Ban brinstar and rainbow cruise

[Stev]

Stage Spiking, oh look i relied on the stage to kill my opponent.

You can tech a stage spike... not lava or the fact that the screen moved and you died

 

[Grim Tuesday]

You can DI lava.

 

[Ghostbone]

Well you could always actually be moving and fighting your opponent on RC, i mean really, if the stage moving is killing you, you really are a terrible player.

Lava is a bit more of a legitimate complaint, but there is still nothing wrong with your opponent using the lava to their advantage.

Edit: And what Grim said

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

the arguments in this thread are pretty ******** now. one side is some decent (on average) tournament players and the other half are randoms (aka trolls).

/unsubscribe

 

[Bones0]

Well you could always actually be moving and fighting your opponent on RC, i mean really, if the stage moving is killing you, you really are a terrible player.

Lava is a bit more of a legitimate complaint, but there is still nothing wrong with your opponent using the lava to their advantage.

Edit: And what Grim said

What do you mean by stage spikes? The neutral stages don't spike people. You can get spiked OFF of stages, but only by your opponent's actions, whereas lava or RC is constantly moving and frequently FORCES players into making certain decisions or you WILL be killed, or at least dealt damage.

I don't see how you can say someone who dies because of a moving stage is terrible. It happens all the time, you just aren't recognizing it. If a Peach is camping the top platform on Brinstar and a Falco is on the bottom when lava starts rising, the Falco has to move or the lava will make him move, and it's not rare that the Peach would simply dsmash because the Falco has such limited options which was a direct result of the stage pressuring him, not the Peach player. Obviously this is a more indirect way of the stage killing people, but it obviously wouldn't have happened without the lava so to say the stage didn't, in a sense, attack the Falco player would be stupid.

Again, this isn't the Peach player "using lava to their advantage." They didn't control the lava, they just HAPPENED to have control of the top platform when the lava rose, so they get a free pinch on the Falco. It could be compared to playing Sudden Death with Bob-Bombs falling. If a Jiggs floats out over the edge to avoid the spawning bombs and their opponent is Mario and ends up getting killed by a bomb, did the Jiggs use the falling bombs to his advantage? No, because he had no control over the bombs. He simply knew if he waited long enough, the stage would defeat his opponent for him. I realize that's an extreme example, but very similar situations are created when you have moving stages and hazards (lava) forcing players to do things they have no option for.

And before someone makes the rebuttal that "well the Falco should have had top control!" or "the Mario player should learn to play Jiggs or Peach so they could stall as well!", that is simply excusing the imbalance of the stage by placing ridiculous demands on the player. Should players REALLY be losing games because they don't have a counter character for every ridiculous character/stage combination? The game shouldn't be about how many characters you can use to abuse as many stage hazards as possible. It should be first and foremost about the players' skills, and stage variety as a way to widen the skill gap should be a secondary concern. If every stage has crazy hazards that kill people except one, we should play on one stage. Luckily for us, all of the stages we consider to be neutral don't have any crazy hazards that allow players to depend on the stage for help. Clearly some stages offer advantages to some characters over others, but these advantages are a direct result of the opponent's actions, not of their inaction.

 

[Leviathan741]

the arguments in this thread are pretty ******** now. one side is some decent (on average) tournament players and the other half are randoms (aka trolls).

/unsubscribe

The other non-pros are random trolls? that is why the smash community is not getting any bigger, its the attitude of the pros

 

[Hax]

i'm done with this because the pro-brinstar/RC side is repeating the same refuted arguments and flawed ban criteria

m2k, hbox, zhu, axe and myself being against these stages should say enough

 

[Nø Ca$h]

lets ban spacies only bad stage =D

 

[Ripple]

m2k, hbox, zhu, axe and myself being against these stages should say enough

so we should only listen to what good players say?

 

[INSANE CARZY GUY]

so we should only listen to what good players say?

People listen to want they want to hear even if it was never said why people think i'm dumb.

There are some dumb things about those stages but it makes me think. on those stages your best bet it to play defensive till the stage favors offense. like on brinstar defence till stage dedeices to lava be aggesive once it's away till stop and be defensive till the lava comes back and take the top or stall. RC control left side then projectile them giving them s*** as they try to get off.

as the platforms rise try to force them up and pick away at their feet till you stop rising and then take the right side and spam the crap out of projectiles as you camp they lose space and you gain space try to control the blocks and use them to get down so you control the left side of the ship and you can try to upair them to death as they try to get to the ship.

If you stay in/on the the best defensive parts of the stage the match falls into your favor. The thing is they have space to do stuff so this isn't like if you pin themnear an edge on FD. this is it's own BS with a few other gayish tactic slike on RC you could try to control the top platform vs slow people (boat)

 

[Pi]

I don't see how people can even compare Brinstar and RC to the neutrals. If you really want a simple reason to ban the stage, how about the fact that stage can kill players. I have never been playing FD and died because Metal Mario popped out of the floor and punched me off the side. I have, however, died on Brinstar because while I was busy trying to play the game the lava literally attacked me by covering my position. I have also died on RC because if you stand still, you will get pushed off the top/bottom. So yeah, for all the people saying "well how do you know when a stage has become too unbalanced?" that's how. When players can rely on THE STAGE to kill their opponent rather than their own skills, the map is too unbalanced for competitive play. Like someone said earlier, stages should be mediums through which players display their skills. It shouldn't be the other way around, where two players are of equal skill and the winner is determined by who can pick the most powerful stage.

On top of all of that, whether or not these stages are legal or not doesn't even mean they would be played on in an ideal stage rule. All of the games should be on the 3 most fair stages, not one fair stage and 2 extreme ones. Even if you had Brinstar and RC legal in the stage list, no one would still play them. Players would just have to waste their ban on them because there are too many stage hazard related deaths for it to be a reliable medium through which to display their skills.

are you ****ing...
WHO IS RELYING ON RC TO TAKE STOCKS OFF HIS OPPONENT?
if you're losing to the ****ing stage it's for your own damn lack of practice on it

i'm done with this because the pro-brinstar/RC side is repeating the same refuted arguments and flawed ban criteria

m2k, hbox, zhu, axe and myself being against these stages should say enough

marth, sheik, falco, pikachu, falcon
yea, that should say enough.

 

[-ACE-]

if you're losing to the ****ing stage it's for your own damn lack of practice on it

That goes for ALL stages. Brinstar and RC are just stupid in comparison to the "neutrals". I'm done with this thread as well.

 

[MT_]

marth, sheik, puff, falco, pikachu, falcon
yea, that should say enough.

Fixed for you.

 

[BigD!!!]

i like having them on

people who read threads and hear that theyre good stages for their character take me there and lose almost every time, i love it

dk64 has the most potential to be broken, despite appearing the most like a neutral if players play nice on it

 

[Grinin]

I'd consider myself neutral in this debate, but I love playing falcon dittos on rainbow cruise, most epic matches ever. xD

 

[Masmasher@]

Actually, Falcon is bad on FoD and certain players ban THAT against me over FD.

Weird.

Grim: yes, we ban a stage if the character is "too good" on it, with "too good" having the definition of "has a strategy that is literally unstoppable, barring singular exceptions."

What does "barring singular exceptions" mean? Well, if a CHARACTER was unbeatable by the rest of the cast, EXCEPT for one OTHER character--not counting the original best character--then we would ban that character.

For Hyrule, because Fox is unbeatable there except by himself, and he pretty much wins the very second that he gets a lead on his opponent, that's pretty **** unstoppable. There's no point playing the game after Fox gets a percent lead on you. And if the answer is "play Fox lol," then it's pretty clear that it's too broken.

Are the camping, planking, sharking, nouning verbing strats on RC and Brinstar unstoppable?

Here's my problem. We don't have anybody who will actually push these limits in tournament.

You know why my friend and I started using the IC infinite years ago? Because we thought it was ridiculous as hell, and that it was broken, and that we should PROVE it to be broken by ****** everybody with ICs, and maybe make some cash in the meantime. I remember straight out of Sirlin's Play to Win, "if you think something is so broken that it needs to be banned, prove it." So that's what we tried to do.

Guess how many major tournaments I've won? Guess how many other ICs have won, legal or not? It's in the single digits. We could not demonstrate that it was broken. All we've demonstrated is that it helps you beat *some* players, it can clinch a match here and there, but if somebody was going to **** you anyhow, they **** you anyhow. Of course, the community, with substantial proof that it was NOT broken, delivered by people aiming specifically to demonstrate that it WAS, still has it banned at the majority of tournaments, so you know what? /thread.

I'm done trying to convince people of anything on these boards. They don't want evidence. They don't want to prove a **** thing. They just want authority figures to parrot back what they're convinced they already know, and rather than man up and say, "fine, I'll prove it," they go back to playing Fox v Falco on Yoshi's Story for the fourteenth time in one night.

Your friend ***** you on Brinstar with Puff? Good for him. I hope he shows up at a national and three stocks M2K with that strat and gets Brinstar banned for good. Then I hope someone else times out everybody but other Fox players in his pool and bracket on RC with Fox. Or I hope they try to, and the better players **** on them, and the community still eventually bans those levels and finally admit it's because they just don't like them. Whatever.**** it. I'll do it. I'm going to cheese every last person on Brinstar using Puff at the next tourney I go to. If I make it to Pound 5, expect every counterpick of mine to be a ******* 8 minute campfest on Brinstar. Bring the marshmallows and chocolate, I got the graham crackers.

Peace.

this damnit... this
It least m2k, zhu and hungrybox were honest and simply said they are gay and left it at that.
thats the real reason, the competitve reason is minicule at best. you want tournaments to run easier and have more "fun" at the end of the day its alright

 

[Youngling]

i'm done with this because the pro-brinstar/RC side is repeating the same refuted arguments and flawed ban criteria

m2k, hbox, zhu, axe and myself being against these stages should say enough

Why do people on smashboards continue to try to make themselves sound smarter by saying myself in the wrong situations?

 

[john!]

sooooooo would anyone else be in favor of a 9 neutral and two ban ruleset? if not then you can all direct your flaming towards me instead of flaming people over brinstar/rc and getting the thread locked.

also i might add that wobbles just dominated this thread, which he tends to do on occasion in threads relating to smash theory

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Why don't we just strike stages for every match? Counter-picking is un-competitive -_-

 

[Wobbles]

For all concerned, I am deadly serious about my claim. My counterpick in EVERY circumstance (barring a match against another Puff, lol) will be to go to Brinstar and play Jigglypuff and be as obnoxious as possible with b-air camping, sharking, and pound stalling during lava segments. And I will either:

a) **** everybody on that stage because I'm willing to use the "unstoppable broken strat" (again, lol), and the stage will be banned, and we will all know for certain and we can stop making threads about it

or...

b) not.

*

Also, a brief anecdote. Who here wants to know what Hax's proposed strategy against me was, should we play in tournament at APEX?

"I'm going to hit you once and camp the top platform of Battlefield for 8 minutes and never come down."

All in favor of making an oddly specific rule to prevent Falcon from doing this to ICs on Battlefield?

Spoiler

Nobody ;_;

 

[jugfingers]

Also, a brief anecdote. Who here wants to know what Hax's proposed strategy against me was, should we play in tournament at APEX?

"I'm going to hit you once and camp the top platform of Battlefield for 8 minutes and never come down."

All in favor of making an oddly specific rule to prevent Falcon from doing this to ICs on Battlefield?

who cares if a wobbling ice climber player gets gayed,

I promise everyone would cheer.

 

[Brookman]

Frankly, I think the only people who have any business discussing this topic or those who have a basis in the competitive scene.


I see Ripple posting a lot, but I've never heard of him having any success in tournaments.

 

[Hax]

Wobbles, the problem is IC's suffer from platform camping on every stage aside from FD. no stage is perfect and so we must strive for a ruleset that comes as close to perfect as possible; sadly even the fairest stages still offer this allegedly gay/unfair strategy vs ice climbers.

no matter what stages I am given I will play to win, and platform camping vs IC's is a strategy I plan on using as long as stages other than FD are legal

take for example Brinstar-legal tournaments; despite me firmly believing that the stage is unfit for competitive play, I counterpick it vs spacies because it increases my chances of winning (drastically). and yet I continue to support its ban.

 

[Wobbles]

double post lol

 

[Wobbles]

Hey, don't forget what I said to you when you told me that. "Oh no. Well, good for you. I've got a plan to beat you though!" (I didn't actually have one >_>) Remember, I wholeheartedly support all effective and legal strategies.

But I also don't think it's our job to make the game perfect. I think if a stage is unfair... then it's unfair. If it's not broken or devoid of competitive depth whatsoever, then by removing it we're not preserving the game at all. We're twisting it to make our own personal little private version of it that we like based on criteria that will change with the weather.

Mind you, IF we had a stage that was somehow 100% fair, then I'd be in favor of making it tournament standard as the first stage of the match. That would be pretty neat and neutral, so I'd probably be pretty down for that. I like the current stage striking system for that as well, actually; it gives both players a strategic voice in what the first match will be like, and it removes random elements from the get-go. That's pretty cool. Since we HAVE to pick a level to start the set on, it might as well be one two players agree on.

But for the counterpicks... well, they're COUNTERpicks. Designed to give you an advantage based on the other person's playstyle and character, or what characters you use. If we had a stage that was 100% neutral while simultaneously offering depth to a variety of character matchups, we wouldn't really NEED any others, but as long as they weren't broken or degenerate, why get rid of them?

Me, I like proof. I want somebody to prove to me that there are techniques that are unstoppable or degenerate on these levels. Unfortunately, everybody wants the crowd to like them, so nobody's going to geographically relocate their money to their mouth.

Hey, except for me. I recently stopped giving a **** about what the crowd thinks about me, because of posts like this:

who cares if a wobbling ice climber player gets gayed,

I promise everyone would cheer.

Some people (a lot, in fact) in this community are so overwhelmingly scrubbish and hypocritical it makes me want to take forty-five caliber aspirin. The definition of what constitutes "gay" or "********" or "lame" changes with the ****ing weather. From the same people, no less.

People decide who they think is better before the match even begins, then reinvent their own beliefs so they always remain correct. It's only okay for Sheiks to needle-camp certain players, or Foxes to laser-camp certain characters. It was only okay for Jiggs to win when she wasn't the staple character of our top two players, and now she's super gay and broken. It's totally legit to play to win, but not TOO much, or not doing the one thing that I don't like. You can camp somebody out for eight minutes as long as nobody likes the guy you're doing it to.

My favorite story ever. At EVO East, Wes took Inui to Corneria for his counterpick, Samus vs. Sheik, planning to use up+b as his gimmick to **** Inui under the fin. At least, I assume that was the plan, because I can't think of any other reason why a Samus would take Sheik to Corneria. Well, guess what. Inui got the lead and started camping the fin's ledge himself, turning Wes' strat around on him, and won. And guess who got his *** booed and hated on. Guess which player "shouldn't have won." Guess which player played "cheap."

That's right. Wes! Oh wait. No. It was Inui, the guy nobody wanted to win to start with. Do you think Wes' fans would have said a damn thing if Wes had used an identical strategy? No, they wouldn't have. They'd have said, "play to win." They'd have said, "way to play smart." "Good **** Wes." So on, ad nauseum. Don't believe me? Would YOU start ****-talking your buddy if he camped M2K's balls off to get a win in tournament?

Nobody wants to be the bad guy. Nobody wants to risk being the next target. Nobody has the balls to sit on the big stage with 200 people booing them for playing to ****ing win. And fortunately for them, some players will never have to worry about it, because half the people in the crowd have season tickets to the theme park in their pants so they can go on the pole ride all day long.

I like that you play to win, Hax. It makes me happy. And it pisses me off that some people, a MAJORITY of our community, will never realize the real meaning of it.

 

[JesiahTEG]

I'm not really participating in this debate cuz I feel I don't know enough about the topic to really add advice that has depth and meaning, but as an observer still interested in the result of this topic/debate, it's very hard not to side with Wobbles when he presents his arguments. That's a smart, logical dude.

 

[Niko45]

You can present an argument as intelligently as possible, but fundamentally people are going to disagree. It seems pretty obvious that the level of competitiveness on moving/hazardous stages is much lower than on the neutrals, and that alone makes them ban-worthy. It's not at all about whether or not a stage encourages an absolutely broken strategy (can you actually cite examples of broken strats on every single banned stage?) Is Icicle Mountain banned because of some broken strat? Or is it banned because its ****ing ******** and doesn't represent what we as a community interpret competitive smash to be?

The argument seems to be "Players should fight other players and not fight the stage" vs "Keep the original game intact as much as possible...for some reason!"

 

[john!]

^ a greater variety of stages adds competitive depth to the game

the stages themselves may be slightly less competitive when considered alone, but the fact that another stage is available increases the total skill set required for tournament play

 

[Fly_Amanita]

"Level of competitiveness" is not well-defined.

 

[john!]

that's actually a good point, i personally define "level of competitiveness" as "the consistency with which people can win". melee is extremely competitive because mango can win (when he tries) with almost 100% consistency, kels can win midwest tourneys with ~90% consistency, and i can beat the melee newbie in my dorm with >95% consistency. professional football is semi-competitive because the same team can often win, but might suffer fluke losses, and rarely do teams go undefeated in a season. rock-paper-scissors is minimally competitive because the consistency with which people can win hovers around 50%.

cruise and brinstar may cause people to win less consistently due to their slightly janky nature, but the effect is not much more than the variety of the neutral stages alone, including kj64 and stadium. so, although they slightly reduce the consistency with which people can win, they give the player more options and thus increase the depth of the "game" that we are playing (which is a subset of ssbm as a whole). i think the tradeoff is worth it, but like i said, it all depends on personal opinion and what you want out of competitive melee.

 

[Bones0]

But for the counterpicks... well, they're COUNTERpicks. Designed to give you an advantage based on the other person's playstyle and character, or what characters you use.

I thought everyone had come to the realization that counterpicks are stupid and uncompetitive a while ago. A stage SHOULDN'T give you an inherent advantage based on what character you and your opponent play. Brinstar and RC do just that, hence the banning of them.

 

[Niko45]

"Level of competitiveness" is not well-defined.

I would describe a highly competitive format as having the outcomes of matches reflect the performances of the players as accurately as possible. I mean, have you ever played puff with ICs on brinstar? And had puff break the stage in 2 pieces, then proceed to pick you apart? If so, did you feel like you were just outclassed or outplayed? I doubt it, but to each his own interpretation.

Honestly though it shouldn't take such serious defining. This isn't legislation we're talking about. Just use common sense. The advantages that certain characters get on these stages are radical, substantially greater than the advantages they would get CPing a neutral (while they can still find advantageous neutrals, mind you). And in a 2/3 format, that means that that win Jiggs just got for free on Brinstar is as valid as the win the opponent grinded out on a neutral previously. They are treated as equal accomplishments and I don't think that's balanced at all.

 

[Bones0]

That's basically what I said earlier in this thread. Just define skill/competitiveness by the first stage. You rarely hear people complain about the first stage because it is chosen from stages that are already for the most part neutral, and because it is chosen through striking which ensures the most fair stage is played on. We just need to apply this same formula to the second and third stage, but that doesn't work when people want to suddenly introduce ridiculous stages like Brinstar and RC as options. Striking out of the neutrals sometimes has to do with advantages, but a lot of striking these days is largely based on personal preference. It isn't far fetched to hear about two players to any particular neutral (I've personally played on all of the neutrals for game 1 pretty regularly), but if Brinstar and RC where introduced as neutral stages for striking, how often would they end up being chosen for game 1? Almost never, aside from dittos or certain matchups.

 

[Pi]

**** these permanent points

bones your argument is stupid

A stage SHOULDN'T give you an inherent advantage based on what character you and your opponent play

all stages give certain characters advantages

 

[Wobbles]

You can present an argument as intelligently as possible, but fundamentally people are going to disagree.

This must be an incredibly easy statement for you to make given that you're in the majority and your viewpoint isn't the one being restricted.

Also, "for some reason." For the reason that arbitrarily removing elements of the game based on subjective criteria--presented without proof--leads to:

--Split communities
--Different rulesets in those different communities
--Laziness
--A shallower competitive experience

Okay, what do I mean by "shallower?" Tests fewer skills that involve strategy and thought. If a stage forces you to carefully consider where you move, when you move there, WHY you move there, is that "okay?" Or is it "too much to learn?"

Who defines too much? You? Me? Your buddy Jimmy who hates it when you wavedash and wishes you would roll and f-smash so he could beat you again?

Example: ICs v Ganon sucks *** for ICs until the IC player remembers that they absolutely MUST retain dominance over center stage, or they risk getting pushed off, which equals--nine times out of eight--a dead Nana. If Ganon forces Nana's double jump, f-air kills her. Period. Is this "okay"? Well, obviously, yes, it is. Deal with that, or change characters.

I guarantee the IC player who learns how to fight that matchup, learns how to WIN it, also ends up learning more about the game, becoming a better and smarter player. If he ends up learning that the matchup is unwinnable, then he KNOWS for certain and never has to worry about being tempted to stay ICs in a literally unwinnable matchup, and he picks Sheik and lol d-throw. It sucks he has to do that, but at least he KNOWS, and with any luck, he knows WHY.

Spoiler

My Sheik is garbage and I got ***** by Iori's Ganon on Brinstar. True story!

In the case of stages, we can either try to explore WHY the stage sucks major *** through testing and exploration, or we can just go "IT'S OBVIOUS BROSKI" and ban it straight away. Maybe we DO end up banning it in the end, but we know WHY. And hey, maybe you learn something about Puff or Fox in the meantime. And maybe it carries over to your neutral stages and influences your metagame.

Maybe it doesn't. I'm not flipping psychic.

It was OBVIOUS that Puff could not win a major tourney because of Fox, Marth and Sheik--same for Peach. It was OBVIOUS that Sheik was the best AND easiest character in the game to win with and you're just not going to beat her. It was OBVIOUS that FD was the most balanced stage because nothing gets in the way (AND it's purple. I love purple).

Puff is now our most dominant character, with one of the world's top players being a Peach, while meanwhile Sheik is underplayed and underrepresented, except by M2K when he wants to **** certain people. FD is still tremendously popular, but I blame it on the purple.

It's amazing how obvious **** turns out to be incredibly wrong when you give it time. Marth's f-smash was broken, you know. Now it's still good, but mindlessly spamming it gets you *****. Remember when he could just f-smash to edgeguard? Then people learned to ledge-tech. Then M2K started using counter to edgeguard spacies, which couldn't be teched and was pretty much unstoppable. Why didn't we ban that, even though he was winning all the tournaments, and it seemed so formulaic, so unstoppable?

Well for starters, nobody else could do it quite like him. "It's so broken I'm playing Marth oh god why am I being raaaaped." And second... aren't you glad we didn't? How else would you have remembered that you can just sweetspot and not get hit by the counter? Or that you can go straight up and over him? Or air-dodge onto the level?

Lastly, no, that Brinstar **** never happened to me. I played a Peach who tried to do it, and I two stocked him. Teehee.

And while we're talking about common sense? You mean, YOUR common sense based on YOUR subjective criteria that I don't agree with? I'm glad I'm the one being unreasonable and you're not. Wait, who's defining that? You? Well, I guess I should take your word for it. I don't have common sense. You said so, remember?

How radical are these advantages? Just because they're the immediately apparent ones doesn't make them the ones that must define our metagame. Just because they're easiest to execute and discover doesn't make them the best ones. We don't want common sense here. We want uncommon sense. We want the guy who reinvents the matchup or the strategy through testing and innovation, not the guy who throws his hands up and talks about what's obvious.

Well, I thought we did. I guess we just want to wave our fisher-price ban hammers around.

Bones: Then why aren't we playing on ONE level? Why don't we just make it ONE round? Why give people the chance to change characters? Yoshi's Story is better for Fox against etc. than another stage, that's stupid and uncompetitive. Jiggs loves Dreamland and it improves her survival against Marth, Fox, etc., this is stupid and uncompetitive. I hate having to fight against Wispy to combo or make it back on the level. I hate having to fight against Randall. I hate fighting against FoD's platforms to blindly SHFFL. I hate fighting Battlefield's wonky ledges. I hate eating 80 percent from Peach's d-smash because she's camping the rock pit on Stadium.

Wait..... you don't HAVE to die to Battlefield's edge if you just take its properties into account when you recover. You don't HAVE to jump into the damn chamber of **** with Peach on PS. You can watch the clock to know where Randall is. You can use FoD's platforms to do even CRAZIER combos if you're paying attention to them. You... well, Wispy's a ****, no getting around that. **** that guy.

I wonder what you might learn about Brinstar if you tried exploring it rather than fighting it. Maybe nothing. Maybe a lot. Is it worth finding out?

Spoiler

No. HAHA, GOTCHA.

I've issued my challenge to you, and in fact I'm willing to play devil's advocate and take the burden of proof on myself at my own expense so you can keep playing whoever you want however you want while I get called a ****** again. But in case you MISSED the challenge, here it is again:

If you think these levels and strats are broken and radical...

PROVE IT.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

what the **** are you talking about
seriously
do you think
at all
ever?
have you killed off half your brain cells?
do you ****ing read what you type before you hit submit reply?



WHAT GAME ARE YOU PLAYING

holy ****

Oh my god lol.

Are you serious SWD? Name one commonly played competitive sport/game that gives a player an advantage for doing nothing.

 

[Pi]

Oh my god lol.

Are you serious SWD? Name one commonly played competitive sport/game that gives a player an advantage for doing nothing.

provide me w/ a sport/competitive fighter comparable to melee and maybe i'll make an attempt

all stages have innate advantages to some chars in this game, it's melee, if you don't like how it's structured go play some other game

 

[ETWIST51294]

Damn wobbles. Slayin *****s arguements like a mother ****er. Beautiful post. I agree completly.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

provide me w/ a sport/competitive fighter comparable to melee and maybe i'll make an attempt

all stages have innate advantages in this game, it's melee, if you don't like how it's structured go play some other game

Yes, the stages give an advantage. Just like the playing field for a Soccer game might be better for one team rather than another. But I don't see any Soccer games where after half-time they say "Wow, you guys were doing really bad that first half so we'll give you a free goal".

There are many sports and fighters comparable to Melee. Pretty much every fighting game in existence can be compared to Melee, and so can every combat sport in existence.

 

[Bones0]

**** these permanent points

bones your argument is stupid

all stages give certain characters advantages

Well obviously all stages give certain characters advantages, I never said they didn't. But ideally they WOULDN'T provide advantages, right? So since we don't have an absolutely fair stage, how about we have players play on the three stages that yield the least amount of advantage to either player to increase the influence of skill on the results? The only way to do that is to ban the obviously unfair stages, and then let them strike from the 5 most neutral stages.


@Wobbles

You can't possibly compare the effect wind or Randall has on a match to the effect lava has when it engulfs the entire stage aside from a single platform. I agree that in a perfect world someone would enter a tournament and play as gay as possible to prove the tactic is broken, but good luck finding someone good enough to trash their reputation as a Smasher. Rising pound as Jiggs and wall-bombing as Peach as a means of stalling have unanimously been banned, but I don't recall ever seeing anyone actually abusing these tactics in tournament.