Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
We're supposed to focus on the enemy, you know? The way we choose to play this game is measuring skill by having PLAYERS compete with EACH OTHER.
I'm not arguing Final Destination isn't a good stage for grounded characters. I'm arguing it's more balanced than Brinstar.
Flayl gave arguments to why he disagrees. Would you mind doing the same?
Random insult for no reason.
So you do need to concentrate on the lava, because you have to react to it. It doesn't mean it's very much of an effort but you do have to do it.
Where did you get those numbers from? Who says Smash is 50% PvP and 50% PvS? Have you researched and calculated this? Do the percentages change, depending on the ruleset?
How so? Who says these characters can't be good on dynamic stages? Coincidentally, they're all top tier. What do you mean with 'for no apparent reason'? I can say the same about every ruleset and say "you're buffing X,Y and Z for no apparent reason".
By your criteria. I can assure you a big majority of people here does not follow your criteria.
Since when? Do you have any proof for this? Last time I checked MK was broken here.
what? Bad characters stay bad characters. One stage - that is barely influential - doesn't change that.
That is not representative.
Ehh I guess.
Certain characters can do that, meaning that only some characters can do it and that the player has to make that decision, the stage won't do it for you. Players should do it themselves.
Of course it is the stage! The stage boosts him.
How so?
At the same time it adds a different, even bigger part of the game.
You think marth is (relatively) bad and every1 (and by that i mean me) who disagrees has Mr. R biasAt the same time it adds a different, even bigger part of the game.
That's why people like you and BPC are idiots: you think your own criteria are objectively definable and whoever disagrees is a "sad scrub". I have my own logic and it's sound and consistent. But you are biased thinking your own logic is "better" even though that's not possible. It's sad that the whole community of Finland is exposed to somebody like you.
this is where the problems began :D
"Bad"? Oh god...
>permanent
...And why is water a problem? As for the walkoffs, refer to castle siege.
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=281330
Yep, the obvious claw which obviously telegraphs itself years in advance.
...Why is this a problem? Learn to recover.
Okay, do me a favor. Show me one high-level match in the last few months where someone got abused by a wall or something on PS1 (perhaps the windmill? Wanna count that?). Their temporary nature and the stalling they encourage makes them very weak hazards.
This would be reason to ban the stage-not a reason to make it less of a starter.
Can we please not completely redifine statements? It's static. You are completely mangling the definition of "neutral", because if a stage is a favored counterpick for a character, it's DEFINITELY not neutral among the cast (FD for ICs ring any bells? BF for Falco? Lylat for Peach and Marth? Yoshi's for Olimar, DK, and Sonic? SV as a second choice for most of the chars who like FD?), and calling it that is seriously mangling the definition. Call them static, but PLEASE stop referring to them as neutral.
Actually, you can't construct a starter list which is fair for all characters. Ever. The "neutral stage" is different for each matchup, and each player. So what do you do? Limiting it to stages that appear "fair" doesn't really help either because even though it may not seem like SV gives anyone a serious advantage, it is definitely not a median stage for, say, G&W vs. ICs-it's G&W's second-worst stage in the matchup! So what do you do to avoid situations like that? You raise the number of stages in the starter list. This leads to the most fair stage coming out AUTOMATICALLY, because each player strikes to the stage that is equally fair for each part of the matchup.
...What makes SV better than any other stage?We could also just always start the first match on SV.
ICs-G&W
1. Why?
Okay, then it makes it "projectile- and grab-camping supporting". Which is just as bad as being ground-favored.
I honestly wonder why, because PS1 is ridiculously neutral (in the english meaning of the word). There are very few matchups that are actually polarized there-honestly, it's probably a better "neutral" than BF or SV!
If by apparently you mean "definitely", then yep. The reasoning is right there.Having too many elements in a stage apparently equals skill because you have to 'adapt' to them.
No, no and NO. SERIOUSLY ***** GET A ****ING IDEA OF HOW THIS GAME IS PLAYEDBPC said:
This is why skill does matter in these debates and why theory-crafting alone can never prove a point right: As soon as you give concrete examples your lack of knowledge becomes glaringly obvious making your whole agenda more than just questionable.
ICs on FD are almost certainly broken. They counter almost the entire cast, including MK-in fact, the only char who really does well against them there is Snake; everyone else fairs somewhere between okay (MK) and ****ty (most of the cast). So... it's the quality of the stage?Idk about you but when I talk about the stages - it's potential as a starter or a counterpick stage - I ignore the aspect of a character's strength on a stage. The "neutrality" [lack of a better word] of a stage does not depend on a character's performance on said stage but on it's composure [which is not objectively definable, whether you want to or not].
If a character is "too good" on a stage, then it's never the character but always a particular mechanic of a stage, that is already broken and just happens to be abused well by one character.
Hey, aren't you that guy Ravenlord ***** in a hard counter matchup? Worth mentioning that people have been discrediting me for losing against his Lucas with MK... You lost against his lucas with MARTH.
Often. Very very often. More often than not.
Stupid and gay things happen a lot with walls. Dumb "combo's" or survinving a hit because of a wall or stalling.
I can speak from experience that it's muuuuuch more than a tiny fraction, and that the exact same part may actually return several times. The flip definitely isn't non-dangerous... if you're coincidentally in a bad position, you're done for.
The claw is SOOOOOOOO underrated. This thing can utterly **** you. It is already unfair it locks on one random person. If you're the victim, you MUST react to the claw and it always puts you into a bad position. If you were already in a bad one (for example when recovering), things get even worse. The fact that Halberd is miniscule doesn't make things better.Yep, the obvious claw which obviously telegraphs itself years in advance.
That's the problem. There is no learning.
Such matches would most likely not get recorded.
Lol. It's not that bad.
This sounds very ideologic. What if a character is actually handicapped by involving more starters? What if the majority of those extra stages might be bad for a character? That character will be worse off. There will always be victims and winners.
That is something very different.
See, here's the thing-that part of the stage seriously encourages runaway. So sure, you could have stuff like walkoff kills, but you really never should. As a rule of thumb, here's what you can do to never die off the side early on CS's second transformation: stay off the ground. Stay on the inner edge of the tapestries, and when the opponent approaches, go to the other one, or down to one of the statue's platforms. So let me rephrase my question-how often do you see anything happen in high-level play? I haven't noticed anything...
They hint themselves years in advance and seriously encourage stalling. There is no way you can get locked into some wall combo without your opponent SERIOUSLY outplaying you.
Well, it's not a tiny fraction, but it's between 25 and 33% of the stage's total duration. And the flip really should be non-dangerous unless your opponent pushed you into a very bad position.
It's certainly less polar. I keep vouching for Frigate as a starter above, say, Delfino, because it really is less of a polarizing stage, especially when you realize that DDD adores delfino, and already has FD, PS1, and SV on most large starter lists. I'd place it above Halberd, too; probably in a 7-stage list.
I know that the claw is a problem, but let me ask you this (thank you SuSa): how can you claim that it's not okay for round one, but totally okay for the other rounds? If anything, ban the stage for excessive randomness. But how can you differentiate it as a starter or not... Actually wait I wasn't proposing it as a starter. Fail. The claw IS underrated, actually. But it's also often overrated.
It doesn't tilt very fast, and usually not that much. You'll live.
Why not? I mean, these are exactly the matches that NEED to get recorded.
Yes, but look at it this way: as such, we are rewarding characters via our stage selection system for:
Not really-instead of supporting a generalized character quality, it supports very specific character qualities. Not a huge change.
What do you think about it?Err I kinda skipped the last part and went straight for the arguments hehe. I think I get your vision by now.
That'd be a valid argument if it weren't for CiB being what, one and a half years ago?
Nonsense. Ice Climbers don't counter MK on FD at all, the match-up just becomes closer to even than on any other stage. Snake also does perfectly fine and - believe it or not - it's probably one of Falco's better stages against them [most IC players hate fighting Falco on FD for a good reason] and Falco is already a pretty tough match-up for them. The same holds true for Diddy Kong and Toon Link just to name a few examples.
This is serious theorycrafting. If you get hit, you will get to the sides and early kills will happen. It is impossible not to get hit in high-level play with humans. Someone will get hit and when he does, the reward is biiiiig. Some statues (that can also extend certain hitboxes) and platforms won't magically change that.
It doesn't matter if they hint themselves years in advance. They're either in the way, or they can be abused badly.
25% - 33% is not short. It's quite long actually. As for your second statement, that means it is somehow dangerous, but you actually don't have to be pushed in a very bad position. If you're edgeguarding for example, things can look cruel even though you're not forced into a bad position by your opponent. You will have to return rapidly but I'm afraid that doesn't always work out...
I find it quite interesting for counterpick stages actually. It's a risk you take with counterpicking this stage. Fortunately, this stage is not centered about risks and having luck, unlike stages such as Warioware, so the stage won't be completely broken. I don't find it suitable for a starter because I find that both players shouldn't be forced to take a risk by playing on a stage with such a hazard.
Dude, I have seen this a hundred times. Tilting can severely **** recoveries. If it didn't, nobody would bother to ***** about the tilting.
Maybe. But they don't, because people think 'LOL gay match nvm this one'. And high level matches don't take often place on PS1.
High tier characters are high tier for a reason... They have a lot of options and can adapt by using. If character X has a universal advantage over character Y, character X should have better and more stage to counterpick than character Y. I can't see how this helps balancing the game. MK wouldn't get worse. Snake wouldn't get worse. Falco wouldn't get worse. Diddy wouldn't get worse. I can only see them get better. All of them can adapt to the stage and seeing the majority of their match-ups are good, they often have quite a lot of stages to pick. They are good characters and good on several stages. I don't understand how one can say 'more stages = more balance'.
Aaaah, so we get more specific now. Generalized character quality is so much more universal and will be abused by more characters rather than specific ones. It is quite different.
You don't even main Marth...
