"BUT IT MOVES!!!" - Dissecting a closed-minded starter mentality

[Orion*]

oh and, raziek isnt their "number 1" TO, hes like their only one LMFAO. he can do whatever he wants and say it works for him, i havent even seen example tournament vids in any of his posts ever, just him saying it works for his region. (then again, i dont like name search raziek so maybe he has a few, but from my experience i havent seen a video example)

edit: sorry for the double post, wasnt trying to spam.

 

[Life]

@Orion: You kinda missed the point. Which is kinda my fault, I wasn't very clear.

(I habitually correct spelling errors as they occur when I type so not a lot slip through--without my backspace button I'd be screwed, hahaha.)

I was using sarcasm to defeat ad hominem. I normally don't care THAT much for spelling errors (although "irregardless" is a pet peeve), I was saying that "your argument is invalid because you misspelled a random word" is as valid as "your argument is invalid because you're the one making it". In that both can be defended by "my imperfections (being imperfect at Smash or being imperfect at spelling) are not relevant to the argument". Which is itself kinda strawman-y, but eh.

As for Raziek, there's a couple videos of him playing in the PS2 thread, at the bottom of the OP. It's not much, but it's there. Lemme dig them up and edit them in...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-n3PgqzTBaE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zbel7gLfJY8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVTP2z1Oz1Y

Videos courtesy of Raziek. Demonstrating normal gameplay on the stage between players who, due to the setup of his region, actually know the stage. Take note of how shockingly normal it is.

 

[SuSa]

people who aren't that great at teching.

So maybe you should.. like you know.... go practice teching like a competive player would?

I've been brought to Weegee's Mansion against a Lolimar as Snake. Not fun times.. not fun times at all. Even when you tech the usmash he hits you again. Your only hope is to wait until mid/high %'s to be able to SDI+DI the hit far enough that another usmash won't hit you. Want to know the funnest part? I still won because I was better than my opponent.

Did I have to battle a stage element? Yes.

I've taken Falco's and DK's to Japes as Snake, and vice versa (because I ban FD, I like Japes more :D ) I've only lost one game to either of them. It was to a Falco because I SD'd twice with poorly timed b-reverses.

Did I have to battle a Dk planking and a Falco having amazingly good stage control? YES - but instead of playing a character that can't handle it I chose a character who could. Why? It's the competitive thing to do.

If your character can't handle a certain element against a certain opponent on a certain stage. Switch characters. If your character cannot kill vertically very well, adjust your playstyle to kill horizontally. Don't just ***** and moan and ban the stage from gameplay...

@Orion
So me backing BPC's idea gives it no further credibility?

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Most of the world isn't swimming in TOs; most TOs can kinda do what they want. I guess saying someone is a #1 TO is kinda silly, but it's not like being a region's only significant TO is a rare thing at all.

I still don't see how talking about who is X or Y experienced is productive. It's a part of a grander fallacy that is very common in the smash community, namely assuming that people who play the game better know more about it. I should put it this way:

Players are overall composed of three principle parts. You have conscious knowledge, sub-conscious knowledge, and technical ability. Conscious knowledge is the sum of everything you can think about and discuss in the game; it is literally the only thing that matters for arguing on smashboards. Subconscious knowledge is what you know but can't really talk about, and it's the biggest thing that actually makes some players better than others. It is knowing that *exact* timing to use dair with MK to make it as hard to get around as possible in every matchup, that sort of thing. Of course, technical ability is your ability to take all your knowledge and physically apply it. Knowing when to do something doesn't help you win games if you can't make your fingers cooperate after all!

The thing is that a lot of the best players in smash, as it turns out, don't have very well developed conscious knowledge of the game. Just read the arguments from a lot of top players; they aren't very well developed. The reason they win and are in fact top players, of course, is easy to see. They don't have a good handle on how fair certain stages are or the ability to explain the physics behind Falcon Kick, but those things aren't actually very useful for winning games. What they do know is exactly when to do which moves to optimally kill the opponent, to create traps, etc.. Their very pattern reading abilities are mostly subconscious too; they just kinda know you were going to roll or whatever. It's not something they have to stop to think about and probably not something they could stop to think about even if they wanted to. They also have great technical ability so, when they know they need to do something, they can just do it time and time again. Those things just increase their consistent threat level; being a smart counterpicker gets you almost nowhere compared to winning 90% of the time when both characters jump at each other.

The point I'm making though is that those skills translate poorly to arguing on the boards. Knowing exactly how good different counterpicks are for different characters or knowing the exact physics that control Falcon Kick are actually really handy for arguing on the boards. Just knowing stuff isn't useful at all; you need to be able to stop and think about stuff and explain it. Of course, most top players would probably tell you arguing on smashboards isn't helpful, and in a sense they are right. I wouldn't begin to claim it actually helps you win games, but it's a question of goals. If your goal is to win games, going and playing and developing the subconscious store of knowledge and precise technical ability is what you need to do. If your goal is to win arguments on smashboards and understanding the game, just reading a lot about the game is honestly more helpful than real game experience after a certain point. The standard for proving someone is "bad", likewise, is different here. Proving someone is bad at winning the game is as simple as playing them at the game and defeating them decisively and repetitively. Proving someone doesn't understand the game, on the other hand, requires you to actually engage their points and explain why they are wrong. This is far too often confused.

Sadly, I don't have time to engage several of the other things being said here, but I really hope we can move past talking about how well we all play the game as a part of discussing our understanding of it. It is far more independent than commonly believed.

 

[Raziek]

You guys don't need to namedrop me here, I read EVERY thread in stage discussion.

Anyway, while what Orion says has some truth to it, I CANNOT just do whatever I want.

Firstly, I'm one of FOUR TO's who constitute an organizational committee that runs our tournaments. I have the most influence on our ruleset, but ultimately I'm still restricted by two things.

1) I cannot just change things without the approval of my fellow TOs.

2) I'm ultimately still bound by the will of the players to not take things too far outside what they want, or I risk losing attendance.

All these changes (Including PS2 as a starter) were gradually introduced into the community, and I've received almost unanimously positive feedback. Fun fact: We used to be your standard East Coast ruleset (with a few extra CPs), 5 starters, the works.

Yes, you have to take my word for it, but that's really all I can say.

As for gameplay vids, I intend to upload more soon, but I've been swamped for time lately. I'll see what I can do for you.

 

[SuSa]

You guys don't need to namedrop me here, I read EVERY thread in stage discussion.

Anyway, while what Orion says has some truth to it, I CANNOT just do whatever I want.

Firstly, I'm one of FOUR TO's who constitute an organizational committee that runs our tournaments. I have the most influence on our ruleset, but ultimately I'm still restricted by two things.

1) I cannot just change things without the approval of my fellow TOs.

2) I'm ultimately still bound by the will of the players to not take things too far outside what they want, or I risk losing attendance.

All these changes (Including PS2 as a starter) were gradually introduced into the community, and I've received almost unanimously positive feedback. Fun fact: We used to be your standard East Coast ruleset (with a few extra CPs), 5 starters, the works.

Yes, you have to take my word for it, but that's really all I can say.

As for gameplay vids, I intend to upload more soon, but I've been swamped for time lately. I'll see what I can do for you.

I love how you guys are basically doing what I'm trying to start in the US.... =\

Why must great things suck so much on a large scale.

Spoiler

Like Communism

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I'm "trying" to start it in germany too...

 

[Orion*]

You guys don't need to namedrop me here, I read EVERY thread in stage discussion.

thats kinda sad, just being honest XD

The thing is that a lot of the best players in smash, as it turns out, don't have very well developed conscious knowledge of the game. Just read the arguments from a lot of top players; they aren't very well developed.

did you ever consider the fact that they honestly, just dont care enough about what you have to say to write like a 654 paragraph essay just to make you happy? they already know their going to win LMAO

 

[Raziek]

Orion, there aren't many active threads in stage discussion. There's like 3 or 4 that actually get posted in, and it takes 5 minutes to give a new thread the once-over.

And lazyness is definitely the worst debate excuse ever.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

I love how you guys are basically doing what I'm trying to start in the US.... =\

That'll never happen, cuz we're americans.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

America... **** yeah?

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Depends on subject.

 

[ADHD]

I think that if most of the US TO's resort to a more liberal stagelist, the game will begin to die here.

PvS really doesn't have the depth most of the people in the brawl stage forums give it credit for (actually, these boards are 90% biased). More/newer options does not mean you can utilize the terrain better than on a flat stage.

I can write it out for you if you like.

EDIT: @ BPC You are right though, that there aren't many strong reasons for not advocating the type of stagelists being described around here, but there aren't strong reasons for advocating it as well other than the repetitive "innocent until guilty" and "PvS demands more skill."

Innocent until guilty SHOULD NOT be a viable statement for this case when this has nothing to do with the U.S. legal system and YOU are the ones trying to implicate newer ideas.

Also, PvS demanding more skill argument is actually false. In fact, I can't think of a stage that demands more skill because of the scenery than your typical, old pal battlefield.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Diversity says hi.

 

[SuSa]

Biased Diddy main says hi. /jk ADHD

It's not so much the 'innocent until guilty' aspect. In fact, most of these stages aren't guilty - and have been proven to not be guilty. The ban is only warranted cuz "hur hur we don liek dis stayge" - which is anti-competitive at it's best.

 

[Orion*]

so what am i? i main metaknight LMFAO i know your kidding but so many people say that to wyatt and its annoying

and @ raziek, it has nothing to do w/ lazyness. just not caring.

if im interested in something i learn it, WELL. this is just something to pass the time, in all honesty i doubt that these sort of stagelists will happen ever, its more likely mk will be banned first

although the vids of ps2 didnt look so bad, id be willing ot retry it

 

[ADHD]

Diversity says hi.

Diversity my ***. Just because the terrain is different doesn't mean it takes more skill when it does not enable you to have the same options you usually have--in fact, it takes away your previous options for what? THE ABILITY TO SLIDE?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

There is more to diversity than different gameplay options

Besides, if all of these stages didn't allow you to do anything new, I am curious as to what you believe the purpose of counter-picking is.

 

[ADHD]

There is more to diversity than different gameplay options

Besides, if all of these stages didn't allow you to do anything new, I am curious as to what you believe the purpose of counter-picking is.

Oops, I didn't mean that. I'm saying that there are new abilities to the terrain but they aren't "more skillful" when it limits other options as an unequal trade.

Also:

To give an edge to a loser by letting him choose a stage he can stump his opponent's options on better, or a stage he has added advantages while his opponent does not. This is why I believe a few stages should not be starters.

 

[SuSa]

Yo ADHD. I have an entire article on why counterpicking isn't competitive.

Have fun not reading it:

The Counterpick system is NOT competitive.

Spoiler

The Counterpick System is NOT competitive​

____________________________________________

Part 1 - Stages​

Stage counterpicking has become an important, but not essential, factor of determining the outcome of a match. It allows you do place your opponent at a disadvantage by picking a stage that they are not familiar with, picking a stage their character gains a disadvantage on, or picking a stage your character gains an advantage. Two of these factors are not competitive.

• Placing your opponent at an uncontrollable disadvantage.
• Placing yourself at an advantage uncontrollable by your opponent.

Why are these two points uncompetitive?

The only disadvantage your opponent is placed at depends on the character whom they choose to use. They have control over this factor so they are willingly placing themselves ata disadvantage. However...

When you control the stage your opponent plays on, you are placing them at a disadvantage that is largely out of their control. Players only get to select 1 ban, and most characters are at a disadvantage on more than 1 stage. It does not matter if you are weakening their character, or strengthening yours - it is a disadvantage to your opponent.

It is a widely agreed upon fact that there is only one character whom is good on every stage. This breaks the counterpick system for stages.

Why does this matter?

The stage counterpick system is not competitive. It is there because we feel it is important. Would you consider the weakening of an opponent competitive?

___________________________________________
Part 2 - Characters​

The second part to our counterpick system is the ability to counter your opponents character. This is also an uncompetitive rule, that has become a standard for our community. Most every other competitive game, you pick your characters and that's it. You can't swap, you're stuck until you win or lose. This means choosing a viable character is an important factor in winning.

Without a character counterpick system, many characters become unviable. Characters whom are easily infinited by DDD for example. Would you take the risk of double-blind picking your character?

The double-blind system is actually competitive and essential to keeping tournaments run in time. Without it, people may constantly be trying to counterpick eachother before the match even starts. It often doesn't happen like that, but it occasionally does so they agree on a double blind.

However let's take two mains. A DK main and a DDD main. They agree on a double blind.

The DDD main is at an advantage if he stays DDD, while he could be countered - the DK main is a DK main. He will not be as skilled with his secondary as his main, and going his secondary may be a huge risk for him. Without a counterpick character system, DK becomes less viable. You can't counterpick your opponent the next round if you lose, and you essentially get locked into an "unwinnable" matchup.

So why is a rule in place, when the only purpose it serves is making characters more viable? Why don't we have other rules in place to make a large portion of the cast more viable? Banning infinites? Banning small-step CG? Banning Meta Knight? It's essentially because we are living a double standard.

Without a counterpick system for characters - the undisputable best character, Meta Knight, would be the best choice to be locked into a match with. He essentially becomes the center of the metagame. To best avoid ever being countered, go MK. This centralizes the metagame around one character, and may eventually lead to further changes taking place.

With a counterpick system, with Meta Knight allowed - our current system - the best option to counter your opponent, is to switch to Meta Knight. Your opponent, whom may switch their character before you counter them, may also switch to Meta Knight to avoid the counter - and instead go in an even matchup. This centralizes the counterpick system around Meta Knight.

With a counterpick system, but with Meta Knight banned, every character can be counterpicked. The system does not revolve around picking Meta Knight to counter your opponent. The system is now revolving around soft counters and being the better player.

_____________________________________________
Joining the 2 counterpick systems​

When you join our two counterpick systems, you have a system centralizing around one character. This character breaks both counterpick systems. Systems that we have decided our important enough to be a standard, although neither is competitive.

In a matchup that is a soft counter in general, there may be certain stages that turn the tables. This creates a complex system about knowing matchups and how stages effect characters. However, when you add Meta Knight to the mix - you can no longer counter him. You cannot counterpick Meta Knight to place yourself into an advantageous situation. The best you get is a neutral match. To do this, you must also choose Meta Knight - and then the stage doesn't matter at this point.

Meta Knight is the only character in the game that you may not counterpick. He alone, breaks the counterpick system. The BBR agrees he breaks the counterpick system but has made no comment as to why we have the counterpick system.

The counterpick system was established a long time ago, in a different game entirely. It was established in a game that there was not a character whom broke the counterpick system. There was also a character you could go, that wasn't a ditto, or a stage you may take the enemy to - to place yourself at an advantage. Upon changing games, the very foundation that we have built our competitive rules need to be relooked at.

Unlike Melee, Brawl does not have a working counterpick system. It's flawed, it's broken - and it is not needed. It's an established standard that needs to be looked at for how it effects Brawl, independantly from it's predecessors.

Brawl does not need a counterpick system. If we choose to keep it however - we are admitting that it is okay for one character to not follow the system. We are saying the system is not important enough to be fixed.

We are to keep the system, or fix the system? Are we competitive? Or do we care about balance?

_____________________________________________________
The TL;DR​

Read it. Inform yourselves. Discuss amongst yourselves. Decide for yourselves. Counter my arguments, bring up points. Advance our community.

 

[Raziek]

If all it takes is videos of my local players and I playing normal, competitive matches on these stages, I will be HAPPY to oblige.

Edit: @SuSa, we know it's flawed, but do you have a better alternative that doesn't reduce the depth the counterpicking system provides?

 

[SuSa]

Yeah. Simply remove it and have picking your character be the most important part of the match. You know. Like every single other game. Of course, this kills diversity. But do we care about diversity and balance - or competitiveness?

 

[Life]

Or you could strike from the whole list and have the most even matchup possible for both players, taking the weight off game 1.

Also, character picks are still more important than stages IMO. cough MK

 

[Raziek]

I'd rather have the competitive depth that Smash provides by having the stage interact with every match.

Being able to take your opponent to battle on unfamiliar terrain is something VERY powerful, that no other game offers.

Without counter-picking, we'd really only see 4 or 5 different stages get used. It might be more "competitive" that way, but it would kill one of the main things I love about this game.

 

[SuSa]

I'd hate to see it removed as well. Which is why if you read my article you're taking the correct path into correcting it's flaws.

 

[Raziek]

Oh right, that. I'll be honest, I briefly skimmed it earlier, and was like, "Right, yeah, I already know this."

Good stuff SuSa. :D

 

[AvaricePanda]

Honestly, why does it matter that MK can't be counterpicked with a "bad" match-up in the system to the point where the entire system should be reworked?

Among other things (like how often switching to MK isn't the best choice for the match-up, or if you want to play against an MK player switching to MK isn't always the best choice depending on who you're playing), why does that break the system? How come for a long time in Melee when people thought Fox had at worst even match-ups the counterpick system was fine, but it's not now—and if that's not the case then why does a 5 point differential mean we have to remove a good, working competitive system in this game?

I guess it kind of works on paper, but in order to suggest a drastic change, you have to show that there's a big issue with the current system and say that there's a much better one. I honestly didn't do more than skim the majority of the post because I wasn't convinced there was an issue—plus, the beginning had ideas written as fact without too much information, and the end implied discussing the "issue" would "advance the community," which I frankly don't agree with over something a large majority of people find a non-issue.

 

[Raziek]

My problem is that it literally makes MK the best pick in NEARLY EVERY SITUATION.

Like, if your opponent calls double blind, and you go MK, you cannot be faced with an even match-up other than the ditto.

He's also effectively about 4-6 additional stage bans, depending on your ruleset.

You basically CANNOT pick Brinstar unless you're going MK, because if your opponent picks MK, you lose.

In most rulesets, you can't CP him with stages at all, ever. (The only borderline one is like, YI:M, and only with a LGL)

It's not like other characters, where double blinding Snake can sometimes set you up with a bad match-up. It's: "Pick MK, GG CP? Oh wait I'm MK, I don't care what your CP is."

 

[SuSa]

Honestly, why does it matter that MK can't be counterpicked with a "bad" match-up in the system to the point where the entire system should be reworked?

Among other things (like how often switching to MK isn't the best choice for the match-up, or if you want to play against an MK player switching to MK isn't always the best choice depending on who you're playing), why does that break the system? How come for a long time in Melee when people thought Fox had at worst even match-ups the counterpick system was fine, but it's not now—and if that's not the case then why does a 5 point differential mean we have to remove a good, working competitive system in this game?

I guess it kind of works on paper, but in order to suggest a drastic change, you have to show that there's a big issue with the current system and say that there's a much better one. I honestly didn't do more than skim the majority of the post because I wasn't convinced there was an issue—plus, the beginning had ideas written as fact without too much information, and the end implied discussing the "issue" would "advance the community," which I frankly don't agree with over something a large majority of people find a non-issue.

Top tier in Melee balanced eachother out a bit... Marth, Fox, Falco, Sheik, Jiggly....

Also, just because we had it then doesn't mean it was correct than either. We're the only competitive community to allow counterpicking as far as I know of. This includes characters as well as stages.

Simply put, one of the systems needs to go. Remove either one however, and you stress the importance of not being counterpicked even further. Would only increase MK's usage.

If you can't switch your character out, would you lock yourself into a bad matchup? (EG: Dk vs DDD) [Assuming double blind pick here, so don't be a smartass...]

Would you risk locking yourself into a disadvantageous matchup? [EG: Snake vs Peach]

The fact is, Fox - whom may have broken the character counterpick system (not to the degree MK has.. and Brawl's still young); he did not break the stage counterpick system. He was not SUPER AWESOME on every stage. There were stages he had to avoid depending on the matchup. Meta Knight doesn't have to worry about that.


But of course, you didn't read my essay on this subject and you assumed I was only speaking of stage counterpicking.... when I included the entire counterpick system in the picture.

 

[ADHD]

Without counter-picking, we'd really only see 4 or 5 different stages get used. It might be more "competitive" that way, but it would kill one of the main things I love about this game.

That was really bad to say.

Top tier in Melee balanced eachother out a bit... Marth, Fox, Falco, Sheik, Jiggly....

I'd say there were many periods where one was dominantly better than the other. Only in the end did it seem to balance it itself out, and even then jigglypuff has just began to rise in her ranks to brokenness.

Also, just because we had it then doesn't mean it was correct than either. We're the only competitive community to allow counterpicking as far as I know of. This includes characters as well as stages.

We're an outlier, so what? Maybe it's not perfect, but because we're different doesn't mean we're wrong.

The fact is, Fox - whom may have broken the character counterpick system (not to the degree MK has.. and Brawl's still young); he did not break the stage counterpick system. He was not SUPER AWESOME on every stage. There were stages he had to avoid depending on the matchup. Meta Knight doesn't have to worry about that.

But you see, we can provide a somewhat fair match by using stages to our advantage. Metaknight does not wreck on FD, battlefield, lylat, smashville, or yoshi's, as well as pictochat, ps1 + ps2 and a minor others. It's generally more grounded stages since he is predominantly aerial.

 

[clowsui]

Street Fighter allows counterpicking, lol

 

[SuSa]

That was really bad to say.



I'd say there were many periods where one was dominantly better than the other. Only in the end did it seem to balance it itself out, and even then jigglypuff has just began to rise in her ranks to brokenness.



We're an outlier, so what? Maybe it's not perfect, but because we're different doesn't mean we're wrong.




But you see, we can provide a somewhat fair match by using stages to our advantage. Metaknight does not wreck on FD, battlefield, lylat, smashville, or yoshi's, as well as pictochat, ps1 + ps2 and a minor others. It's generally more grounded stages since he is predominantly aerial.

He doesnt wreck your character on those stages perhaps... but FD, Battlefield, and Yoshi's are stages I'd never take an MK to. I'd take them to PS1/2 or even Rainbow Cruise before I took them to those three stages. I took M2K to rainbow cruise, so don't say I'm bluffing.

I'm not saying being an outlier is wrong. But it's not competitive. So why keep it around? If so you create a double standard. You believe it's important and essential enough to keep - but you won't remove what's obviously breaking it.

Also with the top tier switching off now and than - none of them were clear-cut pro on every stage. They had good and bad stages. So essentially, they only half-broke the counterpick system at certain points in time.... MK has consistantly broken both halves for 2 years.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

I honestly don't know how this thread got to where it is at. I'm not sure what we're discussing at this point other than that a lot of us aren't happy and there seems to be a movement on Susa's part to transition to discussion over his argument from those tactical threads including subtly bringing up MK. In any case, we are definitely nowhere near discussing anything related to the original post, and BPC please don't take this the wrong way, but I think I need to pull the plug. Actually discussing starter stage philosophy or actually discussing the flaws or virtues of the counterpick system would be more appropriate in the sticky thread for philosophical discussion of stage legality (which is designed precisely to discuss issues like these). I probably should have done this from the start, but BPC's very large post I felt deserved a chance to be discussed if for nothing else but the effort he obviously put into it (and it's not being discussed). I mean, I know these kind of circular arguments where we are all in very predictable camps are a major part of this board at this point, but we don't need to spread them out over more topics...

Of course, there are posts here I feel like I'd want to respond to, but I'm not going to abuse locking the thread for "the last word".