Ban brinstar and rainbow cruise

[KirbyKaze]

My motivation for Battlefield only stems mainly from my comfort with the level

This is a personal thing

It's all for profit baby

<3



But yeah in all seriousness it makes some sense because then we cut out all this crap about how stages influence matches and whatever and what is fair (all that, "Is Rainbow Cruise unfair because ICs suck there or do ICs just genuinely suck? You decide!").

Nurgle.

I don't really care either way though. Sheik is pretty good on Cruise unless it's Fox.

 

[Druggedfox]

Yo hax...

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=287684&page=1

If you really think this stuff needs to be gone....

I think by far the idea that if the stages aren't fair enough to be neutral, they shouldn't be legal, is one of the most important things to look at in this case.

 

[Winnar]

And there goes all the MBR, thanks Druggedfox.

 

[The Star King]

I try to avoid thinking the worst of people and jumping to drastic conclusions about their personal character before I get to know them. I'd appreciate it if from now on you did the same, thanks.

Your attempt to discourage discussion rubbed me the wrong way. Why would you do that? Do you really believe one's opinion can't be changed through an argument?

 

[Druggedfox]

Not really; hax already brought up most of the most important points, as did Axe.

Discussion goes on as normal, I'm just trying to get hax to help out and actually get this **** done.

Brinstar and RC are seriously banworthy, and I'm not entirely sure why they're still allowed. KJ64 I'd like to see how falco absolutely ****** jiggs and peach goes.

@KK

How did you feel cruise was vs falco? =/

 

[Winnar]

Your attempt to discourage discussion rubbed me the wrong way. Why would you do that? Do you really believe one's opinion can't be changed through an argument?

Seemed like most of the valid points had been made within the first page or two, after that it looked like an infinite argument loop.

I could have misjudged, I'm running on stupid low levels of sleep right now.

 

[_ToAsT_]

Seemed like most of the valid points had been made within the first page or two, after that it looked like an infinite argument loop.

I could have misjudged, I'm running on stupid low levels of sleep right now.

Well it may be because I need sleep too, but it seems to me that what's been said in the first few pages are being repeated and argued in the later pages. I don't see why we can't keep it simple and go with the Neutral stages. The only stage I can possibly see remaining is Brinstar. KJ64 and RC are just too unfair with the right match up. When winning and losing revolve solely on the stage, it obviously doesn't need to be played on. If so, why not make make all stages legal?

 

[KirbyKaze]

@KK

How did you feel cruise was vs falco? =/

It's not bad for Sheik vs Falco

She moves faster than him

Slopes mess with his lasering if you stay ahead of him at certain points and make him do the unthinkable at times

Lasers are severely weakened on the multiple platforms part and you can poke with your bigger moves (mostly Bair)

The boat you can hide in the middle and be in good shape

I dunno it's alright

Fox is the hard one

Faster rate of fire + higher speed + better overall mobility + better "up" moves are more useful there than what Falco gets

At least vs Sheik at any rate

 

[Winnar]

I don't like KJ64 because I SD'd 3 times on it when I got cp'd there last tournament. Twice I tried to up b (marth) but ended up in the barrel at the last second and fired straight down. Twice. The third time I tried to grab the ledge but apparently went between the ledge and the stage. Sad day.

I'm pretty salty about it.

 

[Linguini]

Europe has a good ruleset. Hop on board americans.......

 

[_ToAsT_]

KJ64 really sucks when you're a Doc player. I was playing on that stage and the way Doc's recovery works, it would miss the edge and go under the stage. Maybe its a glitch, or maybe its just me. I'd have to say that KJ64 is more faulty when it comes to the edge than Battlefield could ever be going by personal experience.

 

[TheGoat]

Good idea, let's ban even more stages, limiting the variability of the game, and thus further stagnating people's interest in melee. Hell, let's even ban Yoshi's Story because of Randall. Really what Melee needs right now.






Just kidding

I don't know why the **** rainbow cruise has ever been legal. Crazy stage.
Not knowledgable about brinstar depths.
And although my first few sentences were indeed a joke, it is kind of sad to see so many stages go. Especially as melee gets old, some variety would really help keeping it alive. Nevertheless, keeping a stage legal because of that reason is pretty falacious.

 

[Ripple]

the reason brinstar and RC are not banned is because they are completely non random. seriously. if you get "gayed" its your fault.

lava takes the exact same path every time. its avoidable by, guess what, picking a character such as jiggs or peach. otherwise, youre playing a bad character for that stage.

this is the stupidest thing ever. quit being ban happy because something is good for a character and your character can't compete.

someone who wants RC banned give me one reason as to why it should be banned. keep in mind it is not random at all.

I seriously don't want to get su5s or BPC in here to prove you all wrong because I want a shot a this myself but I will if I have to

 

[Hax]

Ripple please abandon the logic that dictates that random = unfair. do I really need to list all of the banned stages with no random aspects whatsoever? also i love how the people who insist RC/Brinstar be legal demanded an explanation as to why they should be banned, then fail to read the post i took 10 minutes to type up just for them.

also battlefield is definitely the fairest stage. Pocky i think "battlegayed" refers to the faulty ledge; yes this is a fault of the stage but it is very minor. however as TheGoat said (albeit sarcastically), variety has to be considered to an extent. Brinstar and RC violate this extent by creating a completely different game in which certain characters must exhibit significantly less skill in order to beat others. the variety they add does not make up for this.

 

[Bing]

Isn't that what happens when pink shinobi picks kj64 vs rockcrock?

That just made my day.

No but I personally am for Brinstar, and I really dont have any specific issues RC, counterpick me to either Brinstar or RC, ill play ya, no complaints, but I just believe that people can exploit the stage, which is fine, the object of the game is to win obviously, so if you need assistance to win a match, then yeah, pick RC especially, I honestly dont see any real issues with Brinstar and thinks its a rather amusing stage to play on. Honestly I think it should start with like 9 neutrals, no counterpicks being PS,FoD,YS,FD,BF,DL64,Brinstar,KJ64,RC. And as things progress threw the bracket, remove specific stages and the further you make it up the bracket the more neutral the stages become, so by the time your in the first round, quarters even, your down to just neutrals.. I dunno, im probably going to get **** on for this but whatever, my opinion

 

[Winston]

i like how the focus is centered entirely around stage cp's
while we ignore the other cp aspect we have available that negates most of the arguments in this thread.

if it's your choice to main one character, then accept the fact that he's going to have bad stages.

why is stage diversity more important than character diversity?

 

[pockyD]

also battlefield is definitely the fairest stage. Pocky i think "battlegayed" refers to the faulty ledge; yes this is a fault of the stage but it is very minor. however as TheGoat said (albeit sarcastically), variety has to be considered to an extent. Brinstar and RC violate this extent by creating a completely different game in which certain characters must exhibit significantly less skill in order to beat others. the variety they add does not make up for this.

yeah I know what they mean, but I really don't think the people claiming it know what they mean

The edges are 100% predictable, and failing to recover on battlefield is no different from lacking any other sort of basic stage knowledge (being unable to get low enough to sweetspot on yoshi's story, neglecting your opponents' walljumps, not knowing you can ride the wall on FD, etc.). It's a crutch complaint that virtually completely disappears at the higher levels of play

battlefield *****

 

[-ACE-]

Europe has a good ruleset. Hop on board americans.......

A great ruleset indeed. I'm all for it

 

[Winston]

The one thing about battlefield is that it makes recoveries a lot less interesting/easy to edgeguard in general because of lack of riding the wall/walljumps/teching stagespikes.

Not that it makes it less fair, just mentioning it. It definitely is the "fairest" (i.e., most balanced and closest to the average) stage.

I'd probably quit Luigi if it was BF only though.

 

[PoundSlap]

i dont see whats wrong with battlefield and its edges. youre gonna get gimped anyways if you recover from below with most characters.

 

[Winston]

Maybe someday.

For now though, you'd be surprised at how many players, even good ones, tend to use edgeguards that aren't guaranteed on non-BF stages.

 

[Pi]

why is stage diversity more important than character diversity?

