PoptartLord
Smash Cadet
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2015
- Messages
- 54
What's all this now? Why are all of these stage lists getting praise? Where to start... ok, how about with how they're still using the Starter / Counterpick ideology? History has shown it doesn't actually solve the problem it's meant to solve, and now that the in-game menu order has switched the problem it was made to solve doesn't exist anymore.
And then there's the list size. They're all far too small. There are dozens of competitively viable stages in the game, yet these lists have ~10-13 total with half unavailable in game 1. Everybody knows that stages don't get added to the initial list, so I'm not buying the arguments of "other tournaments will test the other stages" or "focus on what we know is good initially, we'll get to the rest later". That's so bad I won't even classify it as token lip service.
About the only redeeming factor I've seen is the willingness to have hazards on and off in the list. That is the correct thing to do. Contrary to popular belief the toggle is not between "Normal version" and "Competitive version" but "Normal version" and "Alternate version that happens to help the competitive viability of some stages a lot but we need parity so every single stage needs some kind of change, regardless of how it affects competitive viability".
Moving on. Let's talk about the Lylat thing. Only now we know it's more of a Kirby thing. Seeing all the kneejerk reactions from the community is.... well, there's no way to say even a fraction of what I want without getting banned for language and insulting large swaths of the community. So I'll end that thought there; fill in the gaps yourself.
There are so many arbitrary lines in stage viability reasoning it makes one's head spin. Considering the things perfectly acceptable in Smash 4's four stage list (<sarcasm>because everybody hates Lylat and it's only there to hit the 4n+1 striking magic number so it doesn't count</sarcasm>) there should be far less complaints about far fewer stages. The only commonality is "this stage is banned because I don't like it". Watch, somebody will quote the previous line and say "but permanent walk-offs are banned because they promote degenerative play, everyone knows that, therefore you're wrong and your point is invalid", which sidesteps the actual points of contention so completely it has to be intentional since they don't have an actual response.
How long will people be held back by ghosts of the past? It's a new game demanding new rules and methodologies. Stop blindly applying lessons learned in the past - instead understand why those lessons had to be learned and first see if they're even relevant anymore! There are so many core gameplay/element changes implemented specifically to fix previous grievances. Look at chaingrabs - once a scourge, now removed completely by re-grab timers. Any lessons of "X is bad because it allows for chaingrabs" are null and void, so stop applying them to the present game!!
EDIT: I missed an 'i' in 'chaingrabs'
And then there's the list size. They're all far too small. There are dozens of competitively viable stages in the game, yet these lists have ~10-13 total with half unavailable in game 1. Everybody knows that stages don't get added to the initial list, so I'm not buying the arguments of "other tournaments will test the other stages" or "focus on what we know is good initially, we'll get to the rest later". That's so bad I won't even classify it as token lip service.
About the only redeeming factor I've seen is the willingness to have hazards on and off in the list. That is the correct thing to do. Contrary to popular belief the toggle is not between "Normal version" and "Competitive version" but "Normal version" and "Alternate version that happens to help the competitive viability of some stages a lot but we need parity so every single stage needs some kind of change, regardless of how it affects competitive viability".
Moving on. Let's talk about the Lylat thing. Only now we know it's more of a Kirby thing. Seeing all the kneejerk reactions from the community is.... well, there's no way to say even a fraction of what I want without getting banned for language and insulting large swaths of the community. So I'll end that thought there; fill in the gaps yourself.
There are so many arbitrary lines in stage viability reasoning it makes one's head spin. Considering the things perfectly acceptable in Smash 4's four stage list (<sarcasm>because everybody hates Lylat and it's only there to hit the 4n+1 striking magic number so it doesn't count</sarcasm>) there should be far less complaints about far fewer stages. The only commonality is "this stage is banned because I don't like it". Watch, somebody will quote the previous line and say "but permanent walk-offs are banned because they promote degenerative play, everyone knows that, therefore you're wrong and your point is invalid", which sidesteps the actual points of contention so completely it has to be intentional since they don't have an actual response.
How long will people be held back by ghosts of the past? It's a new game demanding new rules and methodologies. Stop blindly applying lessons learned in the past - instead understand why those lessons had to be learned and first see if they're even relevant anymore! There are so many core gameplay/element changes implemented specifically to fix previous grievances. Look at chaingrabs - once a scourge, now removed completely by re-grab timers. Any lessons of "X is bad because it allows for chaingrabs" are null and void, so stop applying them to the present game!!
EDIT: I missed an 'i' in 'chaingrabs'
Last edited:
