Wikipedia
Smash Lord
Australian isn't competitive. Give it up guys <3
-
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!
Australian Competitive Brawl Ruleset Discussion *Update: 15/05/08* *Spoilers*
- Thread starter Scrubs
- Start date
Right…time for a comment from the NSW people, i.e. me. To be honest, what I’ve seen from the stages chosen as neutrals and even counter picks really strikes me as wrong. A lot of them are horrible, and the thought of playing a tourney match on them makes me shudder, I really don’t see how they can be legal. This is a game about two characters playing on what should be an even field of play, the skill residing in each players ability to control their character, what I see in these stages however aint that at all. What its going to come down to is who can abuse the stage better then the other…and really that is not what this game is about.
My first and foremost example is any stage with walk off edges. Bridge of Eldin, Castle Siege and to a lesser extent Coneria (where the deadzone is incredibly close to the edges), are all horrible for competitive play. The ability to get kills, or killed, at really low percentages from a whole host of attacks, not to mention throws, is something that does not belong in competitive smash, it changes the entire way the game is played…Lets take a good example…Bridge of Eldin, someone camps near an edge spamming projectiles, waits for the approach, shields then back throws for a nice easy kill…sure there is skill involved, and the other player might be able to turn the tables around…totally theoretical, but easily possible. The entire match can come down to who abuses the stage better then the other person to get the gimp kills, and gimp kills does not make smash what it is…unless its gimping recoveries, but that’s completely different.
A great majority of the counter pick stages will also come down to, who can use the stage to gimp …I think Skyworld would be an awesome example, one of the most broken stages I’ve played on, the collapsible floor and spike happy roof is once again something that does not belong in tourney play. I could go on with more stages…but my time is limited atm.
Pretty much what I would like to see, is smash in its most pure, character skill based form…call me a purist but what ever, the only stages I can see that are worth playing and counter picking on are:
Battlefield
Final Destination
Yoshi's Island
Lylat Cruise
Smashville
Pokemon Stadium
These stages are the most balanced for the majority of characters in the game, they provide only a few opportunities for stage based gimp kills (The edges of final D do spike pretty hard though), and have little interferance in gameplay.
So basically my main point is: Smash isn’t about who can abuse stages better then the other guy, its about who can skilfully outplay others with their character of choice, that be my definition.
But yeah…just my two cents, and its pretty close to how NSW tourneys will be run in the future.
My first and foremost example is any stage with walk off edges. Bridge of Eldin, Castle Siege and to a lesser extent Coneria (where the deadzone is incredibly close to the edges), are all horrible for competitive play. The ability to get kills, or killed, at really low percentages from a whole host of attacks, not to mention throws, is something that does not belong in competitive smash, it changes the entire way the game is played…Lets take a good example…Bridge of Eldin, someone camps near an edge spamming projectiles, waits for the approach, shields then back throws for a nice easy kill…sure there is skill involved, and the other player might be able to turn the tables around…totally theoretical, but easily possible. The entire match can come down to who abuses the stage better then the other person to get the gimp kills, and gimp kills does not make smash what it is…unless its gimping recoveries, but that’s completely different.
A great majority of the counter pick stages will also come down to, who can use the stage to gimp …I think Skyworld would be an awesome example, one of the most broken stages I’ve played on, the collapsible floor and spike happy roof is once again something that does not belong in tourney play. I could go on with more stages…but my time is limited atm.
Pretty much what I would like to see, is smash in its most pure, character skill based form…call me a purist but what ever, the only stages I can see that are worth playing and counter picking on are:
Battlefield
Final Destination
Yoshi's Island
Lylat Cruise
Smashville
Pokemon Stadium
These stages are the most balanced for the majority of characters in the game, they provide only a few opportunities for stage based gimp kills (The edges of final D do spike pretty hard though), and have little interferance in gameplay.
So basically my main point is: Smash isn’t about who can abuse stages better then the other guy, its about who can skilfully outplay others with their character of choice, that be my definition.
But yeah…just my two cents, and its pretty close to how NSW tourneys will be run in the future.
Darkwing SykeDuk
Smash Dankist
I agree with someone for once, <3 kulla... now dance for me c:
One thing that I really noticed in brawl stages are how little amount of space there is on the sides. Like in Melee on yoshi's island and corneria you had a fair bit of room on the blind side spots (means your character is shown by a little bubble thing) but in brawl theres barely a characters length to the death spot. I'd list those stages as neutrals and probably less than that for counters. NO BAN's KGO!!!!!
One thing that I really noticed in brawl stages are how little amount of space there is on the sides. Like in Melee on yoshi's island and corneria you had a fair bit of room on the blind side spots (means your character is shown by a little bubble thing) but in brawl theres barely a characters length to the death spot. I'd list those stages as neutrals and probably less than that for counters. NO BAN's KGO!!!!!
i read through the thread and caught up on what was said and i have a couple of things to say.
firstly to scrubs: you are acting the most high and mighty of all who have spoken about their opinions with you OFTEN treating your own opinions or views as FACT. don't get angered by shaz saying things which you might interpret as him acting superior because you have all along been doing and saying things in ways which can only be interpreted as being high handed.
in regards to shaz making points on experience in melee being important with regard to their opinion being more valid, i agree somewhat as actions speak louder than words... however i believe all people can make valid arguements it's just that our word holds less value to someone with proven knowledge on the matters. (yes melee skill will correlate with brawl skill although not directly. good players won't just become bad with a slight change in game. brawl IS the sequel to melee so don't kid yourself that it's unrelated)
onto matters regarding stages and stage bans:
the jigglypuff and marth comparison is unimportant as to how valid a matchup it is since it's just an EXAMPLE to highlight a situation in which a certain type of stage is removed completely with multiple bans. there are probably other better examples out there that apply more practically to brawl and the more popular matchups but since no one atm is the master of how to effectively make use of certain elements with brawls stages it is quite sufficient at making its point.
i believe shaz has made this point earlier but i will repeat it. specialised characters who excel in just one particular area like walk off edges or "gimping" (in your opinion only) for their kills are put at a much MUCH larger disadvantage the more stage bans are brought into play. with no stage bans, you will be taken to that one stage you're at a disadvantage on with no choice in the matter, with 5 stage bans (to point out the flaw in multiple stage bans i used more than is being suggested) you can ban complete sets of elements you don't want, like walk off edges or certain platform allignments HOWEVER a character like marth, MK or robot still have many stages available to them which they can abuse in the same fashion they would normally because the elements which benefit them are abundant. this is not because they are just naturally better characters, nowhere does it state when you select them that they are the best characters, nor with a change of rules do they remain the best characters, they are only the best because of the ruleset we impose on ourselves with the neutral stages which are beneficial to these characters playstyles. why are we making these characters the best and consistently the best by limiting stages to their preferences as to what determines who the more skilled player is? if it is your preference to play on those types of stages that's fine but don't dismiss the other stages as being unskillful because of it. knowledge of stages and how to use/abuse them is not a seperate entity to character countering but works in conjunction with them to provide more balance for ALL characters rather than just empowering certain characters further. there is no true neutral as that is just a fools dream, a true neutral can never exist.
