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!
It appears that you are using ad block :'(
Hey, we get it. However this website is run by and for the community... and it needs ads in order to keep running.
Please disable your adblock on Smashboards, or go premium to hide all advertisements and this notice. Alternatively, this ad may have just failed to load. Woops!
I think the "realism" argument is kinda hard to define.
Hell, back in the day, people couldn't even L-cancel consistently.
Also, as far as RC is concerned. I think the stage is fine. I feel like it's almost the same as Stadium is. Stadium starts on the neutral stage(Basically FD with two platforms) and randomly transforms into REALLY gay stages(fire and rock). Cruise starts on a neutral(the boat), has its silly moments and then turns into one big neutral before you drop back onto the boat. Not to mention, there's 30 whole seconds(i counted them during PP vs M2K GFs) where both opponents are on the boat, meaning that you can take the spacey's stock and then when the dumb part comes, you can camp them and force them to come to you.
Not to mention, if you grab a spacey on a carpet, can't you tech-chase them like, forever?
And whats to prevent you from KILLING THEM when they DI off the carpet?
Also, I'm sure that if Taj can invincibility stall on Brinstar with MEwtwo, then Spacies can do it just fine.
IT's just a case of getting it down and weighing the risk/reward. The risk? you screw up, you eat around 50% from the lava plus whatever punish the other player hits you with. The reward? The opponent CAN'T DO **** if you do it correctly because you're invincible and surrounded by a giant hitbox for like 5 seconds. And if you aren't confident, you can try your luck at the "Fight for the top platform" game.
except mewtwo's upb actually has invincibility and because of the movement there is a margin for error. There is no margin for error with fox, falco, ganon, ect. Sheik has the most margin for error but its still hard because you lose vision of your character while you do it.
I would fully agree nothing is entirely broken on brinstar. However, this criteria is inconsistent because there are already banned stages with no apparent broken strategy. That's why now you are back tracking and sorta being forced to say "unban floats/mute" JUST in order to be consistent in this weak defense of Brinstar. You also admit fully that Green Greens has no broken strat but is bad simply because of "bad random" factors. So you clearly also think a stage can be worthy of ban without having a broken strategy.
--I was making analogies to other stages because the fact is that every stage has aspects that interrupt what we consider "normal" play. The only difference is that we are intimately familiar with how to deal with those, but we don't take Brinstar's properties into account when making decisions.
Nope, that's not the only difference at all. You can not control when you need to recover. When you need to get back, and randall just happens to poke his head out and give you a new jump as the person rolls up thinking you're edgehogged - that's not good planning, that's luck. The DIFFERENCE between Randall and Brinstar is the massive degree to which lava will influence matches compared to randall.
--10% is pretty substantial bro. That's a decent shot at altering the outcome of a tournament finals match. In fact, if it really IS one in ten games, then if the grand finals went into 5th match both sets, statistically speaking he will seriously influence one of those matches.
Yea, it's unfortunate that Randall might cause some lucky outcomes. This 10% number is total BS, but I'll roll with it and refute this claim that luck would decide 1 match per epic grand finals. No. Yoshi's Story is going to be played typically twice in a 10 match grand finals set, so you're going to need 5 epic grand finals to come up with a match where Randall influenced the outcome.
--Of course, I've also argued elsewhere that it doesn't really constitute match interference because he's on a strict timer and if you don't pay attention then it's your fault for being taken by surprise.
Of course you have! Cause there's no consistency in your arguments. You want it both ways. You want to say ban YS if you're going to ban Brinstar, and then also say don't ban either one. You want to say that lava and randall and everything else is totally predictable and it is pure skill to operate around them, yet "10% is pretty substantial bro." You play a lot of devil's advocate, but where's the consistency?
...? You won't always get a KO setup, especially at lower percents. I mean, apply your logic to regular platforms. A lot of times you do get a solid followup but its not some magically guaranteed KO...
especially since you can't always edgeguard on RC...
Also, I'm sure that if Taj can invincibility stall on Brinstar with MEwtwo, then Spacies can do it just fine.
Mewtwo's and Sheik's stalls are way better since they offer invincibility during the up B.
I'm trying to say that you have to be frame perfect to do it with space animals. "Possible", sure, but with difficulty similar to doing 10 SWDs in a row or something.
I am pretty sure someone looked up the frames a while ago for ledge stalls, and I am pretty sure you have to be frame perfect (i.e. letting go of the ledge as soon as it is possible [which I believe is 8 frames?]). Then even if you let go perfectly, you have to space the up-b correctly so that you regrab, and repeating this FRAME PERFECT without even being able to SEE yourself regrabbing to help your timing is virtually impossible.
So yeah, if you can't consistently do it, no one is going to attempt it, especially since messing up results in you taking 50%+ lava damage and giving your opponent a free punish as you are popped up into the air with mad hitstun.
As far as tech chasing on RC carpets, good luck landing on the same carpet as a spacie, let alone grabbing them. The stage basically forces players to constantly be jumping, which makes grabbing ridiculously hard on the left/upper-left area. The whole reason the stage is ridiculous is they can run away and laser, so you probably won't even be able to get close enough to even think about grabbing anyway.
I would fully agree nothing is entirely broken on brinstar. However, this criteria is inconsistent because there are already banned stages with no apparent broken strategy. That's why now you are back tracking and sorta being forced to say "unban floats/mute" JUST in order to be consistent in this weak defense of Brinstar. You also admit fully that Green Greens has no broken strat but is bad simply because of "bad random" factors. So you clearly also think a stage can be worthy of ban without having a broken strategy.
Name a stage that doesn't consist of either broken run-away, bad-random, or degeneracy that is currently banned, and we can talk about it.
Of course I'm back-tracking; it's called "being consistent with my own beliefs." When somebody proves me to be incorrect or says hey, did you take X into account, and I have to stop and think "hmm, no I didn't," then I change my mind. MT said that many of my arguments against Pokefloats and Mute were similar to ones made against Brinstar, which forced me to admit I don't know much about the stages and that perhaps there ARE ways to deal with the powerful strategies and characters on those stages. This is a bad thing?
(Nice slipping in the word "weak" to artificially strengthen your argument.)
Oh, and congratulations, you proved that I said something that I said. Although your reading comprehension ALSO needs work because I ALSO mentioned that Green Greens turns into a "got a 1% lead? Start camping the sides" kind of match, where the approaching player is at the mercy of explosions before he can. So degeneracy and bad-random roll into one big ball that makes it a ****ing nightmare to plan and play intelligently on that level.
Nope, that's not the only difference at all. You can not control when you need to recover. When you need to get back, and randall just happens to poke his head out and give you a new jump as the person rolls up thinking you're edgehogged - that's not good planning, that's luck. The DIFFERENCE between Randall and Brinstar is the massive degree to which lava will influence matches compared to randall.
Well technically they're not lucky as long as you're paying attention to the clock. Then you can try and figure out ways to use him to your advantage, or you can decide whether you'll need to recover differently. If your opponent is going to get it when you try and edge-hog, then you need to hit him with an aerial of some kind and keep the edgeguard going. If you don't, you're ignoring the information you have and crying "luck" when things go wrong.
This 10% number is total BS, but I'll roll with it and refute this claim that luck would decide 1 match per epic grand finals. No. Yoshi's Story is going to be played typically twice in a 10 match grand finals set, so you're going to need 5 epic grand finals to come up with a match where Randall influenced the outcome.
You're right, not all 10 matches are on YS, that was silly of me lol. Unfortunately, you also know that at least one of those matches will be on YS. If you are claiming that YS can "cause lucky outcomes," and you fellas are so hell-bent on removing randomness and luck from the game, then why are you okay with the stage?
As I've said, I believe Randall's an influence, but not a luck-based one, because watching the timer for the cloud is the player's job, a job most players just don't do.
Of course you have! Cause there's no consistency in your arguments. You want it both ways. You want to say ban YS if you're going to ban Brinstar, and then also say don't ban either one. You want to say that lava and randall and everything else is totally predictable and it is pure skill to operate around them, yet "10% is pretty substantial bro." You play a lot of devil's advocate, but where's the consistency?
I'm not playing devil's advocate, I'm pointing out YOUR inconsistencies. YOU claim that Randall is luck based, but that it's okay because it's "not much." You don't seem to realize that even if it's just 1 in 10, even if it's only 1 in 100, having a match's outcome randomly determined at the drop of a hat is NOT COOL. If it's some genuinely crazy, outlying, one in a million glitch, like falling through the tree on PS, then I can understand it being considered a non-issue.
And again, this is YOUR claim that Randall is randomly influencing matches. I'm trying to get you to be consistent with what you say is good and bad about matches. I've already stated I find Randall to be simultaneously 1) an influencing factor and 2) one that you can plan around with practice and experience. The reason I've compared him to the lava is because I believe them to be similar in that regard. Nothing inconsistent about that.
However, by YOUR criteria, Randall is a luck-factor. A bad-random element that--we've got plenty of video evidence--can screw people over. If YOU want to remain consistent, then you should be arguing for a ban on YS. At least when someone says to me, "hey Wobbles you don't have proof Mute is broken," I say "yeah, you're right, maybe we *should* give it another shot."
Speaking of, earlier in this post you accused me of trying to remain consistent with my own beliefs in arguments, now you're saying I'm not. Where's the consistency for you, dog? You're pathetically attempting to point out fallacies that aren't there while simultaneously saying nothing meaningful about the stages.
Oh, and congratulations, you proved that I said something that I said. Although your reading comprehension ALSO needs work because I ALSO mentioned that Green Greens turns into a "got a 1% lead? Start camping the sides" kind of match, where the approaching player is at the mercy of explosions before he can. So degeneracy and bad-random roll into one big ball that makes it a ****ing nightmare to plan and play intelligently on that level.
How does it turn into a "got a 1% lead" in a way that other stages doesn't? Last I checked the tournament ruleset since the beginning has included a timer which allows the lower % player to not attack.
Because of how the stage is laid out, its really not much more difficult to approach the sides of the stage than to approach someone from a platform on battlefield. Its not jungle japes. The sides aren't quite that defensible.
Anyways, I'll go on to say, its not the randomness that should cause a ban. If both players have equal notice and intelligence of the stage, whether its 100% random or 100% timed, its equally favorable to both players.
My gripe with stages are aspects that damage the players or makes the players move either towards each other or away from each other due to stage changes.
Mute City? I thought we'd been over this... "Bad-random" and "degeneracy" are totally subjective. More pointless filler discussion in your empty argument.
Of course I'm back-tracking; it's called "being consistent with my own beliefs." When somebody proves me to be incorrect or says hey, did you take X into account, and I have to stop and think "hmm, no I didn't," then I change my mind. MT said that many of my arguments against Pokefloats and Mute were similar to ones made against Brinstar, which forced me to admit I don't know much about the stages and that perhaps there ARE ways to deal with the powerful strategies and characters on those stages. This is a bad thing?
(Nice slipping in the word "weak" to artificially strengthen your argument.)
Sorry, but your argument is in fact weak. It's weak because you can't defend Brinstar's legality without also saying Mute and Floats should be unbanned. Your argument is too vague, so in order to defend Brinstar, you need to go against the status quo as much as pro-ban people because now its a package deal. Under your criteria, and in order for Brinstar to remain legal, mute and floats need to be unbanned.
Oh, and congratulations, you proved that I said something that I said. Although your reading comprehension ALSO needs work because I ALSO mentioned that Green Greens turns into a "got a 1% lead? Start camping the sides" kind of match, where the approaching player is at the mercy of explosions before he can. So degeneracy and bad-random roll into one big ball that makes it a ****ing nightmare to plan and play intelligently on that level.
Keep moving those goal posts. Now its not just that a stage must have a broken strat, but that also when "degeneracy and bad-random roll into one big ball." Seems like you're coming around to the idea that there's more involved in what makes a stage ban-worthy than you initially had laid out.
Well technically they're not lucky as long as you're paying attention to the clock. Then you can try and figure out ways to use him to your advantage, or you can decide whether you'll need to recover differently. If your opponent is going to get it when you try and edge-hog, then you need to hit him with an aerial of some kind and keep the edgeguard going. If you don't, you're ignoring the information you have and crying "luck" when things go wrong.
Nah, I disagree. You can't control when you are recovering. Maybe you happen to recover with Randall on your side, maybe you don't. And I disagree with Hax that it's as simple as ledgehop bairing or something. Sometimes that works. Sometimes you don't have all day to edgeguard and you can't necessarily cover every option. Sometimes spacies miss a DI and should be dead, but they can side B to a fully extended randall who just luckily enough was there at the time. You're also talking about "video evidence" of luck with Randall yet arguing that there is no luck with Randall. I just don't get it. The luck factor on YS is unfortunate, but it's minor. Are we going to ban Dreamland just because Marth can trip there?
See, by outlining extremely general criteria like you have, you open the door for all sorts of technicalities and hypocrisies to be exposed. You see that already with mute and floats being packaged into your argument now. While my argument is ultimately subjective, at least it approaches this realistically. The game play should be consistent across the stages. Very few, if any, stages are absolutely flawless in terms of random factors or imbalanced advantages. Under these conditions we must look at which stages EXCESSIVELY influence the outcome of matches. Clearly the lava on Brinstar causes a much greater deviation from standard game play than Randall does.
You're right, not all 10 matches are on YS, that was silly of me lol. Unfortunately, you also know that at least one of those matches will be on YS. If you are claiming that YS can "cause lucky outcomes," and you fellas are so hell-bent on removing randomness and luck from the game, then why are you okay with the stage?
Removing EXCESSIVE randomness and luck and stage influence. Again, completely ignoring the fact that there's a difference between lava and randall. :/ I mean, you MUST be aware that you're REALLY reaching in saying that Randall and the Lava are comparable. The Lava engulfs the stage and can hit you. Randall has very minimal influence during recovery only. Even on the recovery issue, Lava definitely comes into play as far as saving people more often than with Randall. The difference between the two is obvious.
I'm not playing devil's advocate, I'm pointing out YOUR inconsistencies. YOU claim that Randall is luck based, but that it's okay because it's "not much." You don't seem to realize that even if it's just 1 in 10, even if it's only 1 in 100, having a match's outcome randomly determined at the drop of a hat is NOT COOL. If it's some genuinely crazy, outlying, one in a million glitch, like falling through the tree on PS, then I can understand it being considered a non-issue.
You're are directly conceding that there is a gray area. Stadium should not be banned because of the tree glitch. Dreamland should not be banned because of Marth tripping. I totally agree. Brinstar lava is a much much more influential stage factor. You are conceding that there is a gray area, so I am not being inconsistent by saying that Brinstar has too much stage influence on matches COMPARED to that of the neutrals. The neutrals are by no means perfect, but you want stages to be banned based on technicalities, I want stages banned based on clear deviation from standard game play.
TL;DR You keep trying to make this black and white, trying to define a very general criteria (yet still subjective) of what stages should be allowed and banned and sticking to that very strictly. Your argument for keeping Brinstar involves harping endlessly on technicalities in the flaws of the neutral stages. Yoshi's is a very reasonable stage on the whole and randomness with randall is something I would remove if I had my way, but we're working with what we've got. Realistically there is no perfect criteria for stages, and we need to be playing on the stages that are the fairest and provide consistent game play across the different legal stages. Stop using technicalities to defend Brinstar. Any idiot can see that Randall is less influential than Lava. Just because there is technically a small luck factor on YS does not open the door for stages like Brinstar with much greater ones.
Anyways, I'll go on to say, its not the randomness that should cause a ban. If both players have equal notice and intelligence of the stage, whether its 100% random or 100% timed, its equally favorable to both players.
My gripe with stages are aspects that damage the players or makes the players move either towards each other or away from each other due to stage changes.
The thing I have to say to this is that randomness may not be the single deciding factor in a ban but is definitely a bad thing. In the context of a single match played within a 2/3 set, you don't want to be playing on a stage that can have volatile variations in outcomes. Maybe in one match the lava saves you every time you get edgehogged, maybe in the next it saves the other guy every time. In the context of a tournament 2/3, I think it's a stage trait that should be avoided.
Just saying, but I think attacking Wobbles's argument with regards to his evaluation of Mute City and Poke Floats is very poor argumentation. I THINK Wobbles (not explicitly, but indirectly) conceded that Mute City and Poke Floats should be unbanned; attacking this part of his argument makes no sense whatsoever.
I'm getting the feeling that the debate is boiling down to one thing:
Do we want competitive melee to encompass only the "standard" playstyle that we see on neutrals, or do we want competitive melee to capture the diversity and different playstyles that we see when played on different, dynamic stages?
The first opinion allows for highly standardized (and arguably fairer) gameplay throughout all matches in melee, while the second opinion allows for a broadening of the different types of skillsets required in melee.
What we are currently arguing doesn't actually directly address these core differences in ideology with regards to what competitive melee should be. Wherever there is gray area (which is prominent everywhere in this debate), then the two different ideologies will find themselves at the opposite sides and simply cannot be convinced to concede any gray area as a result of their very different ideologies.
I think the debate would be better focused around determining what exactly we want to see in competitive melee. I'm not so sure that a successful debate can even come up from that, but it makes more sense to talk about that than specifically Brinstar and Rainbow Cruise, where the different ideologies are just going to clash without giving any ground with regard to gray area.
Just saying, but I think attacking Wobbles's argument with regards to his evaluation of Mute City and Poke Floats is very poor argumentation. I THINK Wobbles (not explicitly, but indirectly) conceded that Mute City and Poke Floats should be unbanned; attacking this part of his argument makes no sense whatsoever.
I'm getting the feeling that the debate is boiling down to one thing:
Do we want competitive melee to encompass only the "standard" playstyle that we see on neutrals, or do we want competitive melee to capture the diversity and different playstyles that we see when played on different, dynamic stages?
The first opinion allows for highly standardized (and arguably fairer) gameplay throughout all matches in melee, while the second opinion allows for a broadening of the different types of skillsets required in melee.
What we are currently arguing doesn't actually directly address these core differences in ideology with regards to what competitive melee should be. Wherever there is gray area (which is prominent everywhere in this debate), then the two different ideologies will find themselves at the opposite sides and simply cannot be convinced to concede any gray area as a result of their very different ideologies.
I think the debate would be better focused around determining what exactly we want to see in competitive melee. I'm not so sure that a successful debate can even come up from that, but it makes more sense to talk about that than specifically Brinstar and Rainbow Cruise, where the different ideologies are just going to clash without giving any ground with regard to gray area.
Well see this is where the fundamental problem that pro-banners don't want to deal with. Should we really be okay with legislating a game so that it plays the way that we want it to? This isn't something that any other competitive community does. Where do we stop then? The discussion has proceeded as it has been doing so because those arguing for a ban are unwilling to acknowledge they are only doing so because they have a preference over how the game should be played, and are unwilling to accept all these deeper, more difficult questions that come from making that stand. Thus, they are instead making claims like "omg it's unfair" to force this argument into what it is now.
As I've stated before, if you are in favor of banning stages like Brinstar and RC, it's likely because you just don't like playing on them, and you think that Smash should be as it is on neutrals.
As I've also stated before, this results in a slippery slope where we might as well just ban everything that we (as in the majority of smashers) don't like.
The majority of Smashers seem to think that the best way to play the game involves fast, flashy combos and cool edgeguarding that stages like FD make easy. Stages like RC and Brinstar make this style of play hard, and require adjustment, which people don't like. If we're okay with banning RC and Brinstar because people don't like them, then why don't we ban Jigglypuff too? Playing against her also requires a different mentality, and also happens to be something that most people don't like doing.
Side rant: people don't like banning characters because some people play that character so it would be unfair to them etc. etc. but hey, some people play on certain stages, banning those stages would be unfair to them too right?
Let Melee decide for itself what kind of competitive game it ought to be. We shouldn't ban anything unless it's explicitly shown to be game breaking.
Now in another vein, why is stage influence inherently bad? Perhaps random stage influence that you can't see coming is bad because then stuff will happen and you won't be able to adjust to it, but why is stage influence in general bad?
I argue that most smashers think it's bad because it prevents them from playing their flashy, combo-happy, fast and slick styles they enjoy playing and forces people to play in a slower, more deliberative manner that most smashers don't enjoy playing. That most smashers play characters like the members of the Starfox team and Captain Falcon seem indicative of this trend.
However I think it is unreasonable to categorically say that stage influence is bad; we ought to qualify this by saying that stage influence is bad if it meets the following criteria:
1. It is random
2. It is tough to see coming, or it is tough to avoid even if you see it coming
3. It can radically alter the outcome of the match.
Stage influence in RC fails criteria 1 (and I guess it automatically fails 2, as well) and so should not be a bannable factor.
Stage influence in Brinstar fails criteria 2, and so should not be a bannable factor. It is easy to see coming, might be on some timer maybe?, and not difficult to avoid if you see it coming.
I'm willing to keep going.
Stage influence in Mute fails criterias 1 and 2, and so should not be a bannable factor.
Stage influence in Floats fails criteria 1 and 2, and so should not be a bannable factor.
Stage influence in Flat Zone achieves all criteria, and so the stage is banned for that reason.
That doesn't mean that all these stages ought not be banned (I happen to think that MC and PF ought not be banned, though), it just means that they ought not be banned for the reason of "stage influence". They ought only be banned if there is some game breaking strategy on said stages.
Stage influence is not inherently bad. It's just another part of Smash that we haven't dealt with as much in the past because most players just like simple stages where they can do their slick raunchy combos. Banning based on stage influence that doesn't meet the 3 criteria is bad because that means we're banning to legislate the way we think Smash ought to be played, which is bad for the reasons I stated above.
We ought to be legislating based on fairness, and not based on style of play. The optimal fair stage in a matchup is the stage that is played on after a 29 stage strike between the two characters (not viable for tourneys but still). It's not the stage that has the least influence.
Sveet, after my initial response to you, you did not once mention Onett. I don't know what you're talking about.
You and I can belong in a persuasive argument when you are speaking directly to one person. This is a conversation, chap.
Also, accusing the opponent of having a crummy argument then demonstrating why does not constitute a personal attack, unless you equate the argument with the person. And if it does... well...
1) Niko and Hax began by saying "lol flawed logic" and "you disguise your lack of an argument with long-winded posts."
2) And I don't think "your argument is garbage" is a personal attack ANYHOW, especially when backed by debate. "You are dummy head" is a personal attack. You dummy head.
Kidding! I think you're a bright dude Sveet. But I still disagree with you.
Niko:
Now I know you're just trolling me. I haven't changed my definition one bit since the start of this argument.
What makes for a banworthy stage?
--Bad-random: factors suddenly occurring where you have no opportunity to do anything about them or plan around them.
--Brokenness: Strategies that are unbeatable, except by doing the same strategy but better. Or if there's a character who ALWAYS wins on one stage, except against himself and maybe one other character.
--Degeneracy: The match boils down to
Green-greens has exploding **** AND degeneracy via powerful camping. What's worse is the camping forces you to deal with exploding **** before you can even start fighting it. Somebody asked me what I thought about Green Greens, I told them. It didn't involve changing my definitions, it was an elaboration on my viewpoint on that particular stage.
Did I say that "degeneracy and bad-random have to katamari into a cluster**** of lunacy for a stage to be broken?" No. I said that those factors combine to make Green Greens a terrible level for competitive play.
As for Mute and PF... yes. Somebody said "hey these fit your definition," and I said "golly you're right," because they were. It sure beats contorting my definition to try and avoid contradicting myself. I'd rather accept and admit that under my terms, I might not know whether Mute and PF are ban-worthy (particularly given my limited experience with them) rather than try and say "no but see umm that is uh well...." Or just try and cover all my arguments with "well it's SUBJECTIVE." That's like a crappy artist trying to disguise a lack of anatomical knowledge by saying "but it's my STYLE."
*
I completely agree that Randall and the lava influence matches to different degrees. Randall is a significantly more static feature of its level than Brinstar's lava is. Unfortunately, as you seem to be fond of doing, you've missed the point.
RANDALL CAN DECIDE MATCHES. That's all my examples prove. He doesn't do it super often, but that has no relevance on whether or not he *can* and *does*. We know for a FACT that he's on a timer, so it's not in any way random. You are always free to check the clock and you will immediately know where he is. So even though he is a factor that decides matches, you know what he will do, and when. So not planning and adjusting around it is your fault.
Can lava decide matches? Yes. Can it be worked around and used to your advantage when you know how it behaves, and you know when it's coming? Yes. Can you easily look in the background of the flipping level to see if the lava is rising and about to engulf you? Yes.
By the way, that right there is your NON-SUBJECTIVE interpretation of good-random versus bad-random. Doesn't matter if you know an exploding capsule might spawn while you f-smash, there's no working around it; either it does or it doesn't, and it happens while you are incapable of doing anything about it. Everybody in their right mind can agree this is an example of bad-random.
And for the gray areas: you can go thousands of matches on PS without ever falling through the tree. Most people don't even know you CAN fall through the tree because it's never happened to them. Randall happens pretty darn frequently; every player in the world has experienced his, and you WILL see him do weird stuff to you several times in one night during the course of a smashfest or tournament. It's frequent and noticeable enough that people complain about it. (And again, *I* have no problem with him because, again, he's on a damn timer and it's your fault for not knowing how he works)
At this point, your argument has turned into "that's just, like, your opinion man" because of how heavily you're arguing that criteria for stage selection is subjective, and using that to cover your own internal inconsistencies.
Edit:
Also, I just did a bunch of testing that demonstrates Brinstar's lava pattern is not random. It follows a strict behavior pattern. Go figure, right?
Double edit:
I disagree with Battlefield being the guaranteed starter stage, it promotes heavy platform camping which sucks major balls for the ICs.
Wobbles, the lava can still introduce what is essentially a random factor into the game even if it follows a set pattern.
Neither player really controls the times at which they land their hits, find the openings, get edgeguard opportunities, etc.
I have almost no experience with Brinstar so I can't say if this applies the stage in particular, but I'm just trying to point out that in general, "behaves in a deterministic pattern -> does not interfere with the match in a bad-random way" is not necessarily true.
Wobbles, the lava can still introduce what is essentially a random factor into the game even if it follows a set pattern.
Neither player really controls the times at which they land their hits, find the openings, get edgeguard opportunities, etc.
I have almost no experience with Brinstar so I can't say if this applies the stage in particular, but I'm just trying to point out that in general, "behaves in a deterministic pattern -> does not interfere with the match in a bad-random way" is not necessarily true.
I can agree with that. However, the fact is that you can always know what the lava is about to do and base certain decisions on it to prevent yourself from getting screwed over. Sure, if you're getting edgeguarded at a time when the lava won't save you, then you don't get the benefit of the lava. If you know the lava will arrive soon, you can stall for it; meanwhile, a savvy opponent can know whether he needs to prepare for a punish or not. You can also know whether it's safe to be playing more towards the edge or not, or even if you can go extra far for an edgeguard and have the lava be ready to bounce you back.
You seriously think Niko was trolling you, Wobbles?
ALL STAGES CONTAIN ASPECTS WHICH CAN POTENTIALLY DECIDE THE OUTCOME OF A MATCH.
VERY minor hazards/potentially game changing aspects
BF - edges
FD - ?? If you want to call chaingrabbing a game decider; lack of platforms introduces arguably abnormal gameplay (to some peoples' standards)
Minor hazards/potentially game changing aspects
DL64 - wind, slight to moderate advantage for jiggs. peach, etc. due to size
YS - randall, slight to moderate advantage for characters that do better on smaller stages
Minor to moderate hazards/potentially game changing aspects
FoD - moving platforms of abnormal height, slight advantage to characters that do better on smaller stages
PS - 1/3 neutral, 1/3 slight hazards/game changing aspects (windmill transformation), 1/3 heavily encouragement of camping/abnormal survival via techs on wall
Moderate hazards/potentially game changing aspects
KJ64
Brinstar
RC
Mute
* for reasons previously mentioned in this thread
Green Greens - the random exploding bombs (and even if they technically aren't random, they might as well be) do enough for me, this is in a different category imo because of this and shouldn't be legal.
It all boils down to what you believe is excessive for the type of gameplay we want to see. Then you have the counterpick system, and the number of bans, which also influence this heavily. The possibility of being taken to a stage like bs, pc, or mc twice in a bo5 WILL influence a lot of people to pick up fox, falco, or jiggs to be able to compete, so to all the people saying that keeping it only to neutrals is "one step closer to fox only FD only", that scenario doesn't really fly. Almost all characters are perfectly viable on neutrals, which do the best job (imo) of NOT providing a distinct advantage to one particular character or type of character.
damn people can argue on this forum lol
"haha I wanna prove u wrong and show everyone that my opinion is best. Damn making people feel stupid makes me feel so much better about myself." lol
But you missed the point that Wobbles was making. Wobbles was stating that it's perfectly fine to have game changing elements on the stage, provided that you're sufficiently able to account for them.
So the degree to which these factors influence the match is not the main issue, but rather how much warning you're given and how possible it is to prepare for them. In other words, how random it is.
Though how much "randomness" is okay is pretty subjective, it's impossible to argue that zero randomness is too random (as is the case with at least rainbow cruise).
Now before you say " well what about Brinstar Depths" or some other super obviously bannable level, wobble listed other criteria that can get a stage banned
(not trying to strawman you, I just the bad habit of posting and refuting potential flawed counter-arguments so we can get somewhere faster).
Dark Sonic, I only listed those stages according to hazards/game changing aspects. It was only loosely apart of my point, which was more along the lines of you defining the word "sufficiently".
--Bad-random: factors suddenly occurring where you have no opportunity to do anything about them or plan around them.
--Brokenness: Strategies that are unbeatable, except by doing the same strategy but better. Or if there's a character who ALWAYS wins on one stage, except against himself and maybe one other character.
--Degeneracy: The match boils down to
His criteria does not talk about the degree to which a hazard changes a game, but rather the degree to which a hazard can be planned around. Anything non random automatically fails this part of the criteria.
Though I suppose one could argue that Rainbow Cruise would fall under the "brokenness" criteria because of how strong a small group of characters are on it, but that's another issue to get into.
And if Brinstar does indeed follow a pattern, then it fails the criteria too.
:ibwc:
okeball:
:glasses::bacon:
