• 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!

Directly Impacting Results - A new criteria

SuSa

Banned via Administration
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
11,508
Location
planking while watching anime with Fino


EDIT:

Poor summary (may have been worded poorly/wrongly, I might have to go in and fix it):

The criteria is the same for why everything is banned. It's degenerate, specifically however it falls under the following (I'll try to keep it short):

Random hazards are deemed uncompetitive due to how they effect the match and alter the win criteria. A positional advantage is impossible to objectively define regardless of matchup. Thus you cannot argue transformations because they are not degenerate. They are simply polar*.

Under that premise, Smashville's balloon is seen as a polar hazard. It only effects Ike and Ness, and is negligible in every other matchup.

TL;DR
Stage adaptability is fine. Randomly placing a player at an advantage (not positional, but as to our criteria to win) is not.

*polar
A polar change is something that favors specific characters, but it is not always going to favor a certain character regardless of matchup. One side isn't guaranteed an advantage regardless of matchup.



The current stage list (ignore the two below) is:


* Battlefield
* Smashville
* Lylat Cruise
* Final Destination
* Castle Siege
* Rainbow Cruise
* Jungle Japes
* Luigi's Mansion
* Yoshi's Island (Melee)
(OPT) Yoshi's Island (Brawl)


9 stages, 10 with YI (B). If you have any questions regarding the legality of any of these stages under my criteria. Please let me know!

Raziek has brought up a counterpoint to allowing random transformations. They are in direct violation of our second criteria to win. Timing the opponent out. So Delfino Plaza, Frigate Orpheon, PS1, and PS2 were banned underneath that point.

However I would like to direct your attention to this thread that argues that adding a stage in by majority vote is legitimate. Thus, although ruining a large point of having any objective standard, these stages don't need to be entirely removed from gameplay under that regard.




END EDIT////


So I was having an AIM conversation with an unnamed individual who happens to be rather conservative in his views. I'm rather conservative myself - but I want logical backing as to why a stage should be removed. Giving the impression that I'm liberal. So just wanted to state that really fast.

The criteria he gave me didn't quite have a reason (I thought of it after) but here we go:

Criteria:
Any hazards that can deal damage warrant a stage to be banned.

Reason:
These hazards directly altar our criteria to win. The criteria to win is as follows:

Remove all of your opponents stocks before losing your own.
Have the time run out when you have at least a percentage lead.


Since these hazards deal damage, theoretically I can do absolutely nothing but run away once my opponent gets hit. I effectively have won for doing nothing. This is by no means a test of skill! It directly effects our results! This is the main issue I myself see with stages, and pretty much every other conservative individual. We do NOT want results to be tampered with! It's not a matter of competitive depth, but of competition itself!

If you had an arm wrestling competition, and someone spills water on your side and I win. Was that a true measure of skill? Would you not want a rematch? That random hazard just caused you to lose! You had little (if any) control over the situation!
Worst analogy. EVER. I know..... sorry

Hazards, therefore, are detrimental to a competitive game.


Under this criteria - a stage dealing damage via a hazard (not just camera boundaries) is bannable. This changes our current legal list into the following:


Legal Stages
* Battlefield
* Yoshi's Island (brawl)
* Smashville
* Lylat Cruise
* Pokémon Stadium
* Final Destination
* Castle Siege
* Delfino Plaza
* Frigate Orpheon
* Rainbow Cruise
* Pokémon Stadium 2
* Luigi's Mansion
* Yoshi's Island (Melee)

Banned Stages

* Mushroomy Kingdom 1
* Mushroomy Kingdom 2
* Mario Circuit
* Rumble Falls
* Bridge of Eldin
* Spear Pillar
* Wario Ware
* New Pork City
* Summit
* Skyworld
* 75m
* Mario Bros.
* Flat Zone 2
* Hanenbow
* Shadow Moses Island
* Green Hill Zone
* Temple
* Onett
* Corneria
* Big Blue
* Pirate Ship
* Port Town Aero Dive
* Jungle Japes
* Norfair
* Green Greens
* Distant Planet
* Halberd
* Brinstar
* Pictochat


The only stage that is arguably left under this criteria (due to the Saving Ghosts) would be Yoshi's Island (Brawl). This would make our legal stage list the following:


* Battlefield
* Smashville
* Lylat Cruise
* Pokémon Stadium
* Final Destination
* Castle Siege
* Delfino Plaza
* Frigate Orpheon
* Rainbow Cruise
* Pokémon Stadium 2
* Luigi's Mansion
* Yoshi's Island (Melee)

A conservative 12/22 stages. We did remove nearly half of the current list, but these stages have no effect on the actual match! These are the 12 most competitive stages in the game!

Would anyone like to point out a flaw in this criteria?
 

Nike.

Smash Hero
Joined
Sep 18, 2006
Messages
5,823
Location
SA-Town, Texas
* Luigi's Mansion
* Yoshi's Island (Melee)
Those two would be the stages argued (obviously). However, that doesn't have to do with the point your making.

This was very interesting. With this Legal Stage List, it more or less reflects the current viewpoint of conservatives. Except for the 2 I already mentioned, I see no flaws in this. Good work.
 

Nidtendofreak

Smash Hero
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
7,265
Location
Belleville, Ontario
NNID
TheNiddo
3DS FC
3668-7651-8940
Frigate can kill through flipping. HIGHLY unlikely, but possible, and it's not through a moving view of the stage.

Are you also going to include stage glitches that can kill an opponent on this list? If so, Battlefield (Ike's aether can end up going through the stage and killing him instead of grabbing the ledge), Lylat (blast-off glitch), PS1 (blast-off glitch), YI:B (blast-off glitch), and Castle Siege (trapped under the floor glitch) can all kill players. That's detrimental to gameplay, is it not?

I also don't agree with this theory at all, but I'm way too tired to even attempt an argument: it would come out like gibberish after going through a blender.
 

ADHD

Smash Hero
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
7,198
Location
New Jersey
I am really loving this idea, but I want to try to tweak it.

-Damage dealt by a stage is allowed if the obstacles are only on ONE tier, in which the stage has other tiers with different ground set-ups (i.e. Halberd).

Under this condition, stages like Norfair, Brinstar, Mario Circuit, and Japes are banned for having only one tier. The original scenery is static upon each of these examples. However, Halberd gets to stay. Pirate ship originally would be legal according to this, but I'll resolve that later.

-Stages with circle camping are banned for degenerating competitive play.

Hyrule Temple is gone, as well as Hanenbow and Summit.

-Stages with permanent walk-offs and walls are banned.

YI (Melee) is then placed under illegal stages, along with Distant Planet, Bridge of Eldin, and Shadow Moses.

This next one is debatable.


-Stages that involve the changing of fall-speed are banned.

PS2 is gone, as well as Pirate Ship.




I'm just poking out suggestions. .
 

SuSa

Banned via Administration
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
11,508
Location
planking while watching anime with Fino
Those two would be the stages argued (obviously). However, that doesn't have to do with the point your making.

This was very interesting. With this Legal Stage List, it more or less reflects the current viewpoint of conservatives. Except for the 2 I already mentioned, I see no flaws in this. Good work.
Thank you. Was a pain in the *** and was made with some help.

Frigate can kill through flipping. HIGHLY unlikely, but possible, and it's not through a moving view of the stage.

Are you also going to include stage glitches that can kill an opponent on this list? If so, Battlefield (Ike's aether can end up going through the stage and killing him instead of grabbing the ledge), Lylat (blast-off glitch), PS1 (blast-off glitch), YI:B (blast-off glitch), and Castle Siege (trapped under the floor glitch) can all kill players. That's detrimental to gameplay, is it not?

I also don't agree with this theory at all, but I'm way too tired to even attempt an argument: it would come out like gibberish after going through a blender.
The stage flipping is with it's quickly moving boundaries. However please note that isn't a hazard. Not only does it offer warning - it's not "luck" you died. It's just you suck at this stage. It doesn't deal damage nor does it altar the win results directly.

Unless I can stand in 1 spot and the stage MIGHT kill me like 1/100 times or something... but I don't think you mean it like that.

Also creating criteria for glitches that cannot be easily reproduced (or can actually be avoided if the player is knowledgable) is.. well.. not only impossible, but worthless to look into. The criteria covers the expected and only what is under it's definition. If you want to take into consideration glitches on stages and other things - you'd end up banning every single stage because I've seen a character fall between a stage on every stage. So by taking it this far (which, it shouldn't even apply to glitches or avoidable results) - we'd be playing a stageless game. Good luck with that.

This is why YI (B) is pretty much the only one up-for-debate on this criteria.

yoshi's island/luigis mansion? :S
Hey man... you can't have everything. :glare: I'm personally against YI (M), but I don't have an issue with LM... although I see a light circle, nobody has proven it to be degenerate or downright against competitive gameplay.

Which is the only reason my criteria is holding right now... it supports competitive gameplay (read: not guessing game. competitive)

I am really loving this idea, but I want to try to tweak it.

-Damage dealt by a stage is allowed if the obstacles are only on ONE tier, in which the stage has other tiers with different ground set-ups (i.e. Halberd).

Under this condition, stages like Norfair, Brinstar, Mario Circuit, and Japes are banned for having only one tier. The original scenery is static upon each of these examples. However, Halberd gets to stay. Pirate ship originally would be legal according to this, but I'll resolve that later.

-Stages with circle camping are banned for degenerating competitive play.

Hyrule Temple is gone, as well as Hanenbow and Summit.

-Stages with permanent walk-offs and walls are banned.

YI (Melee) is then placed under illegal stages, along with Distant Planet, Bridge of Eldin, and Shadow Moses.

This next one is debatable.


-Stages that involve the changing of fall-speed are banned.

PS2 is gone, as well as Pirate Ship.

I'm just poking out suggestions. .
I spoke to you in private about why we can't just make criteria like this. :urg: As awesome as it is and how well it applies, it's... subjective. None of it is proven to be degenerative to gameplay, rather you are naming off traits you do not like. The only reason why the criteria I suggested would work is because it supports competitive gameplay. Yours - while supporting your ideals - doesn't have a logical backing to it.

Again.. making criteria is some really, really hard work man... :urg: However I'm glad you're liking the criteria+stage list under it.
 

DeLux

Player that used to be Lux
Joined
Jun 3, 2010
Messages
9,279
I agree with most of the OP. However, I'd like to supplement it with some legal theory. From my point of view, I, and I feel my TO's, should look at this with legal ramifications and it reaches the same conclusion.

For the most part, if their is money being exchanged, a tournament falls under the jurisdiction of whatever Department of Game is for your state. Most states have some sort of clear distinction between games of skill and games of chance. This criteria doesn't whittle out the stages with hazards per say, but it does however make stages with random hazardous elements at least somewhat a legal shade of gray.

However, most states will also make a distinction between games played between people (aka man vs man) and games played against computer (man vs. machine). For the most part, even if it is a game of skill, many games that fall under the man vs. machine category are placed by definition under a form of gambling. Since a stage hazard creates an obvious situation of man vs. machine, even if it's a level of skill required to determine whether you beat the machine, the man vs. machine combined with a man vs. man scenario in a typical competitive situation may be enough to constitute the game as gambling.

If you look at it this way, the ramifications are that random tripping ought to be banned (again from a LEGALITY standpoint, not a competitive play standpoint. Please don't call me a scrub for saying that), but G&W's and Luigi's Fspecials ought to not be banned. One is a clear random event of man vs. machine while the other is a case of man vs. man with random elements, not man vs. machine. Although even that last part is debatable.

But I digress, this line of thought applied to stages really would go a long way in making video game tournaments for legally viable. Unfortunately HR 2610 died in committee, but it does count to set some sort of precedence.

End note: I'm not a lawyer, so if someone else is and I'm incorrect in my assessment, please let me know.
 

vVv Rapture

Smash Lord
Writing Team
Joined
Sep 20, 2009
Messages
1,613
Location
NY
I was really disappointed when I started playing this game competitively that Hanenbow isn't used. It's such a great stage, with the make-your-own-music and whatnot.

Anyways, on to serious post:

From the Susa's last post:

I spoke to you in private about why we can't just make criteria like this. As awesome as it is and how well it applies, it's... subjective. None of it is proven to be degenerative to gameplay, rather you are naming off traits you do not like. The only reason why the criteria I suggested would work is because it supports competitive gameplay. Yours - while supporting your ideals - doesn't have a logical backing to it.

Again.. making criteria is some really, really hard work man... However I'm glad you're liking the criteria+stage list under it.
I'm trying to word an exact response to this and why we don't seem to ever get anywhere in the community because of responses like this...not that the response is bad, but essentially this post right here puts down any sort of lead to coming to a middle-ground because you just shot it down for being "subjective." Which it is, by the way, but think of it this way...

I'd prefer that, instead of just saying its subjective, which is obvious and thus doesn't need to be pointed out every five seconds (because the word itself is like the plague around here), you would try to fix it or enhance it or try to make something out of what he did. Instead of saying that those things are proven, possibly suggest ways to fix the criteria in a manner that would be less subjective or put it under criteria that works with data that has been found.

And if it doesn't apply...

Let's use some common sense here. We all know how competitive Brawl works. People will do anything to win, that's a given. That's why we have time outs, because it's a legitimate way to win that can be taken if the other option (taking away stocks) isn't the best or whatnot. Whatever the reason is, its a strategy.

Thus, knowing the nature of the community's players, it's very likely that if any beneficial strategy that is easy to use and very tournament-viable becomes available to the entire competitive scene by allowing certain stages, that said strategy will be abused.

Also, on a side note, can we please be a bit more relative per situation? Instead of saying, "circle camping is degenerative", we could say, "circle camping on Hanenbow is degenerative on Hanenbow". That way, it becomes a lot easier to analyze these things case-by-case to determine if the usage of said stage is actually worth it to the competitive depth of the game.

Anyways, back to common sense. No circle-camping hasn't be legitimately proven (you people have that going for you, the fact that these things just weren't proven, not that they can't be), but logically, it's obvious that it'd be overkill camping when put into practice. As much as you want to claim that it's subjective or its not been proven or whatever, the fact remains that sometimes we don't need to test every little thing when dealing with a subject because it's just not worth the time or resources. We can use other things that don't necessarily mean a physical experimentation to make decisions. It's favorable, but not always needed.

So yeah, take all of that with a grain of salt. Or something.
 

SuSa

Banned via Administration
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
11,508
Location
planking while watching anime with Fino
Lux, I did not follow your line of reasoning at all.

Also the issue is that even though it is between men - it's considered gambling because "hur dur, gaming doesn't take any skill its all luck"

It's more or less a non-patched hole in the legal system, that I'm sure if people cared enough about, they could probably get their local governments to try and pass something for it. The issue is getting enough people to care about it.

However I'm glad you agree with the post.

EDIT:
@Rapture
When creating a ruleset, being objective as possible means backing your **** up with logic. It has to be logically sound. Simply put - unless there is a flaw in logic, you cannot disprove logic.

2+2=4

Disprove that. Oh? You can't. Well - you may not agree with it, but that's that. It is what it is. I can say 2+2=5 all day if I want to, others may be inclined to agree, but that doesn't change it from being fact.

When things are down to such a level that it is impossible to see it in both theory and easily display it in practice (Light circle on LM+Norfair) that is where experimentation must be done.

You don't get scientists who go "Well, it works in theory so let's not test it.". No, you get scientists who say "well let's test the atom bomb and hope it doesn't disintegrate our atmosphere and kill us all". You test all but that that falls under "Well no ****. Sherlock" because that sort of testing takes no more than 5 minutes to figure out. It's not very hard to prove at all.

There's only so far a "Common sense" approach can go.

As far as his criteria, believe me, I've TRIED to make criteria to apply to specific stages that is logically sound for competitive reasons.

They all end in:

"But how much is too much?"

Which is horrible for criteria. It does not draw a line like it should therefore cannot be used.
 

DeLux

Player that used to be Lux
Joined
Jun 3, 2010
Messages
9,279
Let me try to explain.

Well no, the issue for the gambling for video games has been because there are man vs. machine elements that people are supposedly unable to intuitively grasp and thus makes it "random". At least based on the Kansas Racing and Gaming commission bylines in their legislative stuff. It's this logic that helps define why machine poker is gambling. Even though the randomness is applied to a set algorithm because it's a programmed computer, it is effectively random. I think there is precedent, at least in my state, where Halo tournaments have been denied because of the same "man vs. machine" elements. I don't play halo and i don't have an article to cite for that example, so that may or may not be true in either case.

The game of skill part isn't in question, at least modernly or by any judge or legislative body that has half a brain. It's just the man vs. machine elements that are at issue.

Either way, it's just more legal standpoint as to why stages with hazards ought to be disallowed.

I agree. It is a nonpatched hole because HR 2610 died.
 

SuSa

Banned via Administration
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
11,508
Location
planking while watching anime with Fino
Crime, terrorism, and homeland security.

Depends what they mean by "crime" in this case.... which given the other two.. yeah. Congress is either stupid, or "crime" is literally just "crime" and since this is trying to change skilled gaming from being a "crime" that makes sense.

Back on topic now. :V
 

vVv Rapture

Smash Lord
Writing Team
Joined
Sep 20, 2009
Messages
1,613
Location
NY

EDIT:
@Rapture
When creating a ruleset, being objective as possible means backing your **** up with logic. It has to be logically sound. Simply put - unless there is a flaw in logic, you cannot disprove logic.

2+2=4

Disprove that. Oh? You can't. Well - you may not agree with it, but that's that. It is what it is. I can say 2+2=5 all day if I want to, others may be inclined to agree, but that doesn't change it from being fact.

When things are down to such a level that it is impossible to see it in both theory and easily display it in practice (Light circle on LM+Norfair) that is where experimentation must be done.

You don't get scientists who go "Well, it works in theory so let's not test it.". No, you get scientists who say well let's test the atom bomb and hope it doesn't disintegrate our atmosphere and kill us all". You test all but that that falls under "Well no ****. Sherlock" because that sort of testing takes no more than 5 minutes to figure out. It's not very hard to prove at all.

There's only so far a "Common sense" approach can go.

As far as his criteria, believe me, I've TRIED to make criteria to apply to specific stages that is logically sound for competitive reasons.

They all end in:

"But how much is too much?"

Which is horrible for criteria. It does not draw a line like it should therefore cannot be used.

When I said it only works in theory, so don't test it (I guess that was implied, since I never directly said that)...well, you're just taking that to extremes.

You establish an example with an atom bomb. I don't care how much common sense someone has, I'm ****ing testing that thing to make sure it works how it's supposed to. It's an atom bomb.

Then take Hanenbow. The world will not end of circle-camping just so happens to be a little less than extremely cluster****ing gay, but we end up banning it anyways. How exactly is Hanenbow contributing to the competitive scene again? Rather, how would it? As much as I love Hanenbow, I'm not going to kill to have it legal.

Also, let's think of it this way. We could just simply define characteristics that, when put together in a collective or overall, would define said stage as falling under the criteria to be banned. Objective characteristics, so I don't have to go back and fix it for being subjective. >_>

For example, but this is not limited to in a realistic situation:

-Stage provides a circular or circular-like pathway that allows a player to follow said pathway in such a manner that the opponent cannot approach, deal damage or attempt victory.

That's objective. You can watch someone and clearly see that the opponent's movements make it so that he or she cannot be attacked or approached. That's not subjective.

Obviously there'd be more criteria.

So then let's take a Spear Pillar. We want to know if it should be banned or not. We look at the criteria, it matches up in such a manner that it must be banned, it's banned. Yay, we're done.

If all our criteria is objective, then we can just use that criteria to go stage-by-stage.

Following that point, criteria can be objective and I believe that banning stage criteria can also be objective. Just as long as we can quantify things...which is very possible.
 

ADHD

Smash Hero
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
7,198
Location
New Jersey
Well, this is the best lead we have for a conservative ruleset, lol. It needs some tweaks though. Also, Pride is cool.
 

SuSa

Banned via Administration
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
11,508
Location
planking while watching anime with Fino
The issue with that, is it's rather.. impossible. Or at least, incredibly hard. I've tried to find a criteria that allows Halberd but get's rid of Norfair for example.

I just can't. I'm sure many have tried, but I simply can't. I tried earlier today. I failed.

Also, until someone can prove the logical backing to my criteria false (which is what I'm riding on as not being possible...), my criteria - while a tad extreme - holds just fine.

I also don't consider 12/13 stages too bad. Especially implemented with a full stage striking system. Again, all the stages are LEGAL and are all on "THE SAME LEVEL COMPETITIVELY" because of this. Therefore, you could not divide them into counterpicks and starters.. nor.. would it really matter. If you did, you are saying one stage isn't as acceptable to play on as another... thus it'd... be banworthy in some way.. but that gets subjective.. and BLAAHHHH.

I've spent well over a year trying to think of this ****, and I know I'm not alone for trying to get "gay stages banned with an objective criteria that draws a clear line between allowed and banned"

The only gray area in my criteria is Yoshi's Island (Brawl) because it's the only stage that has it's effect. It's essentially the polar opposite of my criteria, and I feel it's banworthy... but it's.. "debatable" I guess.
 

vVv Rapture

Smash Lord
Writing Team
Joined
Sep 20, 2009
Messages
1,613
Location
NY
...so? Then that means we have to ban Norfair...like, that's it. Simple as that.

Also, coming up with criteria really isn't terribly hard from an objective standpoint. Wasn't the criteria I just came up with off the top of my head usable?
 

SuSa

Banned via Administration
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
11,508
Location
planking while watching anime with Fino
...so? Then that means we have to ban Norfair...like, that's it. Simple as that.

Also, coming up with criteria really isn't terribly hard from an objective standpoint. Wasn't the criteria I just came up with off the top of my head usable?
Yes, but that's only because it's already in existence.

Also you don't just ban things to.. ban them. :V They have to fall under the criteria for what is best for competition. That's the big issue here and why there is so much debate over LiberalvsConservative stage lists. Conservatives weren't giving any criteria other than "We feel PvP is more important, and those stages are gay"

Basically what this criteria has done is basically given them something to point to as logical backing. It's (until someone can come in here and totally rip it to shreds) logically sound.

The last one I drew up was similar, but was trying to hold exceptions. I came to terms that these exceptions are impossible to make objectively because they all ask this question:

"How much is too much?"

That makes it subjective criteria. You cannot use that question.

@ADHD

This stage list, in order for it to be logically sound, must use my full stage strike system. To say any group of these stages is any more competitive than any of the others defeats the very definition of what these stages are.

That being said, striking off of 12 stages won't take long (even 1 by 1) and if you manage to start on RC somehow, that's because you and your opponent agreed to it... while these stages are still polar (RC=FD, BF=PS2 practically...) it doesn't make any one of them unfit to start on.

So... yeah... if you want to spread this idea around feel free; but keep in mind there is NO separation between neutrals and counterpicks. Doing so defeats the purpose of what the criteria has accomplished.
 
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
10,074
Taking time out of my finals to give SuSa a response, because he's SuSa. :)

Since these hazards deal damage, theoretically I can do absolutely nothing but run away once my opponent gets hit. I effectively have won for doing nothing. This is by no means a test of skill! It directly effects our results! This is the main issue I myself see with stages, and pretty much every other conservative individual. We do NOT want results to be tampered with! It's not a matter of competitive depth, but of competition itself!
Don't think of it as "I have effectively won by doing nothing", because in reality, that's false. You clearly did something, and that was avoid the hazard (which by the way, takes skill to do, so you're still testing skill). The hazard was present for both players, and you were able to avoid it, mostly because the stage gave a warning before the hazard actually came up.

However, your opponent did not. He was not able to avoid the hazard. He made a fault somewhere in his positioning, or whatever circumstance you could think of that would get him to get hit by the hazard, and as a result, lost.

Like I said before, don't think of it as "I have effectively won by doing nothing". Think of it like "My opponent has lost because he was unable to avoid the hazard".

Or you can look at in the way that you (of all people) put it:


Not only does it offer warning - it's not "luck" you died. It's just you suck at this stage.
Much harsher than how I would've put it, but the point still stands. Speaking of that quote, let's actually put the full quote up there.

The stage flipping is with it's quickly moving boundaries. However please note that isn't a hazard. Not only does it offer warning - it's not "luck" you died. It's just you suck at this stage. It doesn't deal damage nor does it altar the win results directly.

Unless I can stand in 1 spot and the stage MIGHT kill me like 1/100 times or something... but I don't think you mean it like that.
It is a hazard. A HUGE hazard at that, since like you said, it doesn't deal damage. It takes stocks. It directly affects the first criteria to win (remove the other player's stocks). So yeah, you're gonna have to ban Frigate as well.

Also creating criteria for glitches that cannot be easily reproduced (or can actually be avoided if the player is knowledgable) is.. well.. not only impossible, but worthless to look into. The criteria covers the expected and only what is under it's definition. If you want to take into consideration glitches on stages and other things - you'd end up banning every single stage because I've seen a character fall between a stage on every stage. So by taking it this far (which, it shouldn't even apply to glitches or avoidable results) - we'd be playing a stageless game. Good luck with that.
This is another reason on why this criteria cannot be enforced. If the glitches do in fact give damage or take stocks, we're going to have to take them into consideration, seeing as they undeniably fall under this new criteria. If all of the stages apparently have these kinds of glitches, then we're going to end up with stage-less Brawl.

If we want to be able to play on a match, we're going to need a stage to play on, otherwise, the game won't start the match. If it's bad that stages are directly affecting our criteria to win like this, then we're just going to have to deal with it, because if we don't, it would be impossible to even accomplish the criteria to win.
 

SuSa

Banned via Administration
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
11,508
Location
planking while watching anime with Fino
Don't think of it as "I have effectively won by doing nothing", because in reality, that's false. You clearly did something, and that was avoid the hazard (which by the way, takes skill to do, so you're still testing skill). The hazard was present for both players, and you were able to avoid it, mostly because the stage gave a warning before the hazard actually came up.


What about the stages that offer no warning for the hazard? Where by some stroke of luck, the hazard was on my opponents side instead of mine!

However, your opponent did not. He was not able to avoid the hazard. He made a fault somewhere in his positioning, or whatever circumstance you could think of that would get him to get hit by the hazard, and as a result, lost.
Read above.

Like I said before, don't think of it as "I have effectively won by doing nothing". Think of it like "My opponent has lost because he was unable to avoid the hazard".
Read 2 above.

Or you can look at in the way that you (of all people) put it:
Read 3 above. :urg:


It is a hazard. A HUGE hazard at that, since like you said, it doesn't deal damage. It takes stocks. It directly affects the first criteria to win (remove the other player's stocks). So yeah, you're gonna have to ban Frigate as well.

See my definition of hazard. This is no different than Delfino's Transformations. If you managed to die because you positioned yourself wrong that's due to the stage not a hazard (as I have defined them), that is 100% on you and has no effect on our win criteria.

It's no different than if I just Self Destructed for no reason.

I can willingly recreate the "Fall through Delfino" glitch. But if I do so and die, it's because I willingly chose to do it.


This is another reason on why this criteria cannot be enforced. If the glitches do in fact give damage or take stocks, we're going to have to take them into consideration, seeing as they undeniably fall under this new criteria. If all of the stages apparently have these kinds of glitches, then we're going to end up with stage-less Brawl.
If we considered glitches, we'd currently (even under our own current criteria) have to ban everything. They are outside of our control. You simply cannot realistically control something... outside of your control.

If these were exploitable that is simply meaning "I have to willingly recreate the scenario". Which means you self destructed.
 

Jack Kieser

Smash Champion
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
2,961
Location
Seattle, WA
Heeeeey, SuSa! I finally got around to this thread (GOD, Smashboards has exploded with threads lately. WTF.). I've been giving it a LOT of thought (at least an hour and a half's worth of time), and I think I've figured out what the problem with this reasoning is. It's also why you're having trouble finding a way to keep Halberd legal (which is obviously an OK stage) and not Norfair (which is not as clear-cut OK). Hopefully, I'll be able to explain this clearly. Here goes.

--------------------------------------------------

You're original supposition is that because:

A ) we have a "% lead" win criterion
B ) some hazards deal damage independent of a player's activating or utilizing them

...a skilled enough player could theoretically play keep away once the opponent has taken damage from a hazard, and thus win by not attacking. Let's forget for a moment how monumentally difficult this would be (because not only would you have to not attack at all for the 30 seconds to a minute that most stage hazards need to become active for the first time, but you'd also have to avoid taking ANY damage AND you'd have to somehow trick the opponent into running face-first into a wall of lava or something), and simply assume that a player has managed to somehow get his opponent (who, we'll assume for the sake of argument knows about the stage and studied the hazard mechanics before) to get hit by a hazard on his own, without the opponent making some humongous error in judgment (like shielding the lava or something).

The fault in your logic is in assuming that this sort of manipulative usage of hazards isn't a legitimate strategy for causing damage or gaining positional superiority. I'll give a few examples of legitimate uses of utilizing stage hazards in such a manner (on Halberd, since more people probably relate to it) that are FAR more common and plausible than your theoretical situation in the OP.

Halberd

For this example, let's analyze the particular hazards that Halberd has, how random they are, and how the can be used and abused. First, Halberd has the take-off sequence, which I'll classify as a hazard for the sake of argument. The hazard is non-random (it always occurs at the same point in the match), and simply involves the platform taking off and leaving anyone ground-bound behind for a KO.

Video Example: 0:16 Click here.

Potential legit use: An early frame trap caused by an aggressive start to the match may leave the opponent in hitstun or in a standing animation when the platform leaves, causing an early gimp.

Analysis: Even though your thread is dealing specifically with hazards that cause direct damage, I've included this example so that I can juxtapose later examples against it; according to your thread and your logic, this use of a non-damaging hazard is legitimate, due to the necessary requirements of character knowledge, stage knowledge, and spacing. It's obvious that gimps like these are quite difficult and quite legit.

Cannonball: This damaging hazard activates randomly, signified by the cannon at the back of the stage flashing. Total time from the first flash until the cannonball actually has an active hitbox is a whopping 10 seconds. The cannon will randomly fire at one of the two players. The hitbox has an active size of practically the whole floating platform and only lasts for one hit.

Video Example: 1:50 Click here.

Potential legit uses:
1 ) The self-destruct: Player 1 notices that the cannon has locked onto him. He can then, knowing the timing of the cannon, bait the opponent into attacking him seconds before the cannonball hits; he can then grab and hold, using judicious pummeling, the opponent in place, allowing the cannonball to explode on both of them, harming them both, but potentially KO'ing the opponent.

2 ) The bait-and-switch: Player one notices which player the cannon has locked onto (which one is irrelevant). He can then, using superior spacing and character knowledge, create a frame trap where the opponent must choose to either land (or be in another animation that doesn't allow shielding) where the cannon will land or eat an attack, or simply be in range to grab the opponent and have one of his throws toss the opponent into the hitbox with superior timing.

Analysis: Even though the cannon can damage, the time it takes to do so is SO LONG that it is physically impossible for a competent player to not notice and react. The hitbox is also quick enough to where it can be shielded or dodged on reaction. The only way it would even hit is if the opponent tricked you into getting hit, which is the whole point of stage hazards that damage: to put a cost with not being attentive and to put a reward on superior spacing and strategy.


The Claw: A swinging arm with a damaging claw attached at the end. Claw animation begins randomly and locks onto a player at random, taking nearly 9 seconds to have an active hitbox. The hitbox lasts for only one hit, and does damage and KB.

Video Example: 2:22 Click here.

Possible legit uses: See above. Has the same uses as the above hazard.

Analysis: This hazard, like the one before it, is so telegraphed that you'd have to be tricked into running into it for it to hit you, or you'd have to be under so much shield pressure / general pressure caused by good spacing, that you'd have no choice but to be hit either by it or by your opponent (or both).


Laser Cannon: A damaging laser that has a sustained active hitbox. Laser has a charging animation that lasts for 6 seconds and a targeting reticule that shows which player is being targeted. Laser hitbox takes 6 full seconds to activate, and lasts for 3 seconds, doing minor damage and only applying KB to the last hit of the animation. All other hits can be SDI'ed, allowing a player to escape.

Video Example: 2:50 Click here.

Possible legit uses: ...actually, see the above two. I'm seeing a pattern.

Analysis: ...well, let's just skip onto the main point, shall we?

--------------------------------------------------

So, what can we see here? Simply, that damaging hazards have legitimate uses that WILL happen far more often than the possibility of someone "of little skill" abusing them to get a win by doing nothing else. In fact, the utilization of damaging hazards is just another one of the myriad of skills Brawl requires of skilled players, mainly because to be able to use them, you must already be skilled in numerous other ways.

You see, the point of all of this is that competitive depth, at the end of the day, means "having a large amount of meaningful choices available to players", and when you get right down to it, utilizing stage hazards is a very meaningful choice. Not just any player can utilize them without falling victim to them himself, and their removal gives players one less way to win the game.

On top of that, nearly ALL of the hazards in Brawl give SOME SORT of warning in advance to their activation, some as much as 10 seconds! All of the hazards that don't give ample time to react (for instance, the fish on Summit) are already banned, because hazards that damage and cannot be avoided introduce match variance, which cannot be tolerated, or are overcentralizing, which degrades skill requirements. Simply put, your thesis is only correct in the case of hazards that cannot be reacted to within the limits of human reaction time, which are usually already banned for other reasons. Even Norfair's lava plumes (all of them) give at LEAST 2 seconds warning before having an active hitbox, and the side waves even warn by changing the camera angle to zoom on the side of the wave for ~3 seconds before the plume is active.

Simply, damaging stage hazards, for the most part, are overreacted to.

--------------------------------------------

I hope this post was clear and helpful. Feel free to pick it apart and find some fault with it.
 

ぱみゅ

❤ ~
Moderator
Joined
Dec 5, 2008
Messages
10,010
Location
Under your skirt
NNID
kyo.pamyu.pamyu
3DS FC
4785-5700-5699
Switch FC
SW 3264 5694 6605
*subscribing*
With over 30 hours of no sleep, I'm currently unable to comment, but this is another great thread anyways.
Stage discussion is really amusing :awesome:
 

SuSa

Banned via Administration
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
11,508
Location
planking while watching anime with Fino
Heeeeey, SuSa! I finally got around to this thread (GOD, Smashboards has exploded with threads lately. WTF.). I've been giving it a LOT of thought (at least an hour and a half's worth of time), and I think I've figured out what the problem with this reasoning is. It's also why you're having trouble finding a way to keep Halberd legal (which is obviously an OK stage) and not Norfair (which is not as clear-cut OK). Hopefully, I'll be able to explain this clearly. Here goes.

--------------------------------------------------

You're original supposition is that because:

A ) we have a "% lead" win criterion
B ) some hazards deal damage independent of a player's activating or utilizing them

...a skilled enough player could theoretically play keep away once the opponent has taken damage from a hazard, and thus win by not attacking. Let's forget for a moment how monumentally difficult this would be (because not only would you have to not attack at all for the 30 seconds to a minute that most stage hazards need to become active for the first time, but you'd also have to avoid taking ANY damage AND you'd have to somehow trick the opponent into running face-first into a wall of lava or something), and simply assume that a player has managed to somehow get his opponent (who, we'll assume for the sake of argument knows about the stage and studied the hazard mechanics before) to get hit by a hazard on his own, without the opponent making some humongous error in judgment (like shielding the lava or something).

The fault in your logic is in assuming that this sort of manipulative usage of hazards isn't a legitimate strategy for causing damage or gaining positional superiority. I'll give a few examples of legitimate uses of utilizing stage hazards in such a manner (on Halberd, since more people probably relate to it) that are FAR more common and plausible than your theoretical situation in the OP.

Halberd

For this example, let's analyze the particular hazards that Halberd has, how random they are, and how the can be used and abused. First, Halberd has the take-off sequence, which I'll classify as a hazard for the sake of argument. The hazard is non-random (it always occurs at the same point in the match), and simply involves the platform taking off and leaving anyone ground-bound behind for a KO.

Video Example: 0:16 Click here.

Potential legit use: An early frame trap caused by an aggressive start to the match may leave the opponent in hitstun or in a standing animation when the platform leaves, causing an early gimp.

Analysis: Even though your thread is dealing specifically with hazards that cause direct damage, I've included this example so that I can juxtapose later examples against it; according to your thread and your logic, this use of a non-damaging hazard is legitimate, due to the necessary requirements of character knowledge, stage knowledge, and spacing. It's obvious that gimps like these are quite difficult and quite legit.

Cannonball: This damaging hazard activates randomly, signified by the cannon at the back of the stage flashing. Total time from the first flash until the cannonball actually has an active hitbox is a whopping 10 seconds. The cannon will randomly fire at one of the two players. The hitbox has an active size of practically the whole floating platform and only lasts for one hit.

Video Example: 1:50 Click here.

Potential legit uses:
1 ) The self-destruct: Player 1 notices that the cannon has locked onto him. He can then, knowing the timing of the cannon, bait the opponent into attacking him seconds before the cannonball hits; he can then grab and hold, using judicious pummeling, the opponent in place, allowing the cannonball to explode on both of them, harming them both, but potentially KO'ing the opponent.

2 ) The bait-and-switch: Player one notices which player the cannon has locked onto (which one is irrelevant). He can then, using superior spacing and character knowledge, create a frame trap where the opponent must choose to either land (or be in another animation that doesn't allow shielding) where the cannon will land or eat an attack, or simply be in range to grab the opponent and have one of his throws toss the opponent into the hitbox with superior timing.

Analysis: Even though the cannon can damage, the time it takes to do so is SO LONG that it is physically impossible for a competent player to not notice and react. The hitbox is also quick enough to where it can be shielded or dodged on reaction. The only way it would even hit is if the opponent tricked you into getting hit, which is the whole point of stage hazards that damage: to put a cost with not being attentive and to put a reward on superior spacing and strategy.


The Claw: A swinging arm with a damaging claw attached at the end. Claw animation begins randomly and locks onto a player at random, taking nearly 9 seconds to have an active hitbox. The hitbox lasts for only one hit, and does damage and KB.

Video Example: 2:22 Click here.

Possible legit uses: See above. Has the same uses as the above hazard.

Analysis: This hazard, like the one before it, is so telegraphed that you'd have to be tricked into running into it for it to hit you, or you'd have to be under so much shield pressure / general pressure caused by good spacing, that you'd have no choice but to be hit either by it or by your opponent (or both).


Laser Cannon: A damaging laser that has a sustained active hitbox. Laser has a charging animation that lasts for 6 seconds and a targeting reticule that shows which player is being targeted. Laser hitbox takes 6 full seconds to activate, and lasts for 3 seconds, doing minor damage and only applying KB to the last hit of the animation. All other hits can be SDI'ed, allowing a player to escape.

Video Example: 2:50 Click here.

Possible legit uses: ...actually, see the above two. I'm seeing a pattern.

Analysis: ...well, let's just skip onto the main point, shall we?

--------------------------------------------------

So, what can we see here? Simply, that damaging hazards have legitimate uses that WILL happen far more often than the possibility of someone "of little skill" abusing them to get a win by doing nothing else. In fact, the utilization of damaging hazards is just another one of the myriad of skills Brawl requires of skilled players, mainly because to be able to use them, you must already be skilled in numerous other ways.

You see, the point of all of this is that competitive depth, at the end of the day, means "having a large amount of meaningful choices available to players", and when you get right down to it, utilizing stage hazards is a very meaningful choice. Not just any player can utilize them without falling victim to them himself, and their removal gives players one less way to win the game.

On top of that, nearly ALL of the hazards in Brawl give SOME SORT of warning in advance to their activation, some as much as 10 seconds! All of the hazards that don't give ample time to react (for instance, the fish on Summit) are already banned, because hazards that damage and cannot be avoided introduce match variance, which cannot be tolerated, or are overcentralizing, which degrades skill requirements. Simply put, your thesis is only correct in the case of hazards that cannot be reacted to within the limits of human reaction time, which are usually already banned for other reasons. Even Norfair's lava plumes (all of them) give at LEAST 2 seconds warning before having an active hitbox, and the side waves even warn by changing the camera angle to zoom on the side of the wave for ~3 seconds before the plume is active.

Simply, damaging stage hazards, for the most part, are overreacted to.

--------------------------------------------

I hope this post was clear and helpful. Feel free to pick it apart and find some fault with it.
Help! I've tripped into a hazard and cannot get up!

Okay, I got absolute **** on this.

Wait, I might have something!

The only, somewhat logical backing against this, is that these hazards force me to give up advantageous ground. If Halberd "chooses me" I am forced to move around and give up ground and momentum because of something outside of my or my opponent's control.

The same with Norfair's Lava walls (namely the side one) - There is no way I can predict which direction it will come from. While I know it may happen, and I'm given warning it will come from one side, I am still forced to give up my advantageous ground because of a force outside of my or my opponent's control.

I can have all of the advantage in the world, know the stage mechanics like the back of my hand, but still be forced into a bad position because of the stage. Something me and my opponent have no control over.

I am not arguing that I am not removing a vast amount of depth of the game. I recognize that I am. But I am doing so for the integrity of the tournaments we hold to depict who is more skilled. Not who is more lucky the lava wall spawned on the right instead of the left.


The reason why Halberd is now banned, is because I decided there should be no need to ask "How much is too much?"

An ounce is too much. Unlike circular stages which are easy to prove - until they get to "light circles" like Norfair/Luigi's Mansion - which can be tested and proven to be degenerate or not (I have a strong feeling LM can be proven to be degenerate, but I digress. Not the point of this thread)

This is why saving Halberd is not possible. It's subjective to what we deem "okay". Well - if something isn't okay... it isn't okay.

ADHD has agreed with me on that point. If a more competitive stagelist can exist - albeit with a few unfavorable changes; it's better than one that isn't as competitive! (Even if it has more depth!)


EDIT:
Keep in mind in my list, counterpicks DO NOT exist.

A counterpick quality should NOT be "I might get lucky with the hazards and win." While you can use them to your advantage, that is because LUCK HAS FAVORED YOU.
 

Jack Kieser

Smash Champion
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
2,961
Location
Seattle, WA
I knew I was forgetting something, too! I knew I shouldn't have waited to post until after yelling at underdog, :p. Yeah, I remember thinking about that, I just forgot to talk about it. Scatterbrain. That's really the only point that can't be argued against, at least if we want to uphold our previous precedents (namely, items).

Now, I'm sure it could be argued on the basis of stage control that having to give up "advantageous" ground is ok, since stages are known beforehand to be non-static, and since camping in one place on a stage like Norfair, even in an optimal place like the center platform, is kind of a foolish idea that stems from not knowing the stage,

We would also have to deal with general transforming stages, because even though Delfino or CS, for instance, don't have actual DAMAGING hazards, they do force you to give up advantageous ground when they transform; if that is really your criteria for ban, we'd have to ban Delfino, CS, PS1 and 2... really , any transforming stage, if we want to be consistent in our bans.

So... would we be willing to do this? Would banning all transforming stages lower or raise the competitive depth of Brawl as a whole?
 

SuSa

Banned via Administration
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
11,508
Location
planking while watching anime with Fino
As to your first point, that's the issue here.

As to the second - I literally just discussed this with Soren via AIM using the same exact criteria. "Actually, now that I think about it. Being forced to give up advantageous ground could be criteria in itself" but then I looked over my shoulder and saw Defino, CS, PS1, and PS2 myself. Although.. "advantageous" might not even be the proper word - as what is an advantage? It's a subjective point.

So now the stage has become this:

"Move from your spot, or I personally will make you move from that spot.

When PS2, PS1, CS, or Delfino transform. I can stand right where I am ( before you bring up CS1 -->CS2 transformation read underlined) and not get hurt.

If I try to do the same on Halberd, the claw will hit me.
Brinstar? Lava hits me.
Norfair? I'm seeing a pattern here.

This also removes the subject of what is "advantage" and turns it into "Will this hurt me?"

I'm glad you were able to see that while a hazard can be used to your advantage it's still whoever Lady Luck is sleeping with who gets that advantage. Making it an unfair advantage. ;)


EDIT:

Want to know something scary?

Advantaged ground was going to be my counterpoint to your counterpoint. Instead, you countered by counterpoint before I could use it - forcing me to have to come up with a new counterpoint.

**** you're good.
 

Jack Kieser

Smash Champion
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
2,961
Location
Seattle, WA
That IS true; it's really hard, in a positional fighter like Brawl, to actually, concretely define what a "positional advantage" is, especially because that's also dependent on matchup. I mean, center plat of Norfair is a pretty good spot... unless you're fighting Pika, since jolt can be spammed on you pretty much nonstop to get you to move. Not to mention spacing between movesets, move mechanics, projectiles... yeah, it's complicated. So, making a rule that assumes that we even KNOW what "positional advantage" means in terms of Brawl could be hubris, indeed.

I do agree with your position of "move or I MAKE you move"... to a point. After all, PTAD and (more conservatively) Delfino break that rule, too. If you just stand anywhere you like on either stage, you'll either take damage or get KO'ed on transform, respectively. So, there's a way that could be argued if we were willing to go more in depth, I'm sure.

I think this COULD work, but there's a lot of gray area and a lot of research, comparisons, and checking against precedent to do before it would. Basically, we'd have to go stage-by-stage and see EXACTLY how the mechanics affect positioning and positional advantage (which we should do anyway, but you know what I mean :p) before we make a decision. There's a risk here that we could inadvertently end up banning most of the game...

...and then we run into the problem of the hubris of changing Brawl so much that it really IS closer to a traditional fighter than it is to itself. A precarious situation, indeed.
 

napZzz

Smash Hero
Joined
Mar 4, 2008
Messages
5,294
Location
cg, MN
I feel like luigis mansion is too sketchy, but w/e.

No clue why you think YI melee is legit, explain?
 

SuSa

Banned via Administration
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
11,508
Location
planking while watching anime with Fino
The difference between PTAD and Delfino is what I pointed out.

Damage for not moving.

If I am on a ground, and I REFUSE to give it up. The STAGE WILL MAKE ME or I take damage (which will move me.

As far as getting KO'd goes, again that turns into the "Willingly suicide" issue. While I really am trying to avoid a double standard of stage knowledge - I've proven that hazards, while being able to be strategically used, are no different than items in that reward. However stages will sometimes require movement "or you die". But would I not move regardless? At that point it's no different than me willingly jumping off the stage.

It could be argued I'd move for the hazard, which is where this becomes a double standard. But if hazards are now banned under the criteria of items... couldn't we ignore this fact and just look to comparing hazards to items? While giving a strategic advantage it's degenerate to competition?

I'm sooooo glad our debate didn't last for more than 4 three page essay long posts... :x **** it feels good to argue with someone with a.. brain.. lol.
 

Jack Kieser

Smash Champion
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
2,961
Location
Seattle, WA
It's because smart people don't have to resort to non sequitur and ad hominem. ^_-

On topic, why, assuming the spirit of the thread is true, should a stage force you to move? I mean, if a stage is in a position, and you fight and gain positional advantage fair and square, how is it fair for the stage to arbitrarily take the advantage away? Sure, you might not be actively taking damage, but that's not the only essence of the topic at hand. What's worse is that most, if not all, stage transformations that would remove an advantage in such a manner don't run on a strict timer, which means that they could be considered random, too.

We also have to consider random transforms, too. Technically, the only stage (I can think of) that doesn't transform randomly is CS. If, on PS or Delfino, certain transforms are better for you than others, wouldn't the stage be arbitrarily rewarding your opponent (or you) with positional advantages in a random manner? And then also arbitrarily taking them away? Just because direct damage isn't being done, "damage" to your strategy is.

So, at last, we're brought back to the concept of "overcentralizing". How much interference is too much, in terms of stages? Is random damage bad, but other random effects not bad? And how do we justify making the change?
 

Ghostbone

Smash Master
Joined
Sep 20, 2010
Messages
4,665
Location
Australia
Well Susa, if your argument against hazards is now that they randomly favor someone, similar to items, then shouldn't brinstar (which as far as I know has a set pattern) then be legal, as it doesn't RANDOMLY favor someone?

And also, I'm surprised this hasn't been brought up yet.....shouldn't rainbow cruise, or in fact, any stage that's not symmetrical, be banned due to the random spawn points favoring one player over another?

And another thing....i suppose this is subjective, but for the hazard on Distant Planet, you have to deliberately go out of your way to get hurt by it, so that doesn't really fall under the "Damage for not moving" criteria for hazards you brought up. So I don't think it should be banned.
Oh wait...nevermind, i guess the items it produces would be considered to randomly favor a player.
 

SuSa

Banned via Administration
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
11,508
Location
planking while watching anime with Fino
Hm. This is something I don't think I can properly address.

*pauses for quite a while*

Okay.. here's all I've managed to get:

Castle Siege moves in a routine, predictable manner. You know ahead of time where the next advantageous ground is going to be. You are giving up nothing when you move to try and gain control of this ground. It is no different than fighting over any advantageous ground.

Both Pokémon Stadium's tell you in the background - prior to the transition - which transformation it is going to turn into. This allows you, with your knowledge of each stage's transition, to best position yourself in the advantaged position.

Delfino is where this falls apart - seeing as it's truly "random" and while you can know of a possible few 'stops' - it's not concrete and it's still a guessing game until you get there. EXCEPT! the background scene (AFAIK, feel free to prove me wrong on this) shows you where you will land! This allows you to have the time to reposition yourself to the most advantaged position.

Also as you stated, the most advantaged position is highly dependant on the matchup you are playing. If I'm playing Pikachu on Norfair, I'm going to be in a different spot than if I were facing a Diddy Kong.

The difference between these dynamic/changing stages and others - is that you are able, with your competitive knowledge of the stage, position yourself into the best spot.

This argument can likely be torn to shreds.... but we'll see.

EDIT:
@Ghost
It was for a time being. I consider this pretty much only an argument with me vs Jack at the moment until we can come to an agreement. I despise not being on the same side as him, as he covers up my holes in logic like magic. He's quite literally needed for any debate I want to hold. I'm dependent on him like a child to a mother. Haha....

Stage spawns are outside of our control, and I always thought they were port decided.... Oo
 

T-block

B2B TST
Joined
Jan 11, 2009
Messages
11,841
Location
Edmonton, AB, Canada
I just had a conversation on this line in a regional thread.

While the conversation was centred around how Pictochat affected results versus how Yoshi's Island affected results. I found it odd that Pictochat can be considered banned, while Yoshi's Island can be considered a starter, when each stage can affect the results to the same degree, at about the same frequency. I'm sure people have heard me whine about this enough already.

But anyways, the point was I think that the impact on results is definitely an important aspect to consider, particularly with respect to randomness. I see Jack already brought up the point I was going to make. Pokemon Stadium does give you more than enough warning, so the randomness doesn't affect the match on a move-by-move basis. The windmill doesn't suddenly pop up and save you from a lethal trajectory, etc. However, on a larger scale, it definitely will affect the match. This can be more clearly seen in PS2 than PS1. Imagine the match only lasts long enough for two or three transformations to show. Since the order is random, which transformation is left out can change a lot. A match that doesn't see Flying transformation at all could see one character at a greater advantage than a match that doesn't see the Electric transformation.
 

SuSa

Banned via Administration
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
11,508
Location
planking while watching anime with Fino
That much is true, but all transformations are the same for both players. Both players will end up on the same transformations. Both have an equal opportunity to do well on the stage - and neither character is directly harmed (read: takes damage from the stage) due to this random chance.

While each stage transformation will be polar towards one character compared to another - so will every stage.

Also note that this random occurrence - again- happens to both players. The hazards that my criteria is seeking to avoid happens to one player in favor of the other. When Halberd's claw chooses to target me instead of my opponent. There would be no problem if it targeted both of us and attacked at the same time!

Currently your argument would also ban Smashville, due to it's platform spawning randomly each round.

Also I point to random moves (EG: G&W's side-b) which can entirely effect matchups given luck. However it still is required to land, therefore requires both players to participate in it's randomness to an equal extent.

The limit has already been drawn by our community that "Once randomness is out of our reasonable control it is allowed". Otherwise G&W/Luigi/DDD side-b's would all be banned. These characters are made exceptions due to a backing that makes sense, and is agreeable. Why cannot stages be the same? It seems silly to ban a stage because it threw a Gordo, then a Waddle Doo instead of a Waddle Dee then a Gordo!

You know what. I'm tired. There's probably holes throughout this post... :x I should go to bed.

EDIT:
Just to note the thread title.

Directly Impacting Results. Meaning. It deals damage.

YIB support ghosts are debatable for this being that it prevents the dealing of damage (death) randomly.. but I'm still not so certain the ghosts are even random...
 

T-block

B2B TST
Joined
Jan 11, 2009
Messages
11,841
Location
Edmonton, AB, Canada
I understand the distinction, but the issue seems to be when one player is handed an advantage through random chance by a stage, no? If in the end, one player is given an advantage by chance, does it really matter if the stage harms, or threatens to harm, a player? From a larger practical viewpoint, the stage does the same thing - one player sees an advantage significant enough to perhaps change the final result of the game, and which player it is is chosen randomly.

But you're absolutely correct in saying we cannot feasibly ban all random elements in this game, so we draw a line (rather arbitrarily, unfortunately) somewhere and say "this much randomness is okay". That's why I tend to argue using precedents when I'm supporting or going against a particular stage, such as Pictochat.
 

SuSa

Banned via Administration
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
11,508
Location
planking while watching anime with Fino
We cannot define advantageous. Therefore the distinction became "a force in change that neither player can adapt to without warning"

PS1, PS2, and Delfino (to a much lesser, and arguable extent) all give warning that players may adapt to in this change. Nor can it be argued whether or not this change is really 'advantageous" for either player as this changes dependent on the matchup.

No matter WHAT MATCHUP I am playing, if Halberd targets me. I'm put into a disadvantaged situation (one cannot argue that taking damage isn't disadvantaged given our win criteria). I MUST do something, or take damage. Regardless if I'm MK or Ganon or anyone inbetween. This is the major distinction in the line that can be drawn.

Pictochat would be totally viable under this... if it didn't have hazards that dealt damage. All of it's non-damage-dealing changes take time to draw, and players have enough warning (as it draws) to realistically adapt.

Warning is anything withing the standard human reaction time of 12 frames*

I'm going to bed
 

Ghostbone

Smash Master
Joined
Sep 20, 2010
Messages
4,665
Location
Australia
Though Susa, under your new(ish) criteria, both Brinstar and Jungle Japes should be legal due to being completely non-random. (as they should be)

Also I really don't think the support ghosts are non-random, I remember sitting through that stage 4-5 times in fixed camera mode (8 minute timer) and all i could see is that the support ghosts appear around 5 times per minute (fluctuating between 8 seconds and 20 seconds apart), and usually 3-4 times in a row on each side, though i still could hardly predict it more than 50% of the time afterwards....which is what I would get from random chance.

So basically......i think the 12 stages you suggested in the OP plus Jungle Japes and Brinstar would be fine with your criteria. (though that gives 14 stages...and I support full stage list striking, so idk........maybe yoshi's island brawl would have to be kept to have 15 stages) Two stage bans in a set would be good with 14 or 15 stages as well.
 

Life

Smash Hero
Joined
Jul 19, 2010
Messages
5,264
Location
Grieving No Longer
@Grim.

I think Japes is the stage that tears this criteria apart.

The croc is totally non-random, and far away from the stage. The only way you're going to get hit by it is if you either screw up (which is your fault) or if you get spiked into it (which would kill you on most stages anyway). 100% skill-based hazard, yet it gets the stage banned under this criteria.

Also, CS is technically slightly random, as the transition stage's duration is based on how long the next part takes to load, which seems to vary slightly. Or I'm just imagining it. /trollface

I might have more to say later, IDK.
 

Blacknight99923

Smash Champion
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Messages
2,315
Location
UCLA
although I don't know if people are using this in an argument you need more than 12 frames notice for any kind of hazard BECAUSE if I am attacking you with marth side B I can see it all I want and not be able to shield it (assuming its shield able)

This is another reason why I do not support hazards that don't give multiple seconds of warnings(and random hazards) is because if I am previously performing an action with no previous knowledge of a hazard coming my opponent (if they are not performing an action either) has a frame advantage over any action I have which he DID NOT WORK TO GET.

An example can be found on norfair with specifically snakes tech chase which is extremely powerful on this stage. If snake down diddy kong and he does it RIGHT as the flare hazard appears (as in he couldn't react to it before throwing) he now has 2 options
1. attempt to chase diddy kong and get hit
2. forget his tech chase and chose to be safe over sorry.

Personally I feel such an outcome is unjustified to snake and could very well happen in a match, while this isn't only limited to snake it certain would suck for SuSa if he had to stop downthrowing people because of a hazard he could barely react to.

This can happen on picto chat as well I can be uairing someone with metaknight and OH SHHHHIIITS MINE CART.


Halberds mechanical arm forces one player to shield almost EVERY TIME. Assuming a powershield plus however much shield stun and then shield drop time it takes me my opponent has that much more time to approach me.

However from a subjective point of view halberd doesn't generally affect gameplay that much and I believe it adds more depth than detracts from HOWEVER this is a subjective belief and I would support halberd being banned with this criteria.
 
Top Bottom