Australian Competitive Brawl Ruleset Discussion *Update: 15/05/08* *Spoilers*

[Scrubs]

Okay this thread needs a bit of a bump,

I believe that after RANBAT some stages have changed status.

Dave recommended that Spear Pillar be banned and also that Delfino Plaza is not suitable as a neutral stage.

These changes have been made on the first page.


Hahaha WOOPS EDITED

 

[Suntan Luigi]

I believe that after RAMBO some stages have changed status.

Wow Rambo sure came and left pretty quick. I wish I participated.

 

[Plasia]

In Street Fighter you have one stage with different backgrounds. This causes you to win or lose purely based on skill. The only counterpicking done in Street Fighter is with the character. I believe this is a much better system than the current one employed in the competitive smash community.

Consider: What is the purpose of a tournament? It is to determine the best player. If a match is on a stage that character A gets ***** by character B on, the game starts out with character B at an advantage. This doesn't achieve the goal of determining the better player, since the player controlling character A may be better than the player controlling character B, but because of a severe disadvantage (not due to his skill) the player controlling character A loses.

Now you could try and argue with the following point: "so what, they can counterpick back for the third round". When you consider that if this happens, 2 out of 3 matches have been significantly determined by factors other than player skill, this argument starts to look shaky at best.

I would propose that the amount of stages allowed be significantly reduced. It would be far better to reduce this rather odd (by competitive fighting game standards) practice of stage counterpicking than to let it run rampant.

 

[Redact]

the fact is there is no even stage plasia, we just have many alternatives rather than a small set of stages that a few characters **** on
why are items ban? it induces luck
why are certain stages banned (spear pillar for example) they induce luck
the other bans come from extreme uneven-ness (dedede on corneria zzzzzzzz)
the thing is though, we want to ban as little as possible, why ban something when it isnt game breaking or detracting from the skill
theres also bans and cancels to stop it from being things like robot VS ike on FD
using the stage to your advantage is also Dependant on how you play
so what if its robot destination VS ike, the robot player could play a non-projectile un-campy style, then wouldnt it be better to take him there as dedede than taking him to somewhere like battlefield? normally you would go there so you had the platforms to work around the camping, but if you know your opponent wouldnt camp in the first place, you change your preference of stage
a stage advantage in the first place means playing a certain style

really, if we did reduce it to any less than 5 stages, a small set of characters would just generally **** too hard, think about it, since when was a neutral really ever neutral?

and ontop of that, counterpicks are there because you need to judge what would be better, thats a skill in its own
oh do i take him to rainbow ride because he is olimar so hit tether fails?
or do i take him to corneria for easy upward kills and side kills?
how about FD then i out-camp him?

then ontop of this, you dont have to play the same character the whole set, how will they know how you are planning to play this next match against a character they haven't played yet

 

[Scrubs]

I don't agree with Plasia. Counterpicking is an important facet of competitive Brawl.

I would like to point out this though....

Final Destination IS even for all characters....

I know what people will say "It advantages Falco because of his lasers and marth because..... BLAH BLAH BLAH"

This is not true. Falco can use his lasers to their full extent on FD. Every other stage in the game DISADVANTAGES him in regards to his laser game...........

 

[Cronos_Rainbow]

Plasia: I dunno - I see a lot of jocks man, Ken and Karate Chick in Street Fighter.
- Note that knockback on moves is constant in SF
- Note that in SF u have stamina and not a need to be hit off the stage
- Note that SF is not as strategic as Smash for those reasons above and a plethora more
- Note that you SD a lot xD

Scrubs: "Final Destination IS even for all characters....

I know what people will say "It advantages Falco because of his lasers and marth because..... BLAH BLAH BLAH"

This is not true. Falco can use his lasers to their full extent on FD. Every other stage in the game DISADVANTAGES him in regards to his laser game..........."

Tom-ate-oe, tom-art-oe - could just as easily be argued that something blocking his laser is normal and stages like FD are exceptional. Stating that FD is even for all characters as a fact isn't something I'd suggest doing. It's the most even fair neutral stage kinda thing because we the community deem it so. It's no more true than saying the punch is the most fair fighting move - or even that the moon is made of cheese.
PS : A stage Falco could use his lasers to their full extent would be a long very narrow tunnel with conveyors leading out sideways from a stationary end towards a walk-off edge. Pew Pew Mutha Fluxorz.

 

[Bjay]

I wanna add to that and say even SF: Third Strike banned a character from competitive play Not that I want that in Smash! No! :o

 

[Redact]

by the logic that FD is fair for all characters, the American scene would have played FD only >_>
tsk tsk tsk, thats never going to happen

 

[Mic_128]

Smash is not Streetfighter, or any other fighting game at all, and should not be treated the same.

 

[Sloth]

I actually agree with Plasia.

It is silly too compare two different fighting games, however there is also a lot of logic in it. I think some of you missed some key points.

He stated that characters are the counter-picks. This is actually more fair and based on skill then a stage determining the match up from the start.
Counter-picking stages is actually worse for showing the true potentional of skill -oh btw, picking a stage and knowing your stages is hardly a skill- Counter-picking characters will still represents raw ability in gameplay.

The thing is, I think a lot of people in the smash community enjoy the variation in stages as people get bored quick. This perspective is more casual-scene based, but that is also its appeal in generating large numbers.

I know I won't be able to change counter-picking, it will always exist. I think it is ridiculous and always have thought that. But we do have too many stages. So many that the general concept of counter-picking and banning is pretty much nullified.

 

[Mr. Phantasmo]

A stage Falco could use his lasers to their full extent would be a long very narrow tunnel with conveyors leading out sideways from a stationary end towards a walk-off edge. Pew Pew Mutha Fluxorz.

*Goes to stage builder* Done.

 

[Plasia]

I am seriously getting the feeling that most of you missed the point (or can't read). Some quick points:

- One-liner blanket statements like "smash is not like any fighting games" actually add nothing to the debate.

- Bjay there are no banned characters in SF3TS. Please either know what you are talking about or don't make crap up.

- Just because stage counterpicking happens to be currently accepted in competitive smash doesn't mean that it is the best option.

- Stage counterpicking will always exist in smash, my proposal is that we limit it because it harms the competitive nature of the game.

 

[Scrubs]

LOL SHAZ

FD is absolutely even for every character. It advantages no character in any way. That is a FACT.

It is a completely true statement. If you don't think so explain why. Instead of crapping on about the Moon and other ****.

Don't be argumentative just for the sake of it. It is annoying.

 

[Bjay]

- Bjay there are no banned characters in SF3TS. Please either know what you are talking about or don't make crap up.

Woops my bad I didn't mean Third Strike, dunno why I typed that up, I just meant there are Street Fighters were Akuma is banned. Please refrain from assuming I'm making crap up.

ANYWAY, my point is that just cause Game A has certain rules, doesn't mean similar logic/rules should be applied to Game B.

Also don't forget, this whole discussion is basically on our own ruleset and not following the American ruleset.

Oh, and Smash AIN'T like other fighting games regardless of whether it adds to the debate or not you have to keep remembering it isn't your typical beat the opponent till their stamina is depleted, like I mentioned earlier don't apply the same similar logic/rules from Game A to Game B.

 

[Sloth]

Bjay, I think you missed the point Plasia made or we are just at a disagreement.

Regardless of Game A and Game B, when you start to discuss trying to form a competitive ruleset to generate a competitive game you can suddenly link the two quite easily.

You can compare smash to ut3 for example. If you put both in terms of competitive nature (trying to create a scenario where skill becomes the defining factor of winning) you can compare them and judge them on very similar levels.

And the best part is, most games when forming a ruleset get rid of nearly every level the original creators put into it. Infact there always seems to be a VERY VERY SIMILAR logical approach to every game when forming a competitive rulset. Across every single platform.

Counter-picking is one of the largest cop-out unskillful part of smash which should be forfeited. But I am the minority and will never be able to change its existent.

 

[Redact]

FD favours snake and robot to the max over characters like dk or bowser
yes the matchup is already harsh towards those two, but just that example alone shows the contrast over a stage like battlefield or yoshi's story
why? camping, thats why
the stage is big, with robot and snake (probably toon link too) having a bucketload of projectiles, camping, whoring projectiles, and just playing overall defensively just provides a huge advantage to robot/snake over non projectile, slow characters

smaller stages with platforms, like battlefield or yoshi's story provides dk or bowser with a way to approach, no platforms dont suddenly make it impossible to be hit with a projectile, but it lowers the insane advantage that FD would give to robot/snake

the sheer amount of grenades, rockets, lazers and discs that robot/snake can produce means that even if you dodge it, you can be hit with a secondary projectile, and even if you shield that, it slowly wears them down, until the shield breaks. if the snake is good enough to know how to use its projectiles, it will literally force the character to approach him, then his mines come into play, or as for robot his extremely high priority moves come into play there, or just a simple shield grab style
heck robot/snake could probably out-run dk/bowser. run for the whole match and projectile spam, wait till the time limit, then they win

if you really think that is fair, then i dont know what fair is
and if you have a way around that sort of stuff against a good snake/robot using one of the slower, non-projectile characters, please enlighten me scrubs


im personally for the amount of stages we have, i dont want to reduce them, but i cant be bothered arguing that one, so my opinion is nothing there right now

 

[Cronos_Rainbow]

Plasia: I see you liked my clever hyphenated points so much you chose to take them aboard. Well done . Like I mentioned earlier, the mechanics are different in Smash than they are in Street Fighter. The fact you need to KO off the stage and not by stamina is a strong points, as is the knock-back differing with damage. I see what you're getting at though, and if Sakurai and team decided to make smash a game that worked in that way - where all stages where either FD or Battlefield with different graphics then sure the game could work out. Heck then we could have a more solid tier list without needing to take counter stages into account - or tourney mechanics. As it stands though it looks like we're doing our best to utilise as many of the stages given to us without making way for any large random factors that would upset the system. If there ends up need for an FD only tourney in the future then heck it might happen...only time will tell.

Scrubs - I've said why thousands of times. How can you expect me to give reasons when you sit there saying "I know what people will say "It advantages Falco because of his lasers and marth because..... BLAH BLAH BLAH" How can we respond with examples when you say not to? Reasons it is not fair for all:
-Moves like blaster are at 100% - moves like DKs Cargo toss are not.
-Stage edges are not perfectly flat - disallowing some characters from utilising their full range of recovery like wall jumps and clings.
There are many reasons - I wont bother writing an essay on it because the two above are example enough.

If stage variety wasn't supposed to be a factor in determining the outcome of a match - the stages would be cosmetically different only a la Street Fighter. I think that serves as reason enough to conclude that it makes sense to take them into account. If you go back and read the trophies in Melee, you will find the FD, Donkey Kong and Fox trophy will more than settle the point for me. FD is not fair for all characters - this did not change between Melee and Brawl either.

Adam: LOL xD. I don't know if you can make the walk off edges though can you?

Sloth:

He stated that characters are the counter-picks. This is actually more fair and based on skill then a stage determining the match up from the start.
Counter-picking stages is actually worse for showing the true potentional of skill -oh btw, picking a stage and knowing your stages is hardly a skill- Counter-picking characters will still represents raw ability in gameplay.

We know! How is having more than one option on counter picking a problem? Smash is a strategy game. Street fighter is a combo game. Also, if knowing your stages and their advantages is not a skill then why were the ANZACs owned in Galipoli? Why do we even bother with things like bunkers, trenches, no mans land etc. if they don't serve to force different strategy. The bayonet was added to a rifle for close quarters combat - and serves better in trenches than a rifle.
There is a big difference in level of strategy between Checkers, Chess and Starcraft. The first is even (apart from first move). The second is set up with different unit ability but a stable playing field. The third uses both unit ability and terrain advantage.
Counter Picking is not unskillful. This game is about more than just combo skill.

Bjay -nice diplomacy using smilies

 

[Sloth]

Shaz. You really need to pick and choose your analogies. The ones you chose. Don't help your argument in the slightest and make it more scrambled.

I see your perspective on things. Tell me if this is wrong:
'Having multitude of stages allows a game based around strategies, picking and choosing the stages that will give you the advantage so you win at the end of a set'

My perspective is:
'Losing because of a stage -not character or skill- doesn't show a true subject of who is better. The actual act of counter-picking requires little skill to begin with.'

I decided to back my statement up using actual analogies about video game tournaments. If you ever participated in a World Cyber Game tournament, there rulesets get rid of majority of levels. Because in the end only a few levels offer actual fare-standing. Same with smash.

Basically. It takes little skill to counter-pick and win compared to winning on neutral stages. Plasia covered it quiet well.

Question Shaz, are you for items? Because your perspective seems to say Yes.
It is very similar to what you are stating. Having items creates greater Stage-control, it becomes very strategy based, and knowing your items will give you the advantage to win.

I know I can't get counter-picking removed, however if I can somehow get stages reduced so it doesn't harm the future of the metagame. I'll be pleased.

 

[Redact]

hmm i at least have some idea on this debate now
you say losing because of stage, not character or skil, does not show who is better
well then why not ban certain match ups? something close to broken like robot VS ganon
the ganon player COULD be better, but yet still lose due to the fact that the enemy is robot, and the fact that he is playing ganon
character counterpicks is just as viable as stage counterpicks
if you say stage counterpicking doesnt require skill, then nor does character counterpicking

oh the ganon player could overcome his disadvantage by being the better player? well the same thing applies to stages, so what if the enemy chose FD to advantage him, you should be able to overcome it with sheer skill

now this last part is out of curiosity, not related to the arguement (of if you want to relate it, you can)

what other games have needed to think about a counterpicking system? not for the 2D fighters i can think of, for all of them there werent any special stages or such, not in SF, not in MVC2, not in MBAC
oh stages for UT? but arent all people at the same advantage/disadvantage because all characters are the same? (might be wrong there, i dunno) counterstrike, halo or such dont seem to need it for various reasons (again even characters or set roles on each level along with side switching)
im not too sure about RTS, so help me on that one

 

[Cronos_Rainbow]

Items are random and hard to factor in - therefore no I'm not for them. Some characters are godlike with items as they heavily benefit fast characters and reflecting characters more than others.

I've played in WCG before yes - before smash I played StarCraft for many years.

Counter picking doesn't take skill in itself. the thing that takes skill is being able to both implement a strategy successfully on your counter pick, and more so to overcome someones counter pick in the first place. That's why this game is strategic.

Where is this metagame stuff from? It's like what you guys want is a sport version of Smash. Just like Karate in competition is broken up upon someone landing a successful hit by the raise of a flag. This often sees the taller competitor winning due to higher reach. I'm more for the no holds barred anything goes within reason style of Smash similar to what you'd see in the UFC. In this case a smaller competitor can still do well by moving in, grabbing, tripping, throwing countering etc. The way I see the FD is the only fair stage stuff going is that everyone will be using the Smash equivalent of the tall fighter and that would ultimately be a very boring spectator sport.

Basically FD is the desert.

Robot is a All-terrain Tank.

Bowser is a Submarine.

Who would bother using the sub in the desert?

What I'm saying is that people want to win. If they can't do it with their preferred character they will use one that will win easiest on that stage - or the counter to that character. Brawl will become Super Smash Bros. Snake vs Robot.

 

[Bjay]

Bjay, I think you missed the point Plasia made or we are just at a disagreement.

Probably both.

Regardless of Game A and Game B, when you start to discuss trying to form a competitive ruleset to generate a competitive game you can suddenly link the two quite easily.

You can compare smash to ut3 for example. If you put both in terms of competitive nature (trying to create a scenario where skill becomes the defining factor of winning) you can compare them and judge them on very similar levels.

And the best part is, most games when forming a ruleset get rid of nearly every level the original creators put into it. Infact there always seems to be a VERY VERY SIMILAR logical approach to every game when forming a competitive rulset. Across every single platform.

Counter-picking is one of the largest cop-out unskillful part of smash which should be forfeited. But I am the minority and will never be able to change its existent.

But that's the thing, if I remember correctly there was some debate about comparing Melee to Brawl in this thread about the whole Brawl is different to Melee and why are we bringing up Melee when this is Brawl, etc and well if we're comparing Smash + anything else, we can pretty much compare Brawl and Melee too. Yet if we're comparing we may as well compare Brawl and Melee, and if not well I'm missing out on something that I just can't figure out.

I know I've left something out in what I said, but gahhhh I can't figure it out

Bjay -nice diplomacy using smilies

I'm assuming that's a compliment! ^_^ Thanks xD It wasn't intentional, but more so a habit of mine

 

[Sloth]

Redact:
Plasia already approached the issue of counter-characters. Go re-read what he said.
It is easy to try to put the two-two together on equal footing. But in reality that isn't the case. We can talk about this further if you want.

In 1-1 FPS games people do have favourite maps. That is the only adv/disadv you get. You are correct about FPS because tiers cannot exist in a game without unique settings for both players.

RTS however is a different matter. in WC3 some races go better against others and do better on certain maps. However they usually still restrict it to about 4 maps. The four most even for all races.

But that is my problem Phil, what other games have the need to consider counter-picking? In reality pretty much none. So what makes smash so separate? I think it is just the way the community is trying to represent the game. But in relation to direct raw-skill-based competitive play it shouldn't exist.

Shaz can I please ask that you direct analogies of a video game to video games?

I personally can't see how the counter-picking system in smash is so deep that it offers this overcoming of strategic value. They choose a level for there character and extremely bad for yours. You do ban one, but since we have a lot of stages, that one ban didn't effect or help you at all. GG.

The game should be more about (character vrs character) rather than (character+Stage vrs Character+Stage).

Bjay, I am all for comparing Melee to Brawl. Its just most people hate it

 

[King Kong]

I personally can't see how the counter-picking system in smash is so deep that it offers this overcoming of strategic value. They choose a level for there character and extremely bad for yours. You do ban one, but since we have a lot of stages, that one ban didn't effect or help you at all. GG.

Well said. Thats pretty much the nature of the counter pick system in Brawl. There are just too many stages that are RANDOM as hell. I have died countless times on various levels through no fault of my own because of this. There are some stages in Brawl that do not give any character an insurmountable advantage and do not have random elements, those are the ones that should be played on.

peace out

 

[Redact]

Redact:
Plasia already approached the issue of counter-characters. Go re-read what he said.
It is easy to try to put the two-two together on equal footing. But in reality that isn't the case. We can talk about this further if you want.

RTS however is a different matter. in WC3 some races go better against others and do better on certain maps. However they usually still restrict it to about 4 maps. The four most even for all races.

But that is my problem Phil, what other games have the need to consider counter-picking? In reality pretty much none. So what makes smash so separate? I think it is just the way the community is trying to represent the game. But in relation to direct raw-skill-based competitive play it shouldn't exist.

this what you were talking about?

Consider: What is the purpose of a tournament? It is to determine the best player. If a match is on a stage that character A gets ***** by character B on, the game starts out with character B at an advantage. This doesn't achieve the goal of determining the better player, since the player controlling character A may be better than the player controlling character B, but because of a severe disadvantage (not due to his skill) the player controlling character A loses.

first of all, in plasia's example he doesnt actually mention certain things
adapting to a stage, coming up with a strategy to somehow manipulate the stage to your advantage, actually choosing the RIGHT stage to know your opponent, know how he will then attempt to adapt then still somehow using that to your advantage. well if none of those take skill, well im not too sure what does

and his argument HELPS my character countering argument, we are here to determine who is the better player, not the better character right? well then by that logic, every match should be a ditto. because lets say a marth character wins by an extremely small margin against something like ganon, then doesnt that mean that the marth won because he was a better player, it was because marth is better than ganon. then yet again, in plasia's post he says why the "he can counter character after that" is a moot argument.

really to sum it up, the whole character counter picking thing is as valid as stage counter picking, EACH take skill (controlling the different characters/stages, knowing how to use each character/stage, so on).

we have banned things up until now to reduce luck, items induce luck, and certain stages induce luck. if we are going to ban more stages that dont induce luck, but just so called "unfair advantages". we should ban characters that give people advantages over certain other players

also think of this, there are few races is SC or WC3
so they wouldn't need more than a handful of stages to balance things out

less stages but all the characters? we have more stages now because we have more characters, thus we need to add more stages to help with the more balancing needed





king kong: you have the same idea as me, im trying to reduce the stages that induce luck, but thats the only thing i want to eliminate, luck

 

[Scrubs]

Mmmmm DK's Cargo throw isn't disadvantaged on Final D. It is just extremely buffed on stages like Onett, Flatzone etc....

Final D is completely even......

 

[Cronos_Rainbow]

It comes down to what you think skill is. Uhh..lets see...video game. Oddjob on Caverns using Golden Gun. The prick was small, black and could camp that biatch till the cows came home. You couldn't see him easily. His being short in this case serves as an advantage. The colour he is and the darkness of the stage means he and the stage go well together. If we were to play Complex - then his camo is all but gone. Not to mention his head is just about the right height for some RCP90 as you turn the corner - no need to aim just spam and lol. Now let's say 007 Golden Eye was limited to Caverns only. Then Oddjob would be good. Complex only he'd pretty average.
Let's say you know your opponent can head-shot you easily because you're Oddjob but you won on random stage Caverns. He counter picks you with a bright stage. You know theres more than one of these - so you ban the one that owns you most. Your chances are slim for sure, but if you can manage a stage with something on your side - like you know of a little camping spot you can abuse to minimise the disadvantage being a walking headjob/shot gives you (like say Archives) or you know of a (dark coloured area like in Temple) but you know Complex is bright and lacks something you can use to your advantage (I'm sure theres something there though) so you ban Complex and do your best to overcome them with your (albeit limited) options. Manage a win with your tactics - and you win the set. Lose it and you get the chance to make them face a counter pick for the decider.

So basically Limit 007 tourneys to Caverns and Oddjob is high tier. Limit it to Complex and he's low.

Can I ask Sloth, what is it that makes you think that character vs character is the way this game should be played? Smash is unique in giving a deeper level of strategy then practically any other fighter out there. I think playing it on FD only would feel like playing StarCraft on a totally flat stage. Suddenly some units become more powerful because theyre designed for the mass attack power and endurance advantage like M&M early game or even mass lings as they can't be choked down as easily. Hit and run units like wraiths start seeming more redundant, and the option to airdrop seems almost insanely stupid.

Thanks for keeping it real in your posts Sloth. Hope using video games helps you grasp what I'm on about.

 

[CATS]

well sloth i like your logic of since we're for strategic counterpicking we must be for items as well since they involve strategy, so i'll use that same logic back at yourself and come to the conclusion that you must want an all mario, FD only competition since that provides the most even playing field which is of course what you are after.

the fact of the matter is, you can water down smash as much as you like to make it asingle character, single stage game to have the most even playing field... or you can use as much of the game as you can while restricting the influence of luck based advantages like items and hax stages to try and achieve a balance that way.

let's say it's like rock paper scissors but where player skill has a value that determines the outcome.
rock has +2 vs scissors, scissors has +2 vs paper, paper has +2 vs rock.
in a rock vs rock match, only player skill is important and is what determines the winner.
if you start using scissors and paper then you could get a +1 skill player using scissors beating a +2 skill player using paper. obviously this is countering and is a strategic choice made before the match.
what if there was also terrain that influenced rock paper and scissors differently? then you could get a +1 skill player using scissors on a disadvantagous terrain losing to a +2 skill player using paper.

the point is that it all adds more depth, and why do you want to make the game more shallow? by keeping the variables higher you can achieve the balance between all the different elements that way instead. it's all a much more complex rock paper scissors. however we still dislike luck based elements and that's why items are banned. (characters luck based moves are balanced for that character, unlike items which aren't... not to mention the random spawn placement)

 

[Cronos_Rainbow]

Scrubs - I don't understand where you get the idea that you can determine what makes DK Cargo 'buffed' and Falcos blaster 'disadvantaged' by your word alone.

It's like saying 18 is incredibly high and -18 is incredibly low. Sure...if we use 0 as neutral then it is. But Sakurai never said FD is neutral - we did. So if 50 was neutral both negative 18 and 18 are very low and so on.

 

[Redact]

Mmmmm DK's Cargo throw isn't disadvantaged on Final D. It is just extremely buffed on stages like Onett, Flatzone etc....

Final D is completely even......

LOL SHAZ

FD is absolutely even for every character. It advantages no character in any way. That is a FACT.

It is a completely true statement. If you don't think so explain why. Instead of crapping on about the Moon and other ****.

Don't be argumentative just for the sake of it. It is annoying.

ok scrubs, tell my why FD is even between characters with an abundance of projectiles VS characters with no projectiles
also tell me what part of my example with robot or snake is wrong
also i can say the same thing
my statements are completely true, if you do not think that they are right explain why.

also scrubs, im not looking for a 20 word post along the lines of

"you are wrong redact, stop targeting me

FD is completely even and it advantages no characters what so ever"

 

[Sloth]

adapting to a stage, coming up with a strategy to somehow manipulate the stage to your advantage, actually choosing the RIGHT stage to know your opponent, know how he will then attempt to adapt then still somehow using that to your advantage. well if none of those take skill, well im not too sure what does

I personally believe you are thinking too far into counter-picking. Counter-picking isn't a very deep concept at all. It requires little skill to perform and gives you a massive advantage. How does that sound resemble in terms of trying to create a competitive game?

The fact is with character verse character you will have to get used to counter-matchups. The stage should not be the defining factor. Tiers are inevitable.
In the end people who want to win will use the best characters. The best characters will exist because they have fewer bad matchups. The game should be just skilled players using good characters.

really to sum it up, the whole character counter picking thing is as valid as stage counter picking, EACH take skill (controlling the different characters/stages, knowing how to use each character/stage, so on).

Now I highly disagree. Saying it is just as valid is putting them both of equal footing. To put both of equal footing you have to assume that CHOOSING A STAGE is just as difficult and skill taking as PLAYING A CHARACTER.

less stages but all the characters? we have more stages now because we have more characters, thus we need to add more stages to help with the more balancing needed

I see your logic now. Why do you think that more stages = more balanced game? Nothing ever says that is the case.

---

Can I ask Sloth, what is it that makes you think that character vs character is the way this game should be played? Smash is unique in giving a deeper level of strategy then practically any other fighter out there.

I can't say smash does have a deeper level of strategy, I am sure there is plenty of people who would disagree with you saying that. I just dislike the idea of counter-picking. I wrote when addressing Redact already as to why in this post.

Oh in FPS games that are played on tournament levels. Nearly everyone who is actually decent put all there graphics to pretty much zero. 800x600, 16-bit etc. So they can see easier on dark stages tournament mods used also puts in bright skins and hit-sounds.
-Just had to put that in

---

that you must want an all mario, FD only competition since that provides the most even playing field which is of course what you are after.

Yes, using backwards logic is a fun trick Cats. Your the first to use it on me! :O
I've addressed everything when I commented on Redact. No point repeating myself to three different people!

---

note, I am not saying lets play one stage only. My issue is that counter-stages is just a silly concept. Personally my main issue is still with Eldin being considered a neutral. But I will address that after RAMBO.

Also why is it if we play a bad stage like nofair for the first time. We instantly assume 'Better be counter-pick' rather then 'Not tournament worthy, lets never play on it'

 

[Bjay]

This is probably a stupid question but I'm gonna ask it anyway plus we're currently on the topic of stages.

Why is the Bridge of Eldin a neutral stag?

Also, what exactly makes a stage 'neutral'. I'm gonna assume there's gonna be more to it than the whole lol-i'm-a-symmetrical-looking-stage cause yeah I'm simple-minded.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone here, I just wanna know that's all ^_^!

 

[Cronos_Rainbow]

Pff you tell us Bjay...you tell us xD

 

[Suntan Luigi]

Wow I never thought picking the counter-stages for a game was this tough. Go battlefield. Screw everything else. Mi logic es muy simple.

 

[Scrubs]

I am not saying that I want us to play on Final D only.

I love the depth that is added to the game by different stages and by no means am suggesting that we should remove this aspect of the game.

I just think FD is the most neutral stage in the game.

Peace.....

 

[Redact]

FD is absolutely even for every character. It advantages no character in any way. That is a FACT.

scrubs, just next time do go around claiming your opinion (which is what you are calling it now) a fact, then saying everyone else is wrong


sloth, dont ignore my example of marth VS ganon, tell me why its wrong

"I personally believe you are thinking too far into counter-picking. Counter-picking isn't a very deep concept at all. It requires little skill to perform and gives you a massive advantage. How does that sound resemble in terms of trying to create a competitive game?

The fact is with character verse character you will have to get used to counter-matchups. The stage should not be the defining factor. Tiers are inevitable.
In the end people who want to win will use the best characters. The best characters will exist because they have fewer bad matchups. The game should be just skilled players using good characters." (didnt quote properly cause im lazy)

all of the exact same things can be said into character counter picking, it doesnt take much skill to pick marth over DK, but it gives a massive advantage. it takes a lot of skill to fully utilize a stage correctly, if its so easy i would have seen more people picking the counter stages at the ranbats, but i see almost everyone sticking to the basic neutrals, why? because it isnt as easy as you really claim it to be.

the same thing about determining who is better relates to characters as well, how does a person picking a character determining the outcome, not the difference in skill, sound for making a competitive game?

you have to get used to stages just as much as character vs character, you'll have to get used to playing rob or snake on small stages whether you like it or not, same thing applies to marth on FD or eldin. the character shouldn't be the determining factor any more than stages should be, skill should be what determines it, learning how to play a character on 3 stages takes less skill than learning how to play a character on 30 stages

in the end, the people who want to win will use the best characters, thats a given, but then they will also use the best stage, the game shouldn't be about just characters, it should be stages AND characters, combining all of those things, along with the correct styles and counter-styles takes a huge amount of skill. yes i know picking robot or snake on eldin doesnt take much skill, but if they dont camp correctly, its actually pretty **** easy to approach and **** them, also as you said, they should be choosing the better character, so even if someone chooses a bogus stage, they should have a good character in preparation for any sort of stage that could possibly come.

 

[Plasia]

if its so easy i would have seen more people picking the counter stages at the ranbats, but i see almost everyone sticking to the basic neutrals, why? because it isnt as easy as you really claim it to be.

I know at least in my case I always choose the neutral stages, even if I'm losing. This isn't because I (somehow) find it hard to exploit counterpick stages but because I believe it's wrong. If I lose I believe it is because my skill level is less than theirs, if I think it's because of a disadvantageous matchup then I might switch to my secondary character. The extent of my stage counterpicking is picking a neutral stage that may favour me slightly more.

Basically I don't believe playing on a counterpick stage is a true contest of skill.

 

[Redact]

"I know at least in my case I always choose the neutral stages, even if I'm losing. This isn't because I (somehow) find it hard to exploit counterpick stages but because I believe it's wrong. If I lose I believe it is because my skill level is less than theirs, if I think it's because of a disadvantageous matchup then I might switch to my secondary character. The extent of my stage counterpicking is picking a neutral stage that may favour me slightly more.

Basically I don't believe playing on a counterpick stage is a true contest of skill."

playing to win, using everything you possibly can to win
if your going to limit yourself, dont limit others

 

[Plasia]

Redact: The issue is not my preference in stage choice, I went into that because you erroneously think that most people choose neutral stages because it is apparantly so hard to exploit counterpick stages.

On playing to win, you obviously think that I don't know about it or something. This is rather amusing, I have been playing various fighting games competitively for many many years now.

I would like to remind you of something Sirlin himself wrote:

"If the game is a good one, it will become deeper and deeper and more strategic. Poorly designed games will become shallower and shallower."

I wish Brawl to become a deeper game, not a shallower one. I do not believe bias in the contest of skill through elements like counterpick stages promotes a deeper game.

 

[Scrubs]

Redact never plays to WIN.......

BAAAAZIIIING

Joking....Joking...

On another topic......

Regarding the system where by if you turn item frequency to none and not actually turn OFF items Dedede and Diddy can still bring items onto the battlefield.

I am assuming that the rules would state items must be turned OFF, not just the frequency turned to none.

 

[Sloth]

Redact. You haven't changed my mind about counter-stages. From my view-point you seem to view the whole counter-stage as some deep game changing element that you can abuse for your advantage.

And. To be honest. It really isn't deep. Playing on stages isn't hard. Knowing what characters play good on certain stages isn't hard. Knowing how to work the stage isn't hard. There is little depth to it all and only favors the person who is playing worse. Simple.

Competitive games shouldn't be able to giving out favors - handicaps. Anyways that is my view on it. Like it or try to change it.

I also only really play on Neutrals Plasia. If I win due to a crap stage like skyworld, it doesn't feel like I have achieved anything.

Also, bjay that is a good question. Why is Eldin a neutral? *shrugs* only Melbourne can answer that.