Diversity in stages = more interesting game?

[Vegard]

I'm gonna go straight to the point; I strongly disagree to the fact that some people believe that the more stages you use in Melee, the more interesting the game gets in terms of counterpicking, versatility etc and basically everything. I main Fox and don't have any problems at all with adding more stages to rulesets at tournaments, yet I want the stage selection to stay "limited" to make the game as fair as possible (and also because I think a few of the non-neutral stages are more camp friendly).

Anyway, my main point is that I think that no matter how many stages you play on, in the end - it's not the stages that makes the game boring and unintersting to you in the long run. I just can't seem to put my finger on why..

 

[Kal]

Possibly because it's a matter of opinion?

 

[Vegard]

True, but I simply fail to understand how someone can go from loving a game to getting bored of when they can't play on Jungle Japes or Onett.

 

[Smasher89]

THat´s because you main fox, who is strong on every stage. Try playing a character that has trouble with camping on the neutrals but can abuse the opponent camping on other stages (that gets banned).

The strategies when less stages is used is mainly focusing on adjusting presice movements whereas choosing a different stage can mean you cover the opponents killingoptions just by a smart choice (like knee doesnt kill at all at Onett for example).
Runaway tactics is totally dominating the neutrals more then other stages where stuff like edgeguarding gets even more attention (mute city).
Other then that the game is much less varied and is played the same way every match since getting to the level where mixups and no mistakes is getting to a level of flow which is hard to replicate and maintain.

 

[Kal]

True, but I simply fail to understand how someone can go from loving a game to getting bored of when they can't play on Jungle Japes or Onett.

I haven't heard anyone who is anti-ban advocating this position. It's the pro-ban people who cry that enabling Jungle Japes or Onett would ruin their fun.

Regardless, it's a matter of opinion. What makes Smash unique, compared to say, Street Fighter? In part, it's Smash's mobility. So much so, in fact, that terrain can naturally impact the game in a meaningful way. Some of us see this as a good thing, and we see the elimination of stages which emphasize this dynamic as removing one aspect that makes Melee so unique.

There are other problems with your initial post (trying to make things "fair" isn't possible, so instead you end up unfairly fixating on a subset of the cast, usually in an ad hoc attempt to justify what is clearly just disliking the stages), but mostly it's in the conclusion: no one is saying "Smash without Jungle Japes is boring!" Most of us who don't want to slide down the slippery-slope of banning whatever we want just acknowledge the point I made above: Smash is a very mobile fighter (a "platform fighter," if you will), and artificially trying to turn it into a fighter where terrain does not impact the match (when this is, to some degree, the point of a platform fighter in the first place) is silly.

tl;dr "game is less fun without Jungle Japes" != "game is no fun without Jungle Japes"

 

[odinNJ]

Fast fallen adapt well to jank stages. Ergo this would make them even better

 

[Blu]

Our complete, compiled understanding of non-neutral stages rests around 5.5 Cactuars: skewed and another twenty years from being concrete.

 

[Mahone]

oh, come on, please don't use that term... please don't make that a thing

 

[Blu]

LOL! But it's pure awesome.

 

[mhenlo]

Ban fox and Falco then unban every stage.....

 

[Kyandid]

Ban fox and Falco then unban every stage.....

the only thing keeping Icicle Mountain from being played in every set is those goddamn spacies

 

[rawrimamonster]

the only thing keeping Icicle Mountain from being played in every set is those goddamn spacies

Or maybe because its easy for DK to cargo
Easy to throw off the sides with chars with strong throws
easy to camp the sides
maybe cuz the stage is **** like rainbow cruise.

 

[Yuna-Maria]

the only thing keeping Icicle Mountain from being played in every set is those goddamn spacies

Are they the reason why I can't play on Brinstar Depths and Hyrule Temple, too?

God! Furries ruin everything!

 

[Kyandid]

maybe cuz the stage is **** like rainbow cruise.

dude whoa hold on

I was joking about Icicle Mountain, and maybe I shouldn't've.

but don't you dare talk **** about 4-player all-Bowsers on Rainbow "The Best Level In The Entire Smash Bros Series" Cruise.

 

[The Star King]

Rainbow Cruise is an inferior Pokefloats

 

[Jim Morrison]

Every stage is **** and the ideal ruleset would be one match on Battlefield, one match on Yoshi's and one match on Dreamland.
Losers gets to counterpick first. God-like.

 

[Omni]

Interesting is purely subjective.

I think more stages makes the game less interesting. You don't. And it literally ends there.

 

[Lovage]

more stages would be awesome if they were any good sadly most of them aren't

 

[Rubyiris]

Every stage is **** and the ideal ruleset would be one match on Battlefield, one match on Yoshi's and one match on Dreamland.
Losers gets to counterpick first. God-like.

No mk2, therefore your idea is inherently flawed