i'll do an analogy. people have a battle to determine what the better gun is between a sniper rifle and a machine gun, when the terrain for the battle comes into question they are hit with a problem. the sniper rifle wants a "fair" fight on a large flat plain so that it's just a battle between the two with no interferences from the area. the machine gun wants a place where there's walls to provide cover so one has defensive options available and terrain knowledge will provide an advantage. which is right? what's the most fair to choose? the answer is that neither is neutral ground as both benefit one or the other respectively.
when faced with the decision for that terrain:
we could choose one which favours one or the other based on our own personal preference of how the battle should be fought,
or a ruleset can be made which allows both aspects of their fighting to be incorporated at some point providing balance to both sides in turn.
which would you choose?
firstly to scrubs: you are acting the most high and mighty of all who have spoken about their opinions with you OFTEN treating your own opinions or views as FACT. don't get angered by shaz saying things which you might interpret as him acting superior because you have all along been doing and saying things in ways which can only be interpreted as being high handed.
in regards to shaz making points on experience in melee being important with regard to their opinion being more valid, i agree somewhat as actions speak louder than words... however i believe all people can make valid arguements it's just that our word holds less value to someone with proven knowledge on the matters. (yes melee skill will correlate with brawl skill although not directly. good players won't just become bad with a slight change in game. brawl IS the sequel to melee so don't kid yourself that it's unrelated)
onto matters regarding stages and stage bans:
the jigglypuff and marth comparison is unimportant as to how valid a matchup it is since it's just an EXAMPLE to highlight a situation in which a certain type of stage is removed completely with multiple bans. there are probably other better examples out there that apply more practically to brawl and the more popular matchups but since no one atm is the master of how to effectively make use of certain elements with brawls stages it is quite sufficient at making its point.
so you're saying a large number of stages is a bad thing? that you shouldn't have a wider variety of stages to choose? that with multiple stage bans you should be able to avoid the type of stage you don't want to be on while you're the one being COUNTERED?
i believe shaz has made this point earlier but i will repeat it. specialised characters who excel in just one particular area like walk off edges or "gimping" (in your opinion only) for their kills are put at a much MUCH larger disadvantage the more stage bans are brought into play. with no stage bans, you will be taken to that one stage you're at a disadvantage on with no choice in the matter, with 5 stage bans (to point out the flaw in multiple stage bans i used more than is being suggested) you can ban complete sets of elements you don't want, like walk off edges or certain platform allignments HOWEVER a character like marth, MK or robot still have many stages available to them which they can abuse in the same fashion they would normally because the elements which benefit them are abundant. this is not because they are just naturally better characters, nowhere does it state when you select them that they are the best characters, nor with a change of rules do they remain the best characters, they are only the best because of the ruleset we impose on ourselves with the neutral stages which are beneficial to these characters playstyles. why are we making these characters the best and consistently the best by limiting stages to their preferences as to what determines who the more skilled player is? if it is your preference to play on those types of stages that's fine but don't dismiss the other stages as being unskillful because of it. knowledge of stages and how to use/abuse them is not a seperate entity to character countering but works in conjunction with them to provide more balance for ALL characters rather than just empowering certain characters further. there is no true neutral as that is just a fools dream, a true neutral can never exist.
i'll do an analogy. people have a battle to determine what the better gun is between a sniper rifle and a machine gun, when the terrain for the battle comes into question they are hit with a problem. the sniper rifle wants a "fair" fight on a large flat plain so that it's just a battle between the two with no interferences from the area. the machine gun wants a place where there's walls to provide cover so one has defensive options available and terrain knowledge will provide an advantage. which is right? what's the most fair to choose? the answer is that neither is neutral ground as both benefit one or the other respectively.
when faced with the decision for that terrain:
we could choose one which favours one or the other based on our own personal preference of how the battle should be fought,
or a ruleset can be made which allows both aspects of their fighting to be incorporated at some point providing balance to both sides in turn.
which would you choose?
Its hard to actually highlight your points CATS as you didn't space what you said ! so I'm just gonna do an overall post
By stating everything you just said, you are automatically assuming that by allowing more stages, we make the game farer for the majority of the character. Which is I think is a flawed assumption, so I'd like more input from your view. This is how I perceieve it please tell me why it is wrong.
The reason for this, you can pick a water-level to say and which allows Jiggly for an advantage. But lets say they play IC on that matchup, then IC ability to play to its potential is decreased.
If you put alternatives matchups on different stages you a left with a hugely un-orthodox up and downs of a characters ability to perform. This is more of a mixed up in strengths and weaknesses.
Now a true neutral doesn't exist, it is impossible essentially. But a neutral is a closest to balance as possible with what we have at hand. A stage which gives an even input in a characters potential across the large majority of characters. - which doesn't sound like a bad thing.
Now, you can say that it just means a few characters will thrive and some will suffer, but this really hasn't been proven.
Top-tiers will be good on most stages because by their own design they are a better character and have a limited amount of bad matchups. A character which is -bad- might thrive on a non-neutral, but it may only be against a certain character which sucks at that stage.
This I see is where the perception that by allowing more stages gives you a greater chance of winning with a character who is horrible:
But that is what I personally have a problem with and why the majority of Australian Melee players play on neutrals only (By majority I mean the competitive melee players, afaik its practially most of QLD/NSW/Some of Melb).
Its not that we want to destroy that characters ability, its just that the skill needed is taken away due to the stages input. The skill needed to win is lowered overall by a process which: requires little skill, method and strategic knowledge to perform in its own right.
Now this will get back to banning at this point. If a stage allows a character a practical automatic win because it is so terrible for my character, then I should at least have an option to aid my situation and make them take me a stage in which the chance to winning is still extremely low, but feasible.. barely... but just... but barely.
Now if we look at the amount of characters in brawl you are left with many alternative matchups. So many you can't pick and choose your matchups as an argument, it has to be universal. I see it like this.
37 Different characters across our (at the moment) possible 27 stage selection.
If you view it like that, one ban is ridiculous. At least with two you can narrow it, but there is still plenty of stages you may be able to take your opponent too.
---
I do think you and Shaz are both blowing out of proportion on how Scrubs is arguing. He isn't being ignorant by stating things as fact. He is stating it as fact because it hasn't been proven otherwise.
---
Also real-life analogies/metaphors I am personally against in video-game discussion. They don't relate to to competitive nature of casual nature of gaming itself.
And many can be chosen to sound good for both sides, but really isn't needed. That is my personal preference tho. That is why I've try to relate everything I do to the video-game culture as it does hold some relevances in what we are trying to discuss
But that is just me
By stating everything you just said, you are automatically assuming that by allowing more stages, we make the game farer for the majority of the character. Which is I think is a flawed assumption, so I'd like more input from your view. This is how I perceieve it please tell me why it is wrong.
The reason for this, you can pick a water-level to say and which allows Jiggly for an advantage. But lets say they play IC on that matchup, then IC ability to play to its potential is decreased.
If you put alternatives matchups on different stages you a left with a hugely un-orthodox up and downs of a characters ability to perform. This is more of a mixed up in strengths and weaknesses.
Now a true neutral doesn't exist, it is impossible essentially. But a neutral is a closest to balance as possible with what we have at hand. A stage which gives an even input in a characters potential across the large majority of characters. - which doesn't sound like a bad thing.
Now, you can say that it just means a few characters will thrive and some will suffer, but this really hasn't been proven.
Top-tiers will be good on most stages because by their own design they are a better character and have a limited amount of bad matchups. A character which is -bad- might thrive on a non-neutral, but it may only be against a certain character which sucks at that stage.
This I see is where the perception that by allowing more stages gives you a greater chance of winning with a character who is horrible:
But that is what I personally have a problem with and why the majority of Australian Melee players play on neutrals only (By majority I mean the competitive melee players, afaik its practially most of QLD/NSW/Some of Melb).
Its not that we want to destroy that characters ability, its just that the skill needed is taken away due to the stages input. The skill needed to win is lowered overall by a process which: requires little skill, method and strategic knowledge to perform in its own right.
Now this will get back to banning at this point. If a stage allows a character a practical automatic win because it is so terrible for my character, then I should at least have an option to aid my situation and make them take me a stage in which the chance to winning is still extremely low, but feasible.. barely... but just... but barely.
Now if we look at the amount of characters in brawl you are left with many alternative matchups. So many you can't pick and choose your matchups as an argument, it has to be universal. I see it like this.
37 Different characters across our (at the moment) possible 27 stage selection.
If you view it like that, one ban is ridiculous. At least with two you can narrow it, but there is still plenty of stages you may be able to take your opponent too.
---
I do think you and Shaz are both blowing out of proportion on how Scrubs is arguing. He isn't being ignorant by stating things as fact. He is stating it as fact because it hasn't been proven otherwise.
---
Also real-life analogies/metaphors I am personally against in video-game discussion. They don't relate to to competitive nature of casual nature of gaming itself.
And many can be chosen to sound good for both sides, but really isn't needed. That is my personal preference tho. That is why I've try to relate everything I do to the video-game culture as it does hold some relevances in what we are trying to discuss
But that is just me
Suntan Luigi
Smash Lord
He speaks the truth...
Everyone has expressed his (or her) opinions on stage selection quite well. I think we should have 2 bans because there are just way too many levels. I only played the game once so you guys can go against me all you like. I don't mind.....
Everyone has expressed his (or her) opinions on stage selection quite well. I think we should have 2 bans because there are just way too many levels. I only played the game once so you guys can go against me all you like. I don't mind.....
Scrubs
Smash Lord
When have I been 'high handed' or 'acted superior'. I have never done this. The only thing I have done is dispute things you and Shaz have said. I have never insulted anyone. Forced my opinion on anyone.
The only thing I have said that is fact is was that Final Destination was the most neutral stage in the game which is true.
I think yourself and Shaz are confused as to what a neutral stage is. You seem to think that a neutral stage should even out character match ups. So Marth and Jiggs can compete as equals. Well that is at least the basis of your argument.
However discrepancies exist between characters.
If you are going to make a point using an example it has to be applicable. Here you practically say it was a BAD example but still argue the validity of said example?????
Confusing.
You did the same thing with your '5 stage bans'. This has nothing to do with 2 stage bans and is a complete exaggeration.
Of course 5 is a ridiculous number but it is not 2.
Redact
Professional Nice Guy
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=4273574&postcount=315
check out the start of that post scrubs, thats where you claimed your own opinion to be fact
FD is not neutral i stated why in other posts (robot v ganon, snake V the general cast) yet your claiming something you have provided to backup too, as fact, when even after that your stated it was an opinion
its the most neutral stage in the game? tell me why dude, I've said why it isn't neutral, now tell me why it is. or just accept that you really are biasing your arguments with "i think its like this, so it has to be correct"
shaz is saying neutral stages shouldn't advantage a character, not should make all characters even, FD advantages robot or snake over characters they shouldn't be advantaged over such as marth. scrubs you dont seem to be realising what shaz and cats are arguing, im not saying its right, its just your missing the general point
neutrals shouldn't make characters better than they normally are, thats what my opinion on neutrals is
also i lean for 2 bans, but make it you can only ban 1 counterpick stage, and one neutral stage
its still 2 bans, but its not as abusable as 2 bans on any stage, it can give characters the edge they need, but also it doesnt let someone cancell out something toally (see water or walk off edge, also see dedede partially open walls (aka rainbow ride and pk staium 1 and 2, along with castle seige in a sense))
check out the start of that post scrubs, thats where you claimed your own opinion to be fact
FD is not neutral i stated why in other posts (robot v ganon, snake V the general cast) yet your claiming something you have provided to backup too, as fact, when even after that your stated it was an opinion
its the most neutral stage in the game? tell me why dude, I've said why it isn't neutral, now tell me why it is. or just accept that you really are biasing your arguments with "i think its like this, so it has to be correct"
shaz is saying neutral stages shouldn't advantage a character, not should make all characters even, FD advantages robot or snake over characters they shouldn't be advantaged over such as marth. scrubs you dont seem to be realising what shaz and cats are arguing, im not saying its right, its just your missing the general point
neutrals shouldn't make characters better than they normally are, thats what my opinion on neutrals is
also i lean for 2 bans, but make it you can only ban 1 counterpick stage, and one neutral stage
its still 2 bans, but its not as abusable as 2 bans on any stage, it can give characters the edge they need, but also it doesnt let someone cancell out something toally (see water or walk off edge, also see dedede partially open walls (aka rainbow ride and pk staium 1 and 2, along with castle seige in a sense))
Cronos_Rainbow
Smash Champion
Scrubs I mentioned the problem with your posting style a few times. It is like I said tempting to overlook your posts altogether but that wont stand to benefit you any.
Samurai carried two swords - a longer katana for general use, and a shorter wakazashi. On a field the katana was best, as it allowed for more range and stronger strokes. The wakazashi however was the preferred weapon indoors as it was not nearly as hindered the katana by walls, corridors and furniture. Both had their purpose, and so were both worn. Limit battle to fields and the wakazashi becomes next to superfluous.
The same is found in smash. On the open battlefield few fare well against Marths range, speed and power. Jigglypuff however handles incredibly well on moving and or hindering stages that prove hazardous to otherwise 'stonger' characters like Marth, and so has a use also.
Many of these moving stages are banned as it is. Two bans will all but disable them altogether. Limit samurai to the field and they will all use katana. Limit smashers to open stages and they will all use Marth Robot Falco and characters in a similar vein. This is called removing depth.
Cats is far smarter than both Scrubs and Sloth combined FACT.
KO wears pink jocks on tuesdays FACT.
Snake is unfair and should be banned FACT.
Scrubs is the least logical smasher in Australia FACT.
Point is unless you have some level of proof supporting a statement it's validity is arguably questionable and therefore not fact at all. This is why statements like that should be tagged as 'my current belief' or 'theory'.
That would more likely be BF than FD. It is never stated as a fact that this stage is neutral, and there is no supporting evidence for it either. The closest there is to this is a trophy description in Melee for FD saying its a stage that lacks in obstacles and stage hazards.
He didn't say it was a bad example - he said its unimportant for proving validity. The example was never meant as factual data but as a point of attention. If you wish to view the actual data play smash yourself and check out the power, range, longevity and control each of those characters have. Marth is superior in these areas, and unless Jigglypuff is able to use it's strengths like maneuverability and overall ability to stay off the ground for a long time to their full potential it is at a disadvantage.
Yes and no - a neutral stage would allow the both characters to use the fullest potential of the character - and as such having no impact on the match-up whatsoever - hence the term neutral. The current idea of a neutral stage is skewed however as it is not actually a neutral stage at all. A more worthy term would be something like passive or free stage, as they allow all characters to move around with great freedom.
Samurai carried two swords - a longer katana for general use, and a shorter wakazashi. On a field the katana was best, as it allowed for more range and stronger strokes. The wakazashi however was the preferred weapon indoors as it was not nearly as hindered the katana by walls, corridors and furniture. Both had their purpose, and so were both worn. Limit battle to fields and the wakazashi becomes next to superfluous.
The same is found in smash. On the open battlefield few fare well against Marths range, speed and power. Jigglypuff however handles incredibly well on moving and or hindering stages that prove hazardous to otherwise 'stonger' characters like Marth, and so has a use also.
Many of these moving stages are banned as it is. Two bans will all but disable them altogether. Limit samurai to the field and they will all use katana. Limit smashers to open stages and they will all use Marth Robot Falco and characters in a similar vein. This is called removing depth.
Too many levels? Too many for what? Reason please otherwise it's just a statement with little to no purpose.
Sloth feels up fat grannies FACT.
Cats is far smarter than both Scrubs and Sloth combined FACT.
KO wears pink jocks on tuesdays FACT.
Snake is unfair and should be banned FACT.
Scrubs is the least logical smasher in Australia FACT.
Point is unless you have some level of proof supporting a statement it's validity is arguably questionable and therefore not fact at all. This is why statements like that should be tagged as 'my current belief' or 'theory'.
This is correct, and the reason we have sniper rifles for long range, and sub machine guns for close. There should not be an option in a combat situation that solves all possible problems you may face, as it defeats strategy outright and therefore removes any 'fairness' that could have existed. It's the reason god mode in games is found in the "cheats" option
Please back this up with some reasoning. I don't think input is a good choice of word, as the stage does not discriminate, consider, bias or favour in any way other than by being what it is programmed to be. The player exploits this using character and strategy. Some are more complex than others I agree, but it is still at least one more thought process than required for combos in training mode. It's up to the player who is the victim of this stage/character/strategy combination to defeat it with what knowledge and ability he/she has and with what tools are at their disposal, and certainly requires a good deal of skill.
Only matches that are considered winnable by the community will remain playable in tournament play. Dedede rule was introduced to combat such an instance, as was the stalling rule. Otherwise the inability to win is a fault of your own or due to the strength of your opponent and their strategy being superior to yours. If you don't like this, improve at the game. If you still find you're unable to win (it's not like we can all win at everything), explore other options available to you.
Scrubs
Smash Lord
Redact:
FD is absolutely even for every character. It advantages no character in any way. That is a FACT.
I didn't say 'I think', 'I believe' etc.... any where. I don't know how you have ascertained that this is my opinion.
However I believe that it is the opinion of the majority of this community.
I forget what exactly the example you used to 'prove' FD was not even.
But it was along the lines of Robot is a tank or something...... I don't really get that, as it was an analogy with no factual basis.
Ganon - Slow, No Projectile, Poor Recovery, Powerful, Heavy
Robot - Extremely mobile, Projectile, Very good edgegaurding, Poor inside his range....
These are inherent(a permanent, inseparable trait) strengths and weaknesses of these characters. They have nothing to do with the stage itself.....
If you can give a specific example of how the actual stage helps Robot but does not help Ganon, that would be good.
Everyone is getting confused by this concept.
I don't know how to re-phrase it so people will understand.
A stage does not advantage a character because they are good on it. You can't simply say, Falco, Robot, Marth do well on FD so it MUST advantage them. This is not true.
Stages
I don't think removing 2 stages would decrease the depth of the game. Due to the large number of stages there is always at least one stage you could take your opponent to.
Jigglypuff example:
If your opponent bans Tetra's Ship and Delfino.
So Water is out.
Well Jiggs is also good on moving stages. Take them to Rainbow Cruise, Halberd.
Jiggs is also is very manoeuvreable so take them to Brinstar or Jungle Japes.
Due to the large amount of stages there are always options.
Similarly because of the large amount of options you should be able to protect yourself against counterpicks adequately by banning 2 stages.
FD is absolutely even for every character. It advantages no character in any way. That is a FACT.
I didn't say 'I think', 'I believe' etc.... any where. I don't know how you have ascertained that this is my opinion.
However I believe that it is the opinion of the majority of this community.
I forget what exactly the example you used to 'prove' FD was not even.
But it was along the lines of Robot is a tank or something...... I don't really get that, as it was an analogy with no factual basis.
Ganon - Slow, No Projectile, Poor Recovery, Powerful, Heavy
Robot - Extremely mobile, Projectile, Very good edgegaurding, Poor inside his range....
These are inherent(a permanent, inseparable trait) strengths and weaknesses of these characters. They have nothing to do with the stage itself.....
If you can give a specific example of how the actual stage helps Robot but does not help Ganon, that would be good.
Everyone is getting confused by this concept.
I don't know how to re-phrase it so people will understand.
A stage does not advantage a character because they are good on it. You can't simply say, Falco, Robot, Marth do well on FD so it MUST advantage them. This is not true.
Stages
I don't think removing 2 stages would decrease the depth of the game. Due to the large number of stages there is always at least one stage you could take your opponent to.
Jigglypuff example:
If your opponent bans Tetra's Ship and Delfino.
So Water is out.
Well Jiggs is also good on moving stages. Take them to Rainbow Cruise, Halberd.
Jiggs is also is very manoeuvreable so take them to Brinstar or Jungle Japes.
Due to the large amount of stages there are always options.
Similarly because of the large amount of options you should be able to protect yourself against counterpicks adequately by banning 2 stages.
Darkwing SykeDuk
Smash Dankist
Obviously, it isn't. How to prove it's not even, projectile characters vs non-projectile characters.
Scrubs
Smash Lord
This is exactly what I was talking about when I said people can't distinguish between a stage advantage or a character advantage.
The physics of the new game projectiles have become much more useful. Spamming is much more viable tactic.
Therefore characters with projectiles have an inherent i.e. built-in advantage over characters without one.
This is a character advantage.
Cronos_Rainbow
Smash Champion
Syke - thanks for having intelligence.
Oh but wait, my opponent is Robot. He gains fro those stages too and water is my only chance...oh no he banned both! WTFlux!
I know! I can still win if I stay near a barrier of some kind so I can at least avoid some projectiles. Oh look! None of the 'neutrals' even give me that option! They can avoid my physical by running away on large 'neutral' stage, but I can't hide behind a wall! /wrists.
let me just put it more bluntly since nothing seems to be reaching you scrubs...
you and whoever else shares your views is severely biased.
you use final destination as your basis for everything which is evident by your belief that it is absolute fact that this is the most neutral stage. by using this stage as your focal point, you measure every characters capacity and their potential ONLY on this stage and you regard characters that do well there as the better characters, and the characters that struggle as lesser characters.
it is then your belief that anything that upsets this hierarchy that you have established to be biased or unfair against the natural way of the game in how it is meant to be played. this is your mistake.
step outside of that small box you can't seem to see beyond and realise there's more to this game than just character vs character on a flat stage and that when you lose when not in your comfort zone it's because you were just out played, not because the stage did you in.
on stages:
i am not fussed with what is currently regarded as neutral stages or that they benefit certain characters more so than others. this is inescapable as a stage will always benefit one more than another and the only solution to this is to have a varied selection of neutral stages available for use, which is what we have.
on bans:
it's alot easier to give another ban than to take one away. i mean that's your issue with the current 1 ban, that you no longer have the ability to remove the same percentage of stages from the total stage count that you could in melee. everyone is talking as if they know that 2 bans are needed for anyone to stand a chance because otherwise you're going to be cheaped out in the same fashion, but let's wait until AFTER the tournament for such a drastic change in stage rules. there is currently no evidence to say that 2 stage bans are needed for you to not be dominated on one stage type, and if you do have an example to provide that shows and proves 2 stage bans are needed, now is the time to show it.
-----
people need to stop running from whatever problem they encounter and find ways around them without the need to ban things. if it is your preference to only play "neutral" stages then cool, but know that takes a far less degree of skill to not have to deal with multiple stage types. your inability to take advantage of a "cheap" or "unskillful" stage is your own short coming and not a problem of the game for having those type of stages.
edit: final destination is biased towards any character with a long range projectile or the ability to control large sections of the stage via unhindered projectiles that travel at low trajectories. also characters that can safely run and cover themselves via the same flat terrain favouring long lunging type attacks.
for any scrubs reading: i am saying it favours snake.
you and whoever else shares your views is severely biased.
you use final destination as your basis for everything which is evident by your belief that it is absolute fact that this is the most neutral stage. by using this stage as your focal point, you measure every characters capacity and their potential ONLY on this stage and you regard characters that do well there as the better characters, and the characters that struggle as lesser characters.
it is then your belief that anything that upsets this hierarchy that you have established to be biased or unfair against the natural way of the game in how it is meant to be played. this is your mistake.
step outside of that small box you can't seem to see beyond and realise there's more to this game than just character vs character on a flat stage and that when you lose when not in your comfort zone it's because you were just out played, not because the stage did you in.
on stages:
i am not fussed with what is currently regarded as neutral stages or that they benefit certain characters more so than others. this is inescapable as a stage will always benefit one more than another and the only solution to this is to have a varied selection of neutral stages available for use, which is what we have.
on bans:
it's alot easier to give another ban than to take one away. i mean that's your issue with the current 1 ban, that you no longer have the ability to remove the same percentage of stages from the total stage count that you could in melee. everyone is talking as if they know that 2 bans are needed for anyone to stand a chance because otherwise you're going to be cheaped out in the same fashion, but let's wait until AFTER the tournament for such a drastic change in stage rules. there is currently no evidence to say that 2 stage bans are needed for you to not be dominated on one stage type, and if you do have an example to provide that shows and proves 2 stage bans are needed, now is the time to show it.
-----
people need to stop running from whatever problem they encounter and find ways around them without the need to ban things. if it is your preference to only play "neutral" stages then cool, but know that takes a far less degree of skill to not have to deal with multiple stage types. your inability to take advantage of a "cheap" or "unskillful" stage is your own short coming and not a problem of the game for having those type of stages.
edit: final destination is biased towards any character with a long range projectile or the ability to control large sections of the stage via unhindered projectiles that travel at low trajectories. also characters that can safely run and cover themselves via the same flat terrain favouring long lunging type attacks.
for any scrubs reading: i am saying it favours snake.
Scrubs
Smash Lord
Are you psychic Cats? Do you know what I am thinking? Please don't make things up.
- I have never once said that I only take Final Destination into consideration when thinking about characters.
- I have never once said that I don't value other stages.
- I have never once said that I believe we should be playing on only Final Destination.
If you are going to infer something from one statement. Please keep it realistic.
Once again your debating skills impress me!
I have never said that we should be playing just on flat stages.
Have you ever seen me get upset about losing on a stage that I don't like?? Infact the only time we have ever played... I beat you, to finish off the crew battle at Comrades 1
Please don't lie, comment on someone's mindset who you have only met once and claim to know exactly what I think. Up until now you have been posting about the game then all of a sudden you rip out this super cool post.
My respect for anything you have said has been reduced to Zero.
@scrubs: i haven't really talked to you in person, nor have i over the net, so just by what you've said within this topic is all i'm really going on.
i'm sorry if it's harsh but you're coming across extremely ignorant to the points people are making, or overlooking concepts put forward by people or commenting on something that you've misinterpreted within their post.
i'm not claiming to know exactly what you're thinking or anything like that, but the way you put forth your ideas, your opinions, what you think... it makes it sound like FD is the one true measure for all characters in terms of their potential. you said it's equal to all characters yes? so ONLY character balance and player skill come into play? how does this differ from what i was saying about your views?
i'm not trying to make this a personal attack on you although i know that i'm coming across as hostile, but it's because i'm frustrated in that i'm trying to understand your mindset and the way you come to the conclusions you do ESPIECIALLY when it comes to saying things like FD is the most equal, but you don't seem to acknowledge the concepts put forth by everyone else. you also don't supply sufficient reasoning behind anything.
WHY is FD considered neutral for all? in what ways does a flat stage not favour characters with low trajectory projectiles or long thrusts or lunges? if you think it does favour those but you think that's fair then how did you come to the conclusion that those characters are THE better characters?
WHY is 2 bans necessary? provide solid examples of a character matchup where you need to have 2 bans to avoid a situation in which you can't possibly come back from. just because "there are many stages alike" it doesn't mean that you need 2 bans, give an actual example.
i'm not saying you think final destination is the only stage that should be used, but i do think you're placing far too much value on the current neutral stages and are overlooking the rest as to their influence on the metagame. please stop dismissing arguements based purely on the line of thinking "some characters are just better than others so they naturally will always do better".
i never said you get upset, and the one time we played it was 1 or 2 stock vs 4 stock at the end of melee crew battles so i'm not sure if i understand the relevance. you have a preference towards the neutral stages and you seem to dismiss the counterpicks as being severely biased due to character synergies with the stage (despite every stage being the same in this regard).
again this is not to say you get upset over losing on counterpicks, but rather i'm saying that you perceive it as being not an adequate and true representation of player ability when someone utilises a counterpick to win.
please honour me with a reply to the actual points i made within this post regarding your reasoning behind the stages, as well as enlighten me as to your actual mindset since you have told me i was so wrong. please read what i have said and don't just dismiss everything as being an attack on you.
i'm sorry if it's harsh but you're coming across extremely ignorant to the points people are making, or overlooking concepts put forward by people or commenting on something that you've misinterpreted within their post.
i'm not claiming to know exactly what you're thinking or anything like that, but the way you put forth your ideas, your opinions, what you think... it makes it sound like FD is the one true measure for all characters in terms of their potential. you said it's equal to all characters yes? so ONLY character balance and player skill come into play? how does this differ from what i was saying about your views?
i'm not trying to make this a personal attack on you although i know that i'm coming across as hostile, but it's because i'm frustrated in that i'm trying to understand your mindset and the way you come to the conclusions you do ESPIECIALLY when it comes to saying things like FD is the most equal, but you don't seem to acknowledge the concepts put forth by everyone else. you also don't supply sufficient reasoning behind anything.
WHY is FD considered neutral for all? in what ways does a flat stage not favour characters with low trajectory projectiles or long thrusts or lunges? if you think it does favour those but you think that's fair then how did you come to the conclusion that those characters are THE better characters?
WHY is 2 bans necessary? provide solid examples of a character matchup where you need to have 2 bans to avoid a situation in which you can't possibly come back from. just because "there are many stages alike" it doesn't mean that you need 2 bans, give an actual example.
i'm not saying you think final destination is the only stage that should be used, but i do think you're placing far too much value on the current neutral stages and are overlooking the rest as to their influence on the metagame. please stop dismissing arguements based purely on the line of thinking "some characters are just better than others so they naturally will always do better".
i never said you get upset, and the one time we played it was 1 or 2 stock vs 4 stock at the end of melee crew battles so i'm not sure if i understand the relevance. you have a preference towards the neutral stages and you seem to dismiss the counterpicks as being severely biased due to character synergies with the stage (despite every stage being the same in this regard).
again this is not to say you get upset over losing on counterpicks, but rather i'm saying that you perceive it as being not an adequate and true representation of player ability when someone utilises a counterpick to win.
please honour me with a reply to the actual points i made within this post regarding your reasoning behind the stages, as well as enlighten me as to your actual mindset since you have told me i was so wrong. please read what i have said and don't just dismiss everything as being an attack on you.
Scrubs
Smash Lord
You confuse ignorance with disagreement. I could say the exact same thing about you. You haven't changed your opinion but I don't think you are ignorant.
Just because I don't agree with you(many others don't either) does not mean I am ignorant.
Ummm..... Looks like you said that to me....
Ahh yes I do....
I don't just say "Final Destination is even." and leave it at that.
Go back and check.....
It is not a matter of a situation where you are definitely going to lose. Situations don't exist like that. It is not black and white. It is about the effectiveness of banning a stage.
1 ban is worth nothing because of the large amount of stages you can't influence your opponents selection of stages effectively enough so that you aren't taken to a stage on which you are at an extreme disadvantage.
E.g. I am playing Jigglypuff my opponent is playing Fox. I know that Fox will kill me at low percents with the upsmash.
With my 1 ban I elect to ban Corneria.... Fox just chooses Green Greens.
I am in exactly the same situation as I was before I banned Corneria.....
The Ban was useless. Explain to me how this is not correct?
Are you seriously suggesting that I should NOT have taken your last post as an attack and focused on the points made within it ???? That I IMAGINED it????
Go back and read it, then say that again.
As for my actual mindset I have mentioned several times in this thread that I enjoy playing on lots of stages. Go back and check if you don't believe me.
You have taken my statement that Final Destination is the most even stage in the game and have run with it. Applying the typical 'FD only' stereotype to me EVEN though I have given no indication that that is what I believe.
It is actually very offensive.
Suntan Luigi
Smash Lord
This debate is gonna go on long after the next Smash Bros comes out.
Redact
Professional Nice Guy
i just gave up after scrubs said snake/robot wasn't advantaged on FD, and that moving stages advantage snake more than FD v_v
theres only so much that can be shown on the net, ill just wait till rambo or something
theres only so much that can be shown on the net, ill just wait till rambo or something
Scrubs
Smash Lord
I said moving stages DISADVANTAGE Snake.......God!
It is quite obvious that they would. He can't use his mines, all of his projectiles travel along parabolas so they can't reach their intended target.
I said that moving stages advantage come characters with projectiles. Namely those with unlimited range whose projectiles travel on straight trajectory. Falco for example.
Why does everyone say that I have said things that I haven't.
It is quite obvious that they would. He can't use his mines, all of his projectiles travel along parabolas so they can't reach their intended target.
I said that moving stages advantage come characters with projectiles. Namely those with unlimited range whose projectiles travel on straight trajectory. Falco for example.
Why does everyone say that I have said things that I haven't.
Cronos_Rainbow
Smash Champion
See Scrubs I think this is one example of where we're seeing things differently. The idea of banning Corneria but still being killed easily on Green Greens is in our view a good thing. It will then leave you to think that regardless of which stage you choose, Fox will kill you upward easily. So you then begin thinking of things you can use to your advantage on these stages eg. carrying Fox out on close edges, teching on the tail, attempting to use the falling blocks to your advantage. The idea being not to make it hard for Fox to kill you, as it is after all his counter pick, and you should be disadvantaged. Rather the idea is to choose the lesser of two evils, where you will have a slightly easier time outdoing the Fox while he's using his chosen optimal scenario.
So really we're saying we like the idea of the Fox taking you to a stage he is likely going to win - it will force you to play at your best in order to win in straight sets, and requires a great deal more skill to accomplish this way. If you're clever you will use to your advantage that you know what he wants to do (kill you upward) but he wont know of your counter strategy.
ACCELERATE
Smash Lord
Awww are the mean people picking on you Ben? Its okay. The people on the gold coast still love you.
Shaz dont encourage Zac. Please for the love of god.
Cronos_Rainbow
Smash Champion
xD lol.
[Mario, Luigi, Falcon, Ness, Jigglypuff, Fox, Link, DK, Samus, Pikachu (10 characters
)]
Scrubs
Smash Lord
The lesser of 2 evils argument would be valid. Except that apart from water (even water has 3 stages).... Every other stage has more than 2 variants.
Green Greens is just as bad as Corneria if not worse because you can't run away from Fox as easily.
This is from the Project vertical thread. Percents at which Mario can be KO'd by a fully charged Mario Usmash.
Corneria : 74% (lowest point on the end of ship)
Yoshi's Island(Melee) : 74%
Green Greens : 75 %
Rainbow Ride : 75%
Halberd : 77%
Brinstar: 81%
As you can see there are several stages with low ceilings.
I do not dispute that the person counterpicking should be at an advantage. But that advantage should be reasonable. It also should be able to influenced by the other competitor.
1 ban simply does not affect the person counterpicking. There are too many alternatives.
Even with 2 bans it still requires skill to win the second set. You still have to think because the stage is going to be a disadvantage too you.
2 bans does not remove any skill from the game at all.
It adds to it by forcing the counterpicker to think more critically about which stage to choose.
Redact
Professional Nice Guy
your missing the point totally scrubs
banning isnt about removing an element you dont want to play against too much, its about removing the stage your least comfortable on
since it seems to be the common example, someone light vs fox
fox's turn to counterpick
of course you want to ban all the low ceilings, but your only given one to ban, there IS use too the ban
you dont like the blocks on green greens? ban that one
dont like the platform-less setout and lazers on corneria? ban that one
its not about removing an element, its about moving it to a stage with that element that you are more comfortable with, so what if he can up kill easy, your supposed to stop him from picking the stage that you wouldnt do so well to avoid the up kill with, he might pick corneria because its the lowest ceiling, but it could be a good stage for you to avoid the usmash or such
you have to play around your weakness scrubs, not eliminate it
thats whats banning is about
same thing applies to water with jpuff, you need to ban the water stage you dont fell well with the most rather than eliminating the element totally, it takes more skill to play around each element of the game rather than eliminating it totally
banning isnt about removing an element you dont want to play against too much, its about removing the stage your least comfortable on
since it seems to be the common example, someone light vs fox
fox's turn to counterpick
of course you want to ban all the low ceilings, but your only given one to ban, there IS use too the ban
you dont like the blocks on green greens? ban that one
dont like the platform-less setout and lazers on corneria? ban that one
its not about removing an element, its about moving it to a stage with that element that you are more comfortable with, so what if he can up kill easy, your supposed to stop him from picking the stage that you wouldnt do so well to avoid the up kill with, he might pick corneria because its the lowest ceiling, but it could be a good stage for you to avoid the usmash or such
you have to play around your weakness scrubs, not eliminate it
thats whats banning is about
same thing applies to water with jpuff, you need to ban the water stage you dont fell well with the most rather than eliminating the element totally, it takes more skill to play around each element of the game rather than eliminating it totally
Cronos_Rainbow
Smash Champion
Redact pretty much hit the nail on the head about what I'm saying, so I won't reply until you have more questions or something
Wait Redact. What you said basically missed the point Scrubs made completely and what the last several pages mentioning banning has been about. Or do you actually think banning is about taking away a stage you dislike?
I need that answer before I can continue this discussion.
I need that answer before I can continue this discussion.
Darkwing SykeDuk
Smash Dankist
I only ban stages I cerealy dislike.
depending on what stage type you're wanting to take people to there will always be multiple options available. i want a flat stage with 2 edges... FD, BoF, smashville, lylat cruise, etc... and the stages with low roofs is the same deal.
to avoid some things completely would take more than 5 bans, to avoid other things requires just 2. it all depends on whose perspective you're looking from and what you're hoping to achieve with your ban as to how many is needed before it becomes effective, but from my point of view the more stage bans you get, the more you *give* unnecessary benefits to the already strong and adaptable characters.
basically:
in adaptable character vs adaptable character: 2 stage bans might be necessary before you feel they're even somewhat effective (perhaps in some cases even 3) BUT both sides can use this to their advantage EQUALLY, therefore you're also disadvantaged by it no matter whether it had been 1 or 2 or 5 bans.
in adaptable character vs specialised character or even slightly non adaptable characer: 2 stage bans serves to further create a gap between characters that can utilise this rule and those that cannot. for the adaptable character they gain a large advantage by AVOIDING a specialised stage that their opponent would like to use (eg. green hill zone), however the types of stages that favour them are many so when their opponent chooses which stages to ban it serves no purpose at all because as you say, just look at how many share the exact same traits.
where is it that we stop before we feel we have enough stage bans to benefit us? 1 can help us avoid a stage we dislike, 2 can help to stop specific strategies but not all, 3 could further continue to give us more strategic options when counterpicking and make people think further ahead on stage types. however, when you consider that with just 2 stage bans you'd have to learn 3 stages to utilise 1, the only thing that multiple stage bans will further is diminishing the stage list to the point where only the neutrals are left since learning to use or manipulate the advantages of another stage is pointless since in the end it will just be banned.
to avoid some things completely would take more than 5 bans, to avoid other things requires just 2. it all depends on whose perspective you're looking from and what you're hoping to achieve with your ban as to how many is needed before it becomes effective, but from my point of view the more stage bans you get, the more you *give* unnecessary benefits to the already strong and adaptable characters.
basically:
in adaptable character vs adaptable character: 2 stage bans might be necessary before you feel they're even somewhat effective (perhaps in some cases even 3) BUT both sides can use this to their advantage EQUALLY, therefore you're also disadvantaged by it no matter whether it had been 1 or 2 or 5 bans.
in adaptable character vs specialised character or even slightly non adaptable characer: 2 stage bans serves to further create a gap between characters that can utilise this rule and those that cannot. for the adaptable character they gain a large advantage by AVOIDING a specialised stage that their opponent would like to use (eg. green hill zone), however the types of stages that favour them are many so when their opponent chooses which stages to ban it serves no purpose at all because as you say, just look at how many share the exact same traits.
where is it that we stop before we feel we have enough stage bans to benefit us? 1 can help us avoid a stage we dislike, 2 can help to stop specific strategies but not all, 3 could further continue to give us more strategic options when counterpicking and make people think further ahead on stage types. however, when you consider that with just 2 stage bans you'd have to learn 3 stages to utilise 1, the only thing that multiple stage bans will further is diminishing the stage list to the point where only the neutrals are left since learning to use or manipulate the advantages of another stage is pointless since in the end it will just be banned.
Redact
Professional Nice Guy
banning is about taking away your least advantageous stage, not giving you an advantage, if thats what your asking sloth
i might like stage X, but know i wont do good on it, so i ban it
i might like stage X, but know i wont do good on it, so i ban it
Scrubs
Smash Lord
@CATS:
We should stop at 2 stage bans, because it is a good balance between giving an advantage to the counterpicker
whilst
Still giving the couterpickee a change to limit the amount of strategies that can be used by the counterpicker
We should stop at 2 stage bans, because it is a good balance between giving an advantage to the counterpicker
whilst
Still giving the couterpickee a change to limit the amount of strategies that can be used by the counterpicker
Cronos_Rainbow
Smash Champion
LOL Syke us made of win lately
Suntan Luigi
Smash Lord
Everyone is missing everyone else's point 
.
I agree with Redact but we could try to experiment with 2 bans. How about we try 2 bans at the upcoming monthly and see how it goes? It's not right to say if 1 or 2 bans is correct until we try them both out and compare the results. Trial and error method. Anyone else agreeing with me?
. I agree with Redact but we could try to experiment with 2 bans. How about we try 2 bans at the upcoming monthly and see how it goes? It's not right to say if 1 or 2 bans is correct until we try them both out and compare the results. Trial and error method. Anyone else agreeing with me?
Redact: Your post sure seemed to be that you only ban stages you dislike. But at least you don't truly think that.
Suntan Luigi: Anyways, yeah, I agree points are being missed everywhere. ^^ It should be tested. There isn't any harm.
Especially as there seems to be this 'We should try before be ban' method of injunction in place. This is just one of the smaller things which should under-go testing.
And it is also one of the smaller things which can be easily removed if its found too ridiculous. And removed easily once more stages are taken out later-on.
Also. Teams will need some discussion at some point, as there is probably certain levels you don't need to ban/maybe different neutrals etc..
Suntan Luigi: Anyways, yeah, I agree points are being missed everywhere. ^^ It should be tested. There isn't any harm.
Especially as there seems to be this 'We should try before be ban' method of injunction in place. This is just one of the smaller things which should under-go testing.
And it is also one of the smaller things which can be easily removed if its found too ridiculous. And removed easily once more stages are taken out later-on.
Also. Teams will need some discussion at some point, as there is probably certain levels you don't need to ban/maybe different neutrals etc..
@Scrubs:
We should stop at 1 stage ban, because it is a good balance between giving an advantage to the counterpicker
whilst
Still giving the couterpickee a chance to limit the ammount of strategies that can be used by the counterpicker
--------------------------
the thing that would transform this beyond being mere opinion and into a worthwhile statement would be supportive evidence or a detailed analysis of the possible (negative) future remifications that the alternative could bring.
We should stop at 1 stage ban, because it is a good balance between giving an advantage to the counterpicker
whilst
Still giving the couterpickee a chance to limit the ammount of strategies that can be used by the counterpicker
--------------------------
the thing that would transform this beyond being mere opinion and into a worthwhile statement would be supportive evidence or a detailed analysis of the possible (negative) future remifications that the alternative could bring.
Scrubs
Smash Lord
CATS you posed the question. I was not making a general statement just replying to a question that already contained specifics.
It doesn't need to be supported....By a specific example.
It doesn't need to be supported....By a specific example.
Redact
Professional Nice Guy
scrubs, if your not going to show what makes your opinion on this point valid, why should we take it into consideration?
i say 2 stage bans as well though, but i say 1 ban is for all stages, and one ban counts for neutrals only
why a neutral only? think about who gets the main advantages from bans on stages, the high/top tiers
it makes it A LOT harder to work against that characters weakness when your forced to work with stages that don't really work for your character V theirs, and as been shown before, jpuff is the perfect example
but if we take it to 2 bans, with one neutral, alot of strategies are still open, while only hurting one of the many already broken characters, snake/tlink/rob VS dk/ganon/bowser, i mean the first 3 are already better characters, but leaving both eldin bridge AND final destination would just be too harsh
but then if its 1 neutral and one 1 all stage ban, you see the lower tier characters can remove those long, flat stages, while also being able to keep a water stage (its viable for more than just jpuff, water = lag cancel, pro for slow chars)
if i checked the stage listing now (i gtg >_>) i could probably come up with more reasons to have 2 stage bans, but one neutral only, and one all-stage
i say 2 stage bans as well though, but i say 1 ban is for all stages, and one ban counts for neutrals only
why a neutral only? think about who gets the main advantages from bans on stages, the high/top tiers
it makes it A LOT harder to work against that characters weakness when your forced to work with stages that don't really work for your character V theirs, and as been shown before, jpuff is the perfect example
but if we take it to 2 bans, with one neutral, alot of strategies are still open, while only hurting one of the many already broken characters, snake/tlink/rob VS dk/ganon/bowser, i mean the first 3 are already better characters, but leaving both eldin bridge AND final destination would just be too harsh
but then if its 1 neutral and one 1 all stage ban, you see the lower tier characters can remove those long, flat stages, while also being able to keep a water stage (its viable for more than just jpuff, water = lag cancel, pro for slow chars)
if i checked the stage listing now (i gtg >_>) i could probably come up with more reasons to have 2 stage bans, but one neutral only, and one all-stage
Scrubs
Smash Lord
If Eldin favors said characters so much why is it neutral??