my knowledge) (also I really like Pikachu so I'm glad that never happened).

So, if Sakurai gave everyone competitive the finger and buffed MK, I'd laugh, but I'd also probably be disheartening because I couldn't actually play MK, cuz he'd be banned (unless Sakurai goes Brawl- on us for Smash 4).

Actually, Pika AND Kirby gets some major hate and the baning of Hyrule at Apex has started some heated discussions over there. Scary how one stage can change the entire game.

The problem I have with MK is this. Every time you play you can tell yourself "get better" and climb the mountain to do so just as any other player can. With MK, the mountain you climb has such an extreme peak that there is a point that you cannot catch up no matter how hard you climb. So many players were great players with other characters and literally doubles how much they won just by changing to MK. There is a point where it's a bit beyond OP to me.

But this is about stages, which funnily enough were banned for ONE character using them when data even showed at times they weren't his best stages at all. I think we should look at this when choosing stages for sure to make sure people use proper information when deciding these things for sure.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I think it'd be really funny if MK is even better in Smash 4.

 

[LiteralGrill]

I think it'd be really funny if MK is even better in Smash 4.

Okay I admit, it would be funny, and I've seen something similar happen in PSASBR which was indeed hilarious, but i still don't want to see it happen enough.

 

[WindMajor]

What if Link was actually the best character?

 

[Bobwithlobsters]

I just wanted to say I saw thor post that it is nice to have mk as a check for ic's. The only reason we needed a check for them is because mk wiped out half the stages from our stage list. Ic's are a character of extremes in that they do amazing well on select stages and really struggle on others. Only character I can think of that can have mu's swing from say +1 to -2 purely from the stage. He is a perfect example of getting heavily buffed by the stage list shrinking.

 

[Thor]

Never thought of it that way.

Just one thing though: how would we shift our thinking of 'neutrals'? Otherwise it's ICs go somewhere moderately favorable game one (any of the current stages due to stage striking), if they win CP'd and lose, then to Smashville or FD for game 3 (or I guess Yoshi's Story if DSR and stage bans), and win. This is OBVIOUSLY hypothetical but I have to wonder what we could do to keep enough stuff so ICs can't go to an explicitly favorable stage (I think Lylat and BF are kind of neutral, but your ICs opponent can strike both with current starters and leave you stuck...). So would we then add to the neutrals list (PS 2 is also probably not great for them (stage transformations help out for against ICs and a pair of platforms) and a possibly acceptable starter, but what else?).

I'm just thinking to IF we banned MK (which I'd still not exactly like...) what we'd do to keep ICs from going nuts (or making nearly everyone have to learn to cope like people did with MK).

Also, can someone just explain exactly what gets unbanned when MK goes away? I'm not clear on what stages we gain if he's not part of the meta.

EDIT: I'm also not trying to make ICs unviable (I'll admit I dislike them), but if the problem is ICs being broken on some neutrals and some CPs, but our neutrals don't change, then banning MK can only exacerbate their brokenness (lose the easiest to use counter). My questions are an attempt to resolve that for MK-banned tournaments (and to quantify what MK leaving gains us in terms of stage choices).

 

[Grim Tuesday]

He's not going anywhere.

 

[Bobwithlobsters]

He's not going anywhere.

Yeah have to agree. With the disbanding of the unity rule set team I think all arguments to ban since have just not had a chance. Sad but a reality. Just not an option anymore.

On the Ice Climbers topic. With a diverse stage list with a healthy starter list or say full stage list striking for first match, it is unlikely that ice climbers would get one of their strong stages in like fd smashville or battle field.

 

[LiteralGrill]

He's not going anywhere.

Yeah have to agree. Work The disbanding of the unity rule set team I think all arguments to bam since have just not had a chance. Sad but a reality. Just not an option anymore.

I figure that, though there are still tournaments with him banned, an even some banning ICs now. Still, there is still some good hypotheticals for looking at stagelists without MK as a problem since logically one would think Sakurai would fix him for Sm4sh.

Never thought of it that way.

Just one thing though: how would we shift our thinking of 'neutrals'? Otherwise it's ICs go somewhere moderately favorable game one (any of the current stages due to stage striking), if they win CP'd and lose, then to Smashville or FD for game 3 (or I guess Yoshi's Story if DSR and stage bans), and win. This is OBVIOUSLY hypothetical but I have to wonder what we could do to keep enough stuff so ICs can't go to an explicitly favorable stage (I think Lylat and BF are kind of neutral, but your ICs opponent can strike both with current starters and leave you stuck...). So would we then add to the neutrals list (PS 2 is also probably not great for them (stage transformations help out for against ICs and a pair of platforms) and a possibly acceptable starter, but what else?).

I'm just thinking to IF we banned MK (which I'd still not exactly like...) what we'd do to keep ICs from going nuts (or making nearly everyone have to learn to cope like people did with MK).

Also, can someone just explain exactly what gets unbanned when MK goes away? I'm not clear on what stages we gain if he's not part of the meta.

EDIT: I'm also not trying to make ICs unviable (I'll admit I dislike them), but if the problem is ICs being broken on some neutrals and some CPs, but our neutrals don't change, then banning MK can only exacerbate their brokenness (lose the easiest to use counter). My questions are an attempt to resolve that for MK-banned tournaments (and to quantify what MK leaving gains us in terms of stage choices).

On the Ice Climbers topic. With a diverse stage list with a healthy starter list or say full stage list striking for first match, it is unlikely that ice climbers would get one of their strong stages in like fd smashville or battle field.

^ Put perfectly. Especially full list striking for the first stage at least, it would control ICs quite nicely. Or you could go crazy and legalize something like Onett which is actually quite the stage sometimes AGAINST chain grabbing surprisingly though still has issues.

If MK is banned in theory you get back quite a few stages (depending on where you are from and philosophy) which may include Frigate Orpheon, Norfair, Rainbow Cruise, Jungle Japes, and Brinstar.

(Fun Fact, didja know that Yoshi's Island (Melee) was considered to be a stage actually bad for MK yet we banned it anyways? sad really )

 

[Bobwithlobsters]

There are a number of stages banned for reasons outside of mk. For example stages like Pictochat, jungle japes, and green greens. None were super good mk stages but banned for the stage themselves. I personally disagree with the ban on jungle japes and green greens, but I definitely wouldn't try to blame mk for those guys. We just lost stages like brinstar, norfair, Rainbow cruise, and even delfino and halberd in some stage lists now.

 

[LiteralGrill]

There are a number of stages banned for reasons outside of mk. For example stages like Pictochat, jungle japes, and green greens. None were super good mk stages but banned for the stage themselves. I personally disagree with the ban on jungle japes and green greens, but I definitely wouldn't try to blame mk for those guys. We just lost stages like brinstar, norfair, Rainbow cruise, and even delfino and halberd in some stage lists now.

You'd be surprised, Falco AND MK were reasons in the past people banned Japes. Though it is truethat things like Delfino and Halberd have been banned because of him too.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

It's funny, because if you abuse it right MK is actually broken on almost every stage
Even Smashville (scrooging) is ********, but we limit it

On Green Greens, he can camp the sides brutally well when he has the lead.

YI:M is bad for him tho lol

 

[LiteralGrill]

It's funny, because if you abuse it right MK is actually broken on almost every stage
Even Smashville (scrooging) is ********, but we limit it

On Green Greens, he can camp the sides brutally well when he has the lead.

YI:M is bad for him tho lol

I got to thinking today, people always compared MK to Akuma right? Why didn't they just put limits on Akuma's fireballs so he could stay legal?

And if I remember right, MK's win percentage is higher on Smashville then any other legal stage, meaning we also keep his BEST STAGE LEGAL.

And wasn't YI:M banned for something like "reduces edgeguarding skill" or some untrue things about unstoppable chaingrabs there?

 

[Thor]

And if I remember right, MK's win percentage is higher on Smashville then any other legal stage, meaning we also keep his BEST STAGE LEGAL.

Fine, people can push to unban some stages, with the argument win percents go down. And that reduces the arguments to ban him (don't want to see him leave again...). And we can put stages on so ICs have to work a bit harder and not favorable neutrals every round one (it's a free Yoshi's, FD, or SV, and then if they lose they get one of those three again which I believe are the best ICs stages, someone can correct me if I'm wrong).

Also I think SV is just a pretty balanced stage, and if MK has a high win percent there, that suggests it comes down to skill and the character a person chooses (which reveals MK's dominance). If you disagree (and I don't blame you), please explain to me exactly what he abuses here because I'm not sure (already said scrooging was limited, is that really the biggest issue?). Is it the moving platform for edgeguarding, which combines with the fact he can easily set up edgeguards?Or something else?

P.S: I'm serious I never knew the win percentage thing, I always thought the stage was well-made. But maybe it's not...
Also, maybe there's not been NEARLY enough time (I'm guessing so) but is there anything notable about P:M SV for statistics? I'd guess there's far too little data (especially considering updates and such) but does Fox/Falco/whomever seem to benefit from SV vs BF or FD or not really?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

It would be match-up dependent, Fox would do well on FD against characters he can CG, but bad against characters that can CG him. Falco would definitely rather platforms 90% of the time, you can just apply Melee logic to PM.

YI:M was banned for dumb reasons, as with most stages. The walls aren't problematic, and just because the blast-zones are 'close' doesn't make them problematic. But randomly being saved/killed by falling blocks is stupid, and gameplay on the stage tends to be quite shallow.

 

[TimeSmash]

It would be match-up dependent, Fox would do well on FD against characters he can CG, but bad against characters that can CG him. Falco would definitely rather platforms 90% of the time, you can just apply Melee logic to PM.

YI:M was banned for dumb reasons, as with most stages. The walls aren't problematic, and just because the blast-zones are 'close' doesn't make them problematic. But randomly being saved/killed by falling blocks is stupid, and gameplay on the stage tends to be quite shallow.

Please elaborate, unless I'm being an idiot and thinking of the wrong stage. The one with the slanted pipe, right? What do you mean falling blocks? But I would agree with you on the gameplay aspect, especially if we were talking about Melee.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I was thinking of green greens when I wrote that paragraph
for no good reason
>____>

YI:M is pretty legit, really. It'd be a pretty strong counterpick, but there's nothing really wrong with it. Just got banned cause "lol walk-offs", which turns people off

 

[TimeSmash]

I agree with you for counterpicks, and as far as hazards go, the blocks are pretty mundane. My only issue with it is for CG'ing characters and the Shine Combo Fox can do to you that is aided much by the ramps.

I would love to see a stage with more slanted platforms, though, at the same time. I feel like they add a little depth. Maybe something more like Yoshi's island is Brawl

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Fox can only waveshine in Melee
chain-grabbing is made impossible on many characters by the slope, so majority of match-ups are actually fine there in that respect

 

[TimeSmash]

====*
The more you know, brought to by Grim Tuesday.

I knew he could only Waveshine in Melee, but I didn't know about the chain-grab impeding it did.

Let me throw you a hypothetical. Let's say we had a stage that had regenerating platforms like YI:M and not like Skyfall. Maybe arranged in a Norfair like format, with a large platform below them (not walk offs). Would you think the blocks interfere enough with the game to be deemed a ban?