• 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

Raziek

Charging Limit All Day
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
9,626
Location
Halifax, Nova Scotia
NNID
Raziek
3DS FC
3866-8131-5247
Honestly, that's probably the thing I worry most about for this ruleset.

It's created with the goal of being objective, but conservatives will stray from the crtieria and re-add YI:B and Halberd, and probably remove YI:M and Mansion.

It's not going to see implementation like you guys want it to.

At this point, it looks more like an excuse for the conservatives to ban Brinstar and company.
 

SuSa

Banned via Administration
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
11,508
Location
planking while watching anime with Fino
Also Susa, how many stage bans would you give players with 13 stages? I would say two. But 1 may suffice.
I am not altering the counterpick system, so 1 ban. There is no stage so polar in this as to need anymore than 1 ban.

MK breaks everything so inb4 MK on RC/Mansion

Now uhm.. Mansions never been proven - BUT IT CAN BE! Someone just needs to step up and prove it can, regardless of how much you destroy it. I'll leave that to a conservative though, I rather enjoy the stage and see it strategic because while I can see the light circle - it's never.. worked in actual competitive play.

Did you even read my posts? I didn't even attempt to refute anything you just said.

(except that "objectivity is always better than subjectivity"--that's just an ignorant statement.)
Objectivity to rule is better than subjectivity - due to subjectivity always leading to splits and differences within the group. This is why there is like over 1,000 different branches of Christianity. But that's because it's a religion based on a book.. and we all know most books can be interpreted like 100,000 different ways. Especially the Bible.

Yea that's what you said. I included Luigi's mansion in my post because that's another stage most conservatives will try to get banned. (in fact hardly anyone wants that stage legal). And I did read through your posts.
Pretty much this, but nobody can prove it bannable to be honest.... although if it's banned, it's banned under circle camping (whether proven or not, the majority has agreed it has been "proven" so meh... void point in a sense)

Although I may personally degree, I could say the same about Hananbrow and be laughed at. So meh. :awesome:

Well, We liberalists think of stages as an element that people remove with no reason other than "we think they should be banned".

You conservatives (other than SuSa) think of them as obstacles that people allow with no other reason than "we think they shouldn't be banned".

Which one is flawled?

SuSa is just trying to find the inbetween: a logic that applies to every stage, with no arbitrary statements or personal toughts.


EDIT: lol Ally.
There are other conservatives besides myself who have tried to find a criteria - and many see it to exist but were unable to define or explain it in the ways I have tried to explain.

Not saying I'm smarter, as I've had a LOT of help.

In fact, Raziek and Jack were my two biggest helpers! Being able to debate with them without having to resort to ad hominem or other fallicious arguments really sped up the process and actually pushed forward improvements!

Even if me and Raziek went in circles for like 4 hours, he finally concedes a point then we argued over more philosophical concepts and had some major points of disapproval and almost ended up ignoring eachother. :urg: It did lead to some progress.... even if Raziek totally objects to it and most of the notions it brings up... and the fact he is completely against removing what I am trying to remove, for the sake of depth.

Ugh... the debate with him sucked... even if it did lead to progress.... I'm sooooo glad I wasn't 100% alone in this.. thanks a ton Ghostbone for helping as well.
 

ADHD

Smash Hero
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
7,194
Location
New Jersey
Honestly, that's probably the thing I worry most about for this ruleset.

It's created with the goal of being objective, but conservatives will stray from the crtieria and re-add YI:B and Halberd, and probably remove YI:M and Mansion.

It's not going to see implementation like you guys want it to.

At this point, it looks more like an excuse for the conservatives to ban Brinstar and company.
We needed the closest thing to a unified stagelist. It would be okay if conservatives do the above, just because the rest of the stagelist is objective.

Come on, even you've debated changing your stagelist over slight preferences. I remember the Onett thing.
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2008
Messages
8,908
Location
Vinyl Scratch's Party Bungalo
NNID
Budget_Player
We needed the closest thing to a unified stagelist. It would be okay if conservatives do the above, just because the rest of the stagelist is objective.

Come on, even you've debated changing your stagelist over slight preferences. I remember the Onett thing.
It would not be okay for conservatives to do the above, because if they do, the entire point of making the ruleset this way VANISHES. Because at that point, you're not working with an objective criteria any more. You're, again, doing things subjectively with no real reasoning whatsoever. And when it gets to that point, then the entire idea of this criteria, finding an objective criteria to ban stages, falls apart, and you can no longer use it as an argument at all.
 

Blacknight99923

Smash Champion
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Messages
2,315
Location
UCLA
It would not be okay for conservatives to do the above, because if they do, the entire point of making the ruleset this way VANISHES. Because at that point, you're not working with an objective criteria any more. You're, again, doing things subjectively with no real reasoning whatsoever. And when it gets to that point, then the entire idea of this criteria, finding an objective criteria to ban stages, falls apart, and you can no longer use it as an argument at all.
it doesn't matter who makes an objective ruleset if it is , at the end, objective
 

Raziek

Charging Limit All Day
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
9,626
Location
Halifax, Nova Scotia
NNID
Raziek
3DS FC
3866-8131-5247
Funny you should mention Onett, ADHD, since that's actually getting another chance, since I admit I probably jumped the gun on it.

Also, BPC is saying what I've been saying this whole time. If you intend to do something completely objectively, and then you violate that objective criteria, and add Halberd or something, then you've made the point of the OBJECTIVE criteria moot.
 

BSP

Smash Legend
Joined
May 23, 2009
Messages
10,246
Location
Louisiana
If we're going for 100% objective here, and the criteria is: The stage can deal out unnecessary %, could you argue that RC's scrolling is bad since it can potentially take stocks? I know it's an extreme, but what if you where on the part right before the stage dropped back to the boat, and you tripped. The stage then scrolls down and you get star KO'd. Could you say the stage just unnecessarily took your stock? It just interfered with the match, and a trip wouldn't be punished nearly a hard on any of the other stages legal under this criteria.

And Frigate's flipping was brought up. Was a consensus reached on it?
 

SuSa

Banned via Administration
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
11,508
Location
planking while watching anime with Fino
If we're going for 100% objective here, and the criteria is: The stage can deal out unnecessary %, could you argue that RC's scrolling is bad since it can potentially take stocks? I know it's an extreme, but what if you where on the part right before the stage dropped back to the boat, and you tripped. The stage then scrolls down and you get star KO'd. Could you say the stage just unnecessarily took your stock? It just interfered with the match, and a trip wouldn't be punished nearly a hard on any of the other stages legal under this criteria.

And Frigate's flipping was brought up. Was a consensus reached on it?
That's not the criteria. It has nothing to do with damage, and it's why Japes is still legal under it.

If you tripped, it's because you ran. You took that risk knowing it may happen. No johns, start walking.

Yes, the flipping (unless someone can show me it's glitched as hell) also does not fall under my criteria.

Neither do any transformations.
Neither does Smashville's balloon.
Neither does Smashville's platform.

EDIT:
And do I really need to make a post on why banning a stage subjectively is unheard of - but unbanning a stage is legitimate?
 

Raziek

Charging Limit All Day
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
9,626
Location
Halifax, Nova Scotia
NNID
Raziek
3DS FC
3866-8131-5247
We went over this yesterday, Susa. Working backwards and UNBANNING stages is infinitely more difficult than banning stages as they're PROVEN to be a problem.
 

napZzz

Smash Hero
Joined
Mar 4, 2008
Messages
5,294
Location
cg, MN
you've managed to put alot of my words into much better thought than I have over alot of the hazard arguments susa, I really really really like this list not just because its what I WANTED to see (similar to raptures argument with you) but I feel like its the most fitting for a truly competitive ruleset in which its player vs player, skill vs. skill, no outside hazards working their way into the match and changing the outcome

seeing how yi melee and luigis mansion dont break any of your actual rules, I still feel like you should thrash at least one of them maybe, they stand out apart from the other stages waaaayyy too much on the standard of being "janky" (almost hazardous in level design alone)

I cant really try to think up any lone argument to attempt to portray what I'm trying to get at, so until then I'll just leave my thumbs up for someone finally making a clean,competitive, ruleset that makes sense

if I ever ran a tournament THIS is what I would use :) as a matter of fact, I might try running this at the next monthly over here if people allow it and see what they say, minus the use of YI melee and mansion, maybe. Depends on what people want or not

:reverse::reverse::reverse:
 

SuSa

Banned via Administration
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
11,508
Location
planking while watching anime with Fino
Luigi's can be proven to be a degenerate stage due to circle camping. Nobodies proven it yet though.. so it's not an issue. It's just "different"

Pipes is totally legit, planking the center is actually hard (there's 2 ledges to abuse. Abuse one to hit the planker), and the walkoff isn't actually degenerate either. DDD can't CG chars. up it, Pika can only (realistically) do it at specific %'s if he gets a grab, facing the walkoff.

Glad you agree with it.
 

UberMario

Smash Master
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
3,312
There are two factors about LM's circle camping that put it in a situation that renders it usable however: the ability to pass through the center, and the ability to destroy it entirely.
 

SuSa

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

However, Halberd's hazards will favor one player - regardless of the matchup. Ike vs Ness, MK vs Snake, Ganon dittos, it doesn't matter. One player, decided at random, will gain an advantage from the hazard.

Every hazard that says "Move, or I will hurt you and make you move" is deemed degenerate. Regardless of the matchup, it places a player at a disadvantage to our win criteria.

So you may say:
Transformations may "make you move" because you will otherwise die. However, this favors neither character. In essence it is saying "Get back on the stage". It's not saying to move about the stage, simply to recover. This places neither player at a disadvantage, every time regardless of matchup. It doesn't favor anyone - because again. You cannot define what part of the stage is "advantageous" at any point.

So now you may ask why Norfair is banned under this criteria? Isn't the lava just a transformation?
The difference between the transformation and this hazard is rather clear. The hazard will hurt you, it's not telling me to "recover" - it's telling me to "GTFO or I'll make you". The stage is not changing.


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


Read the OP for the legal stages - first list in the collapse tags.




*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.
 

AMKalmar

Smash Ace
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
887
Location
Hamilton ON CA
A couple things:
Random hazards are deemed uncompetitive due to how they effect the match and alter the win criteria.
If by random hazards you mean hazards that randomly place one player at greater risk than another, I agree. Halberd's claw would fall under this category. If you mean hazards that appear at random times, I disagree. It's not about whether the hazard is random, it's about how well telegraphed the hazard is. Halberd's laser will randomly target one player, but once it locks in place, there's plenty of time to move out of the way before it fires.

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*.

Every hazard that says "Move, or I will hurt you and make you move" is deemed degenerate. Regardless of the matchup, it places a player at a disadvantage to our win criteria.

So you may say:
Transformations may "make you move" because you will otherwise die. However, this favors neither character. In essence it is saying "Get back on the stage". It's not saying to move about the stage, simply to recover. This places neither player at a disadvantage, every time regardless of matchup. It doesn't favor anyone - because again. You cannot define what part of the stage is "advantageous" at any point.

So now you may ask why Norfair is banned under this criteria? Isn't the lava just a transformation?
The difference between the transformation and this hazard is rather clear. The hazard will hurt you, it's not telling me to "recover" - it's telling me to "GTFO or I'll make you". The stage is not changing.
Brinstar's acid makes it ban-worthy but but Delphino's movement doesn't? Move or you'll get hurt is ban-worthy but move or you'll die isn't? That's just silly. Being near approaching acid means you must move or receive damage, being near an approaching blast-zone means you must move or lose a stock. Getting hurt places you at a disadvantage according to our win criteria, but losing a stock places you an even greater disadvantage. These hazards are the same.
 

Jack Kieser

Smash Champion
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
2,961
Location
Seattle, WA
After reading all of the arguments and (especially) seeing what kind of legal list we'd have if this criteria were actually used to make an official ruleset, I just can't agree with it; it's too disruptive of natural game balance. I mean, SuSa, what was the argument that you made in the CP'ing thread? It was that having an unnaturally small stage list artificially favors certain characters over other characters, which is a distortion of game balance.

Well, look at the stage list you've made here. It's objective, in the sense that it's discrete and enforceable, sure. But, what is going to be the overall aggregate effect on the metagame? Snake, Diddy, Falco, and ICs get massive stage buffs, which you have a record of being against. I just don't understand what the difference is between this list and what NY/NJ does on a regular basis. Sure, you are able to articulate in a clear way what your reasoning behind banning is (which I cannot stress enough is something you should be very proud of, because not many people can do that), but the effect it has on the game creates a shadow of what the game actually is, which isn't our job.

The problem is that this criteria is clear and concise, discrete and enforceable... but is it warranted? That's the $1,000,000 question right now. And, is it competitive to alter natural character balance in such a way without having, ultimately, a reason? You have talked about classical competitive design theory enough to know that this kind of depth removal and this scope of balance changes would need a good reason, and although I'm getting a lot of logical argument out of this thread (more so than most others, and certainly more than AN gives), I'm not getting a lot of justification. Which kind of makes me sad, because it's obvious you've put a LOT of thought and work into this...

...just to come up with the same end result as what AN does right now. I know that you're not really a "liberal" person or anything, but even you have to agree that the scope of forced rebalancing being done by this stage list is just... well, unwarranted, simply. Tournaments aren't having inconsistent enough results to warrant this kind of sweeping removal of content. If anything, though, I'd say that even if this thread's premise ends up not being put into practice, it's still been:

A ) a really good discussion so far
B ) a very informative and well argued thread
C ) a crystal clear analysis of exactly how far down the rabbit hole stage interaction goes in terms of Brawl's inherent game balance

...I mean, now, I think, it's glaringly obvious just how much this game expects its players to be able to work with, against, and around 3rd party interferences of various kinds. I think this thread has shown, objectively, just how big of a skill Brawl considers stage "control", not just positioning, to be.
 

SuSa

Banned via Administration
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
11,508
Location
planking while watching anime with Fino
The goal from the start was to prove conservatives right or wrong. For a large portion of it they were "right", and with Raziek's undying effort... it's "BF and FD only, no not even Smashville" would be the ultimate competitive ruleset for player VS player.

I don't think there's honestly a single person in this community who'd agree to a 2 stage stage list...

But yeas. I agree with points A-C. I think we get a lot more done arguing amongst ourselves, haha.

EDIT:
Character imbalance in itself is not anti-competitive. However the vast amount of depth and further centralization of this would be arguable. Not even the super duper uber conservatives would agree to what this stage list has become (and could become if taken a tad further.. oh trust me, I've argued both sides of this coin for pretty much 2 full days now. It's how I've expected to counter, and was able to counter, most any point brought up.

Currently I still see a few more holes in this. Mansion is banned under the same reason Frigate/PS2/PS1/Delfino would be. Smashville would also be bannable because while (in theory) you can control the platform, you cannot "fairly" decide if it should move left or right (assuming it started in the center!) therefore even that would get SV banned.

Lylat's Tilting, if random, would be warrant for a ban.

YI:B is hardbanned under this. Not even an "optional" thing.

The stage list would look like this:

* Battlefield
* Final Destination
* Castle Siege
* Rainbow Cruise
* Jungle Japes
* Yoshi's Island (Melee)

 

Jack Kieser

Smash Champion
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
2,961
Location
Seattle, WA
Yeah, that's... that's just... wow. I mean, WOW. That's a lot of stages cut. ...how is that Brawl again? :p

Oh, and you're right in that having character imbalance is definitely not anti-competitive... but FORCING character imbalance is, at least direct forcing is, and indirect forcing is ok with sufficient justification (for instance, Temple may be great for character A, and banning it may nerf him, but that hard circle... sorry dude, you have to get nerfed to save the game from Temple... that kind of thing). I'm just not seeing the justification, unless I've missed a really important post somewhere, which is possible; I've only been peripherally following whilst I clean, clean, clean, and clean some more. :p
 

SuSa

Banned via Administration
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
11,508
Location
planking while watching anime with Fino
I'm not forcing character imbalance. I did technically prove these stages uncompetitive (even if to a slight degree)

The matter at hand though, is the question:

"Is having this stage depth more competitive than not having it?"

Which is why it's so hard to ban stages, and why every region feels differently about them. It's one of the things I realized once I saw my criteria - while totally valid - just doesn't hold up to the community.

Like I said, I can't think of a single region that would use this stage list:

* Battlefield
* Final Destination
* Castle Siege
* Rainbow Cruise
* Jungle Japes
* Yoshi's Island (Melee)
 

Jack Kieser

Smash Champion
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
2,961
Location
Seattle, WA
Ok, then I think we're just working off of a difference in terms. When I'm saying "forcing character imbalance", I mean in relation to natural balance, in which case everything we do alters natural balance in some way. What I'm implying... well, that's not really true, because I'm saying it's a fact, is that changing the legal stage list from anything to anything else will alter natural character balance, so when we do it, it must be done judiciously.

I think this thread has adequately proven that hazards alter the competitive scope of the game, that's true. Whether they are clearly anti-competitive is a very blurry distinction, and I think that's still being figured out a bit. Either way, Brawl's nature as a non-traditional fighter means that we can't judge it's merits, as well as its component parts, by the standard rubric that we'd apply to other games. For instance, part of the reason that we equate "non-player based damage" to "bad damage" (for lack of a better term) is because in Brawl, we have had to, for the sake of argument and having defined terms, treat % damage in the same manner we would treat damage to a health bar in any other fighter, but that's not really accurate, is it?

I mean, let's examine the finite differences. In a traditional fighter, health directly correlates to your life; there is a numerical value to the amount of damage you can take before you lose. Also, health is lost even during shielding; you can sit in a corner and block all day, but you'll still take chip damage, which brings you directly closer to death.

However, % damage in Brawl doesn't operate that way. The proof is that there is no finite amount of damage you take before death. You may die at 100%, you may die at 150%. Hell, you may just be able to survive until 200%. Or, you could die at 5%! So, unlike damage in a traditional fighter, damage in Brawl has a correlation to death, but is not a causation! The actual cause of death is KB, not damage; damage is only a gauge of how much KB you might get from an attack. In fact, in Lucario's case, damage isn't even objectively negative! In his case, damage management is MORE IMPORTANT that damage mitigation, as the opposite is the case with every other character.

Again, the question to ask when dealing with how "competitive" something is is really a question of practical options, a question of validity of choice. In Lucario's case, taking damage is a valid option towards performing the task of getting the KO. In any other character's case, we have to determine whether utilizing damaging hazards is a valid option towards getting a KO. We've proven that it isn't always even, in that sometimes hazards do not affect players evenly (such as Halberd's lock-ons). Sometimes, they do (such as in the case of transforms and general space hazards, such as lava or acid). We have yet to accurately determine whether using generally non-random, non-partisan hazards to secure a KO is a competitively valid choice to make, which is different than if it is a FAIR choice.

After all, if we're in the game of determining what is fair or not, and only allowing "fair" events to happen, then we have to only allow dittos, because it's not "fair" that different characters are inherently inferior to others (note: player choice is irrelevant here, just like we're assuming it is in stage selection; if a player isn't free, without a ruleset exception, to make a choice of WHERE to battle, he shouldn't be free to make the choice WITH WHOM to battle, either). Of course, it's implied that this only applies to changes made for non-warranted reasons (saying it isn't fair to circle-camp is different that saying it isn't fair to plank; one destroys the game outright, the other is just annoying).
 

Jack Kieser

Smash Champion
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
2,961
Location
Seattle, WA
lol, I was gearing up for an epic post, too. Well, I'm going to get some grub, so feel free to refute away if you want to; I only just barely held on to my train of thought while writing that post, so I'm SURE there's something wrong with it.
 

SuSa

Banned via Administration
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
11,508
Location
planking while watching anime with Fino
As far as "fair" goes applying to dittos, I can refute that.

It's the players choice to place themselves at a disadvantage. Also, no matter how reasonable it is to say IC's vs Ganon is like 80:20 IC's and IC's should never lose... just like positional advantage, even matchup advantages are subjective. You ignore those.

That's really all I got.
 

Jack Kieser

Smash Champion
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
2,961
Location
Seattle, WA
I covered that, though. I'll quote, for clarity:

Me said:
Player choice is irrelevant here, just like we're assuming it is in stage selection; if a player isn't free, without a ruleset exception, to make a choice of WHERE to battle, he shouldn't be free to make the choice WITH WHOM to battle, either.
We have a ruleset which is, essentially, telling a player that we have decided what is best for him or her. That's what we're doing with a stage list, aren't we? Telling a player, "No, you can't go to Temple because of circle-camping; it's not a competitive situation, so you can't go there." So, what's the practical difference between that and telling the player "No, you can't choose Ganon"? After all, you say that character matchups aren't absolute, but stage effects aren't, either; every single person to get hit by Halberd's claw does not lose, and throwing your opponent into a lava wall isn't a guarantee you'll win. No damaging hazard is an insta-win any more than Ganon / IC is for the Ice Climbers.

So, if we want to be consistent, then why not apply our standards consistently? If we're going to edit the game for as much fairness as possible, so that no player is ever put into a position where something out of his / her control decides... something, then we should only allow players to ditto. After all, just like how players have a choice in character, they have a choice in stage. You don't have to go to Halberd if you don't want to, and if you do, it's your responsibility to know the mechanics, not ours to protect you from them.

Does that make sense?
 

AMKalmar

Smash Ace
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
887
Location
Hamilton ON CA
What part of your criteria makes Dilfino ban-worthy? And I could have just as easily used Rainbow Cruise as an example in my last post.
 

AMKalmar

Smash Ace
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
887
Location
Hamilton ON CA
Is the next arrangement of floating platforms random or is the next location random? In either case, it's not about randomness, it's about whether you can reasonably be expected to deal with the hazard in time.
 

SuSa

Banned via Administration
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
11,508
Location
planking while watching anime with Fino
It's not. It's a choice between several locations given what the "flying platform" configuration is.

"it's about whether you can reasonably be expected to deal with the hazard in time."

Can't I reasonably deal with Halberd's, Norfair's, and Brinstars hazards in time?

 

Ghostbone

Smash Master
Joined
Sep 20, 2010
Messages
4,665
Location
Australia
Ok I don't get it....since when did every stage that was random have to be banned again?
Also Castle Siege is slightly random because of the games loading time or something isn't it?
 

Jack Kieser

Smash Champion
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
2,961
Location
Seattle, WA
No, no, no... SuSa is implying that he CAN reasonably deal with those hazards, because they give enough warning. He just doesn't care, essentially. "How fast it is" is not a criteria he's using.
 

Raziek

Charging Limit All Day
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
9,626
Location
Halifax, Nova Scotia
NNID
Raziek
3DS FC
3866-8131-5247
Which is why I pulled the rug out from under him with Delfino, PS1, and PS2.

Also, my name is now purple, as it turns out.
 

AMKalmar

Smash Ace
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
887
Location
Hamilton ON CA
Okay then, you don't know the next destination of Delfino before you see the flight path. But is not knowing the next location before takeoff going to put either player at a disadvantage? It doesn't hurt them, it doesn't KO them.

Congrats on purple.
 
Top Bottom