Banning CP stages does not promote character diversity any more than expecting people to have a pocket fox for 'bad' stages does.

I think it's pretty gross what's going on here, these stages aren't broken, they are exactly as they need to be; CP's.

They're not walled, they're not walk off, there are no random events, they don't promote camping to the extent Hyrule does, and they don't 'over-centralize the metagame'

I'd like to remind again of how the CP system, in it's entirety, works:

Loser picks stage, Winner picks character, Loser picks character

If you're fighting a peach as ganon, and it's peach's CP, and he says KJ64, and you decide to stay ganon then you know what you're potentially in for

 

[pockyD]

They're not walled, they're not walk off, there are no random events, they don't promote camping to the extent Hyrule does, and they don't 'over-centralize the metagame'

If a stage meets these criteria, why is it not good enough to be neutral?

 

[bertbusdriver]

what if we switched to the following procedure for everything after the first match?

loser introduces two stages from non-neutral list (what is currently our CP list plus a few more. read on and you'll find out why this is fair)
winner picks character
loser picks character
stage strike to choose stage

I'm sure there are disadvantages this system, but it brings the advantage that you would never have to play on a stage where your character is pretty much screwed against your opponents character and it would allow us to bring in certain stages that are totally unfair for certain matchups but totally legit for other matchups. (fox dittos at corneria?)

In this scenario, IC players never have to go to brinstar against peach only to have their nana get killed once peach splits the stage. On the other hand, we can also have jiggs vs peach at brinstar since the lava isn't terrible to either character.

 

[Pi]

If a stage meets these criteria, why is it not good enough to be neutral?

I wouldn't mind having KJ64, Brinstar, RC in the neutrals.

Often times during smashfests I'll set all the neutrals & CP's on, if nothing else than to gain practice on them.

@above

Giving the winner a choice between 2 stages seems like a legit idea.

Loser selects 2 stages, Winner strikes one
Winner picks char
Loser picks char

 

[Ripple]

If a stage meets these criteria, why is it not good enough to be neutral?

it is. like I said earlier, if you do away with the whole "neutral" and "cp" stage list and just have legal and banned using FSLS things would be much simpler

Ripple please abandon the logic that dictates that random = unfair. do I really need to list all of the banned stages with no random aspects whatsoever?

I never said random = unfair. people said that and that's why I said for someone to give me an argument without that included. perhaps you misunderstood

and I know some stages are banned even though they have no randomness. they promote certain characters to an extreme or they promote circle camping.

RC does neither and so does brinstar

 

[bertbusdriver]

or even loser picks 3, winner bans 2?

edit: we might even have to make increase x for "loser picks x stages, winner chooses one of those" based on how many terrible stages there are for some characters in the proposed new "non-neutral list"

 

[Bing]

I Love how this started as ban RC and Brinstar, and has expanded to re-creating the stage and character picking rules, kinda amusing...

 

[`Jammin' Jobus]

honestly, raindow cruise and brinstar are JUST of stages as bad as mute city, green greens, pokefloats, jungle japes.


where were you guys when those got banned?

 

[bertbusdriver]

I Love how this started as ban RC and Brinstar, and has expanded to re-creating the stage and character picking rules, kinda amusing...

well the primary reason why people wanted these stages banned is that they are terribly lopsided for certain matchups. one solution is to simply ban them outright, but why should we ban stages just because they're terrible only for certain matchups? The rules have been changed before (from random to stage-striking in the first match), so i think it's certainly worth it to throw ideas out there. If they're flawed, so be it. But they're worth exploring for the advantages i mentioned in my first post.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

havent read this thread, just saw it. I literally just made this change for my next tournament installment. I'm on board for this decision.

 

[Theftz22]

what are you striving for
also define "skill" in melee without a confimation bias

 

[bertbusdriver]

I wouldn't mind having KJ64, Brinstar, RC in the neutrals.
@above

Giving the winner a choice between 2 stages seems like a legit idea.

Loser selects 2 stages, Winner strikes one
Winner picks char
Loser picks char

i'm not sure if you got what i was saying, but in my initial post, i meant to say the loser chooses two of the non-neutrals to add to the neutral list from which you would stage strike for the next match. But I like your idea too.

 

[pockyD]

well the primary reason why people wanted these stages banned is that they are terribly lopsided for certain matchups. one solution is to simply ban them outright, but why should we ban stages just because they're terrible only for certain matchups? The rules have been changed before (from random to stage-striking in the first match), so i think it's certainly worth it to throw ideas out there. If they're flawed, so be it. But they're worth exploring for the advantages i mentioned in my first post.

...because, among MANY other reasons, the stage is selected prior to character selection; therefore, there is no way to mandate that the stage is 'acceptable' for the matchup, nor should there be

should we have an 'all-stages-legal-for-dittos' clause?

 

[Pi]

...because, among MANY other reasons, the stage is selected prior to character selection; therefore, there is no way to mandate that the stage is 'acceptable' for the matchup, nor should there be

should we have an 'all-stages-legal-for-dittos' clause?

technically all stages are legal if the opponents agree to them.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

that's why the whole counterpick system is broken and ********

should just strike from a set of legal stages.

 

[bertbusdriver]

...because, among MANY other reasons, the stage is selected prior to character selection; therefore, there is no way to mandate that the stage is 'acceptable' for the matchup, nor should there be

should we have an 'all-stages-legal-for-dittos' clause?

which is why i proposed a system where you can avoid this issue entirely:

what if we switched to the following procedure for everything after the first match?

loser introduces two stages from non-neutral list (what is currently our CP list plus a few more. read on and you'll find out why this is fair)
winner picks character
loser picks character
stage strike to choose stage

I'm sure there are disadvantages this system, but it brings the advantage that you would never have to play on a stage where your character is pretty much screwed against your opponents character and it would allow us to bring in certain stages that are totally unfair for certain matchups but totally legit for other matchups. (fox dittos at corneria?)

In this scenario, IC players never have to go to brinstar against peach only to have their nana get killed once peach splits the stage. On the other hand, we can also have jiggs vs peach at brinstar since the lava isn't terrible to either character.

.


Example:

p1 vs p2, p1 used falco to beat p2, who used jiggs, in the first match.

p2 decides mentally, "i still want to use jiggs for the second match, so i want to add stages to the stage strike list that are advantageous to jiggs"

p2 chooses brinstar and RC to add to the stage striking list. Now, the stage striking list is RC, brinstar, and all of the neutrals.

p1 and p2 stage strike from said list.

If p1 still wants to play falco in the second match he never has to play on brinstar and RC if he doesn't want to. All he has to do is strike those stages.



p2 still gains a slight advantage for the second match, but only since p1 has to use 2 of his stage strikes on RC and brinstar, in addition to probably DL 64. Thus, p1 has less of a say in where they go for match 2, but he can still prevent the match from going somewhere where is he is at a severe disadvantage.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

^ thats a pretty cool system. Only downfall is the amount of work. I would estimate that would increase tournament length by around 10%, which for a 10 hour tournament is another full hour.

on an unrelated note, i personally find the stage striking process to be among the most stressful parts of the set

 

[pockyD]

rambling random examples

This is all beside the point

IS THE STAGE ACCEPTABLE FOR COMPETITIVE PLAY? If so, it should be legal. If not, it should be banned. If it is 'sometimes' acceptable, then it is NOT acceptable.

A player's ban shouldn't see their hand forced due to the innate unfairness of the stage. Any stage that is an "obvious" ban most likely shouldn't be legal at all

Stage striking is easy, especially when none of the stages are ********

 

[bertbusdriver]

This is all beside the point

IS THE STAGE ACCEPTABLE FOR COMPETITIVE PLAY? If so, it should be legal. If not, it should be banned. If it is 'sometimes' acceptable, then it is NOT acceptable.

A player's ban shouldn't see their hand forced due to the innate unfairness of the stage. Any stage that is an "obvious" ban most likely shouldn't be legal at all

Stage striking is easy, especially when none of the stages are ********

Bowser vs falco on FD is innately unfair