Full Stage List Striking - New name

[Ripple]

I think its perfectly fine for doubles

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

If they CP you later, why didn't you ban it? Remember, you strike and ban in accordance to the character you are playing and your opponent's character. So use your ****ing brain.

Use your character with your brain? over 90% of the cast will get wrecked if they fall off the platform on the aerial parts.

I already stated I don't care if you can strike it, I care what happens when people actually go here for whatever reason.

So does Lava, so do PS transformations, so does the Support Ghost, and COUNTLESS other things that happen on OTHER (and LEGAL) stages that affects the match. Your point is?

None of these kill you at 40-50% from one mistake.

 

[SuSa]

Use your character with your brain? over 90% of the cast will get wrecked if they fall off the platform on the aerial parts.

I already stated I don't care if you can strike it, I care what happens when people actually go here for whatever reason.

Over 90% of the cast? lol... NO. Unless you want to start naming characters.

Also if someone does go there first game. It is the players fault.

Do you care if someone starts as Ganon Game1 vs Sheik, Ice Climbers, or Olimar? **** no, it's the PLAYERS CHOICE. They go into that matchup KNOWING THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO WIN.

I mean... unless you support banning Ganon because you care for when people choose him for whatever reason.

None of these kill you at 40-50% from one mistake.

You're right, the support ghost can save me at any % including possibly a low % gimp where I would have died at 20%.

The lava doesn't deal damage allowing me to die sooner or be hit back into it by my opponent.

The wall on PS1 doesn't stand a chance of me getting infinited against hit and KO'd at any %.

You avoid these hazards and take them into consideration. You shouldn't be getting hit by a car. I've been hit a single time and other players are telling you they are **** easy to avoid.

The "it kills you early" argument is pretty bad anyways. Lava can kill me at 130%. Why should that matter less than a car at 50%? Especially when both are avoidable (cars moreso than lava!)

:leek:

 

[Raziek]

Support Ghost can SAVE you at 0%, saving you a whole stock.

Your point?

****, ninja'd by SuSa.

 

[ADHD]

Support Ghost can SAVE you at 0%, saving you a whole stock.

Your point?

****, ninja'd by SuSa.

So can jumping.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Over 90% of the cast? lol... NO. Unless you want to start naming characters.

Also if someone does go there first game. It is the players fault.

Do you care if someone starts as Ganon Game1 vs Sheik, Ice Climbers, or Olimar? **** no, it's the PLAYERS CHOICE. They go into that matchup KNOWING THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO WIN.

I mean... unless you support banning Ganon because you care for when people choose him for whatever reason.

The platform has no ledges, you have to then get up while your opponent is waiting right above for you to have your landing lag to hit you and knock you off stage.

So unless your MK, Sonic, or anyone with a good vertical recovery that can land safely your screwed.

There is a difference between picking a character and a stage, I've told you this before about maining a character vs maining a stage.

This stage is pretty much the definition of fighting against the stage at multiple points.

You're right, the support ghost can save me at any % including possibly a low % gimp where I would have died at 20%.

The lava doesn't deal damage allowing me to die sooner or be hit back into it by my opponent.

The wall on PS1 doesn't stand a chance of me getting infinited against hit and KO'd at any %.

You avoid these hazards and take them into consideration. You shouldn't be getting hit by a car. I've been hit a single time and other players are telling you they are **** easy to avoid.

The "it kills you early" argument is pretty bad anyways. Lava can kill me at 130%. Why should that matter less than a car at 50%? Especially when both are avoidable (cars moreso than lava!)

Your not thinking about what it means to be hit by the hazards.

You make a mistake and get hit by the lava you take a little damage and only die to it around 130-150%.

A car will kill you at 40-50% if you make a mistake. Thats is a pretty big difference.

This is of course adding to the others things the stage already does, which none of the other stages have all these factors to add in.

Killing you is very relevant when it's what happens when you make a mistake much earlier at 50% compared to 150%.

 

[SuSa]

So can jumping.

I did LOL... but seriously.. many characters can be gimped at less than 40% but get saved by ghosts... it's happened to me.

0% is really pushing it because that means you jumped off the stage to go die to it though... XD

The platform has no ledges, you have to then get up while your opponent is waiting right above for you to have your landing lag to hit you and knock you off stage.

This happens at Halberd for quite a bit as well, but it has ledges. These ledges don't help much honestly.

Frigate Orpheon is missing it's ledge ledge for quite a while, and you can't even pass underneath the stage. YOU ARE FORCED TO LAND ON THE STAGE. That's x10 worse.

So unless your MK, Sonic, or anyone with a good vertical recovery that can land safely your screwed.

You get hit by the road, and yes. Yes you get screwed, because your character has a bad recovery and you didn't strike or ban the stage.

There is a difference between picking a character and a stage, I've told you this before about maining a character vs maining a stage.

No - it's a ****ing choice. YOU CONTROL the character you main. You can CONTROL what stages you go to via striking and bans.

If you go to your characters WORST POSSIBLE STAGE. That is ON YOU for being BAD AT THIS GAME. Or you know

MAINING A BAD CHARACTER

This stage is pretty much the definition of fighting against the stage at multiple points.

So are so many other countless stages....Halberd, Brinstar, Norfair, Frigate....

Your not thinking about what it means to be hit by the hazards.

You get punished. Just as much as if I RAN INTO MY OPPONENT LIKE AN IDIOT. Hazards are just as avoidable as your opponent. In fact, they are even MORE avoidable.

You aren't inside your opponents mind, you have no warning of what they are going to do before they do it, hazards have warning and you EXPECT them to happen.

You make a mistake and get hit by the lava you take a little damage and only die to it around 130-150%.

A car will kill you at 40-50% if you make a mistake. That's is a pretty big difference.

I see both killing you, one more avoidable than the other. You're more likely to get hit by lava, perhaps that is why it kills you later? It's punishing you less because it's expecting you to get hit by it.

If you get hit by a car, that's all on you. They are so avoidable I'd probably laugh at you if you died to one without being hit into it by your opponent.

Killing you is very relevant when it's what happens when you make a mistake much earlier at 50% compared to 150%.

I see the differences between the two.

One shouldn't be happening to begin with.

:leek:

 

[Albert.]

why is everybody so angry?

 

[Life]

Susa what became of that Norfair pic?

Also, not quite related, but when you tech, when does the 40-frame no-teching timer start? When R is pressed (or whatever button you prefer)? End of the animation? That makes a huge difference.

 

[SuSa]

*5 seconds later* I forgot

EDIT:
Wow, it's censored. hahaha let me rename it
END EDIT

EDIT:
Horribly displayed, but blue shows possible routes while green shows the main circle.

:leek:

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

This happens at Halberd for quite a bit as well, but it has ledges. These ledges don't help much honestly.

Frigate Orpheon is missing it's ledge ledge for quite a while, and you can't even pass underneath the stage. YOU ARE FORCED TO LAND ON THE STAGE. That's x10 worse.


You get hit by the road, and yes. Yes you get screwed, because your character has a bad recovery and you didn't strike or ban the stage.

Ledges mean a lot.

It's a means to safely get back on the stage without having LOL lag if landing on stage. Frigate is one that has a ledge on one side and has a second portion that has ledges on both sides.

This stage has zero safety to land on the platform and is always going to be there while on the aerial portion.

And the road part applies to a lot of character btw, since there are parts where your forced to take a ton of damage before you can get back up or die because the road goes away.

I don't care if you can strike or ban it, I care what the stage does when you do go there under any circumstances.

If the stage when played on deteriorates game play it's bad and shouldn't be on our list, plain and simple.

No - it's a ****ing choice. YOU CONTROL the character you main. You can CONTROL what stages you go to via striking and bans.

If you go to your characters WORST POSSIBLE STAGE. That is ON YOU for being BAD AT THIS GAME. Or you know

MAINING A BAD CHARACTER

Having a bad recovery doesn't make you a bad character, it's part of what might make you bad but good characters like Marth have bad or meh recoveries and are just fine.

The stage is absolutely terrible for a lot of characters, not just low tier characters either.

So are so many other countless stages....Halberd, Brinstar, Norfair, Frigate....

None of which do it to the degree this stage forces.

You get punished. Just as much as if I RAN INTO MY OPPONENT LIKE AN IDIOT. Hazards are just as avoidable as your opponent. In fact, they are even MORE avoidable.

You aren't inside your opponents mind, you have no warning of what they are going to do before they do it, hazards have warning and you EXPECT them to happen.

Except your opponent can force you into them or trap you into a situation where it's hard to avoid.

So you can be forced to fight the stage and your opponent at the same time where a mistake is going to get you killed really early.

That's completely different from lava that kills at 150%.

I see both killing you, one more avoidable than the other. You're more likely to get hit by lava, perhaps that is why it kills you later? It's punishing you less because it's expecting you to get hit by it.

If you get hit by a car, that's all on you. They are so avoidable I'd probably laugh at you if you died to one without being hit into it by your opponent.


I see the differences between the two.

One shouldn't be happening to begin with.

:leek:

People shouldn't get hit by Snake or Ike's Fsmash unless they get read or have their shield broken. It still happens.

One is easier to avoid, this doesn't change what happens when you get hit by a car, you have to make up for the fact you lost a stock at 50%.

 

[Life]

Looks like more of an oval.
/trollface.jpg
Aerial segment is irrelevant though, because you have to land eventually right?
Then if you scrooge, you can be cut off there (at least to a point), right?

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Most of these segments have walkoff and walls baring a few exceptions and cars that come and kill at 50%.

Delfino isn't even that bad with walk off and walls.

 

[SuSa]

Ledges mean a lot.

It's a means to safely get back on the stage without having LOL lag if landing on stage. Frigate is one that has a ledge on one side and has a second portion that has ledges on both sides.

This stage has zero safety to land on the platform and is always going to be there while on the aerial portion.

And the road part applies to a lot of character btw, since there are parts where your forced to take a ton of damage before you can get back up or die because the road goes away.

I don't care if you can strike or ban it, I care what the stage does when you do go there under any circumstances.

If the stage when played on deteriorates game play it's bad and shouldn't be on our list, plain and simple.

I care what the stage does when you do go there under any circumstances.

The only characters that would go there are characters that can handle it. It doesn't fall under a ban criteria and I'm not saying it's a neutral stage.

I'm saying it's not banworthy and beyond that it doesn't matter what you think of it. If you don't want to play it, ban or strike it.

Having a bad recovery doesn't make you a bad character, it's part of what might make you bad but good characters like Marth have bad or meh recoveries and are just fine.

No, it's part of what makes your character worse. It's a significant trait (one of the most important in Smash) as well.

Just because you're amazing in every possible way, having a "meh" recovery WILL MAKE YOU A WORSE CHARACTER than if you had a better one.

Snake's recovery isn't exactly a gem from the sea.

Except your opponent can force you into them or trap you into a situation where it's hard to avoid.

So you can be forced to fight the stage and your opponent at the same time where a mistake is going to get you killed really early.

Good for your opponent, he's using the stage to his advantage because he knows the stage. Maybe you should try doing what he's doing instead of being a noob?

People shouldn't get hit by Snake or Ike's Fsmash unless they get read or have their shield broken. It still happens.

One is easier to avoid, this doesn't change what happens when you get hit by a car, you have to make up for the fact you lost a stock at 50%.

A character move is your opponent reading your bad habits and you are 0% sure if they will use that move.
A stage trait is one that you know 100% will happen.

See the difference?

Looks like more of an oval.
/trollface.jpg
Aerial segment is irrelevant though, because you have to land eventually right?
Then if you scrooge, you can be cut off there (at least to a point), right?

Aerial segment is part of what makes up circle camping, it's the vertical camping and that's why if you look at the cyan I showed 2 different landing spots. Technically you could go down and grab the ledge in the center one too.

:leek:

 

[DMG]

Also a lot of characters can actually deal with vertical camping. (Snake, Pit, Meta Knight, DeDeDe, Pikachu, G&W, Wario, Luigi, Kirby, Jigglypuff, Zamus, IVYSAUR and I'm sure I'm leaving some out....)

A majority of characters can handle it, and only a few characters can even abuse it. It's not highly degenerate or overcentralizing.

Actually, that's not true. Going vertical becomes a bigger issue with platforms present because even the best of jumpers cannot catch you if you are starting on higher ground than them. They have to waste more jumps than you to try and keep up, and the distance buffer you have gives you more time to react to what they are doing. This and the goal isn't just to stay high in the sky, but to abuse your horizontal mobility in a place they can't punish you for it. It's not solely about jumping high or fast, but how mobile you are once you are there. Fox can jump really high really quickly, but he's not a big threat because he also comes down pretty fast and doesn't move over horizontally very fast.

Take Luigi for example. Wario can go above and over him fairly easily, especially if Luigi ever jumps to try and get to him. Luigi can reach high vertically, but he cannot compete with the mobility. In Wario's case, Pikachu can try to "zone" Wario out with Thunder, but he cannot catch him or really stop him. He can airdodge completely through Thunder, or abuse the fact that Pikachu is stationary when using the move (If Pikachu moves through the air and uses Thunder on the Fly, Pika moves but is still in lag. You can take advantage of this by moving away if Pika moved away, or moving past the wall if Pika is approaching you with it.) Everyone else you listed sans G&W and MK cannot really stop it because their options either leave them stationary horizontally or they are too easy to outmaneuver regardless horizontally. G&W can Uair while moving or Nair while keeping up or Upb to get closer. MK is... well MK lol. Everyone else usually can't. Snake, Ivy, Diddy, Falco, IC's, Olimar, Dedede, Lucario (OMG Lucario lolol I love abusing this against him), etc.

It depends on what stage you get: FD itself you can run away from a few characters for awhile and not get hit (30 sec), but you give up a lot of space because you have nothing to work with. Battlefield you can get away doing it to the slower slower characters like Kirby. Smashville depends, you can do it to Lucario here easily but others like Falco or Snake it will be noticeably harder. Luigi's Mansion on most parts of the stage favors that kind of camping more than most other stages. The only few I can think of that favor it more are Norfair and RC (on some parts)

It's not degenerative on most layouts, just those that turn camping in the air into abuseable loops or "safety" zones most characters cannot realistically stop you from gaining access to.

 

[Life]

Re: Susa

Mmm, I have doubts you'd be able to drop fast enough that the grounded character can't catch you.

DMG, you're here and you play Wario, go counterpick Norfair @ Dallas and get us some vids.

 

[DMG]

*5 seconds later* I forgot

EDIT:
Wow, it's censored. hahaha let me rename it
END EDIT

EDIT:
Horribly displayed, but blue shows possible routes while green shows the main circle.

:leek:

There are more routes. Scrooging through the stage, or starting on the end of a platform with no edge and dropping off near the next platform's edge, there are also Shuttle Loop cancel paths where you get to choose if you want to grab the edge or not where if you choose not to you end laglessly on the platform above you (I assume you are talking just about edge paths, not options you can take) etc. For MK, there's also the multiple Down B paths he can take near the 3 edges, picking to land onstage or grab any of the edges.'



Edit: Im not going to MLG Dallas. Something came up and I will not be able to attend. I was able to sell my pass to someone who missed the deadline, but yeah.

 

[SuSa]

It's not degenerative on most layouts, just those that turn camping in the air into abuseable loops or "safety" zones most characters cannot realistically stop you from gaining access to.

I understand the rest of your post I cut out and how abuseable aircamping can be (Even on Battlefield Wario is ****ing stupid ) and I understand the concern over it.

Luigi's Mansion supports camping, and until destroyed to some degree supports circle camping. It could VERY well be argued that it should be banned.

You're in the BBR, you go make it happen and prove it falls under the criteria. I don't influence the BBR, it's own members influence the BBR.

As you've seen I'm against a lot of the BBR, but I don't have many issues with their rules? Have you noticed this? I pretty much agree with their stage list except the separation of starters and the three levels of counterpicks - I wouldn't even be against this if a certain character didn't completely **** up the counterpick system.

My only issues with their rules is when double standards arise and they make changes under one precedent - and when someone brings it up for another, they have no excuse, no logic, no reasoning behind ignoring it; but they do.

This is where my problem arises. The BBR is extremely influential and I use their ruleset pretty **** close to the point. If I were a TO, I wouldn't follow it exactly - I don't need to follow their criteria or precedents, I'm a TO and can do WHATEVER THE **** I PLEASE. If I want to ban playing as Lucas, I **** well could.

This is why it's OKAY for TO's to ignore your suggested rules. If I want to ban DDD's infinites I don't need to follow a precedent or have any criteria I just do it. I'm a dictator.

The BBR is a group that get's together and using logic decides on a fair and competitive rule set. Whether or not the community and TO's follow it is completely irrelevant it's there as a standard for "This is what is logical to do and we can point to logic, precedents, and criteria to show why"

IDEALLY the BBR rule set would have NO double standards, and would make sense. IDEALLY everyone would follow this one rule set. That won't happen, and there will ALWAYS be variations.

The BBR SHOULD NOT be against ANY alterations to their recommended ruleset. They SHOULD NOT be against the institution of a LGL clause, or the banning of infinites. That shouldn't be mentioned anywhere in their rulings. These things aren't in place because there is no criteria, no precedent, and no logic behind their bannings. That is reason enough and the "being against it" shouldn't need to be stated.

People will have LGL's if they want to, no matter what the BBR says. People have proven this, the BBR knows this - so why do they say they are against it?

They say they are all for TO's doing what they want (and in the end the TO's will) and they constantly suggest that TO's go out and try new things so recommending against anything is already a double standard!

So if the BBR wants to gain some respect, alterations are going to need to be made and some explanations are going to have to be given.

Because in the end, the TO will do whatever it takes to raise attendance while keeping their community competitive with the rest of the region/nation.

/end BBR rant that was formed by one statement of me telling you BRING IT UP WITH THE BBR.

:leek:

 

[DMG]

When we voted on those stages...

Well needless to say Im not gonna point the finger but people dropped the ball a bit. The amount of people who didn't vote, or even express the opinion that they were unknowledgeable about the stage and were not gonna vote one way or the other, was really high. More people abstained from voting/did not vote than those who chose either side. That was a huge problem on a lot of stages. I'd bring it up with those who didn't vote at all or didn't say "Hey Idk a lot about this stage, Im not voting". Cause trust me, I put in an effort to disprove that god **** Norfair pic that everyone posts of MK and Norfair that "proves" Planking isn't as strong there when it's not true, or people who bought Overswarm's pitch of planking not working in the middle of YI M cause of an old Video with ROB and demonstrated by Marth.

 

[Raziek]

Ryu, stop *****ing about Port Town's ledges.

It's a HARD CP, that's the whole **** point. We aren't arguing Port Town for starter here.

I begin to wonder if you actually play on this stage at all.

 

[DMG]

Ryu, stop *****ing about Port Town's ledges.

It's a HARD CP, that's the whole **** point. We aren't arguing Port Town for starter here.

I begin to wonder if you actually play on this stage at all.

Port Town would be a starter if you full stage struck

Full stage striking = you are making no distinction between starter and CP. Which is fine, but I have the feeling a lot of you would still be refrencing FD and Brinstar as CP like stages while using that method.

 

[SuSa]

When we voted on those stages...

Well needless to say Im not gonna point the finger but people dropped the ball a bit. The amount of people who didn't vote, or even express the opinion that they were unknowledgeable about the stage and were not gonna vote one way or the other, was really high. More people abstained from voting/did not vote than those who chose either side. That was a huge problem on a lot of stages. I'd bring it up with those who didn't vote at all or didn't say "Hey Idk a lot about this stage, Im not voting". Cause trust me, I put in an effort to disprove that god **** Norfair pic that everyone posts of MK and Norfair that "proves" Planking isn't as strong there when it's not true, or people who bought Overswarm's pitch of planking not working in the middle of YI M cause of an old Video with ROB and demonstrated by Marth.

I understand this, and it's a major issue.

Why aren't these players knowledgeable about a lot of stages? Possibly because of our current starter list and (for the most part) if you dislike a stage you'll never have to learn it?

I appreciate the amount of people who didn't vote either way, but it's bad if that number is really high. It shows their lack of knowledge about one of the key aspects of this game.

EDIT:

refrencing FD and Brinstar as CP like stages while using that method.

Counterpicks still exist though. The counterpick system would still exist, and your opponent would have 17 stages to choose from (you ban 3, and they cannot win on the stage they won on unless you agree to it)

So referencing FD and Brinstar as CP stages would still be totally justified.

:leek:

 

[Jack Kieser]

Ok, I'm going to make a comment about the general tone of the conversation, as it stands right now. This is not directed at any individual poster; rather, this is a comment on what everyone is talking about right now.

The tone of the conversation right now is, essentially, about whether we should protect players from bad decisions, and that is a bad conversation to have, as thinking people trying to make a competitive ruleset. Allow me to explain how I came to this conclusion, and why we should abandon arguments that support it.

One of the main concerns about, for instance, PTAD (as it stands in THIS thread) is that it is unfair to certain characters because it punishes bad recoveries; for the sake of standards, "bad" in this case refers to easily punishable and restrictive recoveries, such as Link's or Mario's, or characters that RELY on tethers (such as Ivysaur or Oli), but not characters that have hard to punish recoveries or recoveries that don't RELY on tethers (ZSS actually has 2 recoveries).

The argument is that PTAD punishes bad recoveries because the stage has no ledge, and thus forces recoveries through the stage, when the opponent can easily intercept. Also of note is that characters that CAN'T recover incur either death or (actually a better alternative than a gimp) light damage. Thus, it is argued that it should not be added to a full stage strike because the stage is too powerful.

This argument is also applied to many other stages, as a reason that they shouldn't be on a full stage strike (the stage is too powerful, and it nerfs characters). This argument is a bad argument, and should not be used or given credence.

What is, essentially, being said here is that "it is unfair to have the stage nerf you because of your recovery in such a manner, so people should not be allowed to have the risk of being taken there for match 1". This is problematic for 2 reasons:

A ) It assumes that a reasonable, knowledgeable player would ever be taken there.
B ) It assumes that an unreasonable player lacking in stage knowledge should be protected from being taken there.

These are BOTH bad reasons to ban, restrict, or otherwise disallow the choosing of a stage, especially in the stage strike system. Remember that in a stage strike system, such as the one being proposed in this thread, a stage will not be played upon unless BOTH PLAYERS AGREE TO IT (although the agreement is inadvertent in nature). This means that you cannot be tricked into playing a stage for match 1 unless you already do not know that you shouldn't be going there.

It is also a bad argument because it assumes that characters with negative character traits need protection. This is folly at best, and destructive at worst. We, as players, TOs, and rulecrafters, cannot spend our valuable time and effort protecting characters that have flaws, nor should we. If you are taken to PTAD as a character that cannot easily recover due to INHERENT CHARACTER FLAWS, then you were out-picked. If the rulset spends all of its time and effort protecting players without the knowledge or skill to protect themselves from playing a CP stage round 1 in a FULL STRIKE SYSTEM, then it will surely fail, and the spirit of the tournament (to find the most knowledgeable and skilled player) will be undermined from the start.

So, stop arguing that PTAD is a bad stage because some characters suck on it. They suck for a reason, and its not our place to fix that.

 

[Raziek]

Port Town would be a starter if you full stage struck

Full stage striking = you are making no distinction between starter and CP. Which is fine, but I have the feeling a lot of you would still be refrencing FD and Brinstar as CP like stages while using that method.

Well, yes, but then you have 10 or 11 strikes, so the point is moot.

At that point the term "cp" tends more to reference stages with counterpick elements, which is where I take issue.

Port Town's ledges would be a huge issue if we were trying to argue that it's one of the most fair stages in the game, because it heavily disadvantages a huge chunk of the cast.

We're arguing that it isn't degenerate, it's just a strong counterpick quality.

 

[SuSa]

I changed the title of this thread to more accurately fit in with the discussion at hand - and to make it actually fit into this forum, and possibly even draw more interest (although I need to edit the OP soon but otherwise just tell people to read the past few pages of discussion)

Also 100 what Jack saids'

:leek:

 

[DMG]

Well, yes, but then you have 10 or 11 strikes, so the point is moot.

At that point the term "cp" tends more to reference stages with counterpick elements, which is where I take issue.

Port Town's ledges would be a huge issue if we were trying to argue that it's one of the most fair stages in the game, because it heavily disadvantages a huge chunk of the cast.

We're arguing that it isn't degenerate, it's just a strong counterpick quality.

"It's a HARD CP, that's the whole **** point. We aren't arguing Port Town for starter here."

If every stage is both a starter and a CP, what makes 1 stage have more "CP" features than another? If there is no distinction between starter and CP, what would you go by to determine that a stage is more like a CP than another? I mean, there definitely is a difference between a stage like Brinstar and a stage like PS2 even if you classify them as the same type of stage.

 

[SuSa]

@DMG
1 word:
Polarized

One stage having "more CP features than another" simply means it is more polarized as a whole.

It doesn't take a genius to be able to know that Brinstar is more polarized than Final Destination - or that PTAD is more polarized than PS2

:leek:

 

[Raziek]

SuSa nailed it.

 

[Luxor]

I approve.
10approves

 

[WindMajor]

Quick interruption

Is anyone currently using this format of stage striking? I'm just wondering because after lurking this thread for a while, I'm planning on running a tournament with this ruleset (after a bit more discussion) and I want to know how people are reacting to this.

 

[Jack Kieser]

I'd like to; in fact, I'm planning on running a full strike system at the next tourney I can run... whenever that happens. :/

 

[SuSa]

It was great for the money matches I had it in, just had to explain it a few times since it was new to them (duuuuhhh)

Outside of that, I honestly think I've been the only one to actually do it so far, but other TO's are interested.

I thank you for giving the idea a shot and be willing to run a tournament using the system. If I had a means to run a tournament myself I'd also be using it.


EDIT:
Jack ninja'd.

EDIT 2:

I'm attending another tournament this Saturday (hopefully, not confirmed yet) and will have more friendlies+money matches using it. I'll also be speaking to the TO if I gave a chance to introduce the idea to him.
:leek:

 

[Raziek]

I'll be testing at at my next hosted tourney (After my custom stages one), and in friendlies at MLG Dallas if possible.

 

[BSP]

Whoever thought of the full stage striking system...why don't you make a official-ish format for the OP or something so people can try it out themselves. The way I see, if the stage is bad for your character, you shouldn't end up there....It should be ok.

 

[SuSa]

*digs back a few pages* Might as well copy+paste my suggestion for it.

EDIT:

Done and done.

:leek:

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

The only characters that would go there are characters that can handle it. It doesn't fall under a ban criteria and I'm not saying it's a neutral stage.

I'm saying it's not banworthy and beyond that it doesn't matter what you think of it. If you don't want to play it, ban or strike it.

I think it ban worthy because of how it affects the cast, most of the cast can't land safely on the platform as it's moving because it lacks ledges. That's pretty dangerous and polarize for the few how can land safely and gives them a huge polarized advantage.

Throw in the walkoff, walls, cars, and it just adds to the facts.

This stage is not fit for competitive play.

No, it's part of what makes your character worse. It's a significant trait (one of the most important in Smash) as well.

Just because you're amazing in every possible way, having a "meh" recovery WILL MAKE YOU A WORSE CHARACTER than if you had a better one.

Snake's recovery isn't exactly a gem from the sea.

It's part of it, but this stage complete centralizes it on the aerial parts.

Good for your opponent, he's using the stage to his advantage because he knows the stage. Maybe you should try doing what he's doing instead of being a noob?

Or the cars just happened to come at the wrong time and I died because the cars just so happened to come when I was in a bad position.

Or his character is stupidly good here because of the stage layout and the stage polarizes game play to levels worse than Cruise, or Brinstar do.

A character move is your opponent reading your bad habits and you are 0% sure if they will use that move.
A stage trait is one that you know 100% will happen.

See the difference?

Yeah, one I can be forced into taking because the stage just happened to have cars come by while I'm fighting my opponent while the other only needs me to watch for what a character does alone.

Ryu, stop *****ing about Port Town's ledges.

It's a HARD CP, that's the whole **** point. We aren't arguing Port Town for starter here.

I begin to wonder if you actually play on this stage at all.

Extreme counter picks centralize game play because of stage layout and other hazard factors are bad when they amplify the strength of characters to absurd levels.

This stage nerfs the cast to the point where the above happens.

Ok, I'm going to make a comment about the general tone of the conversation, as it stands right now. This is not directed at any individual poster; rather, this is a comment on what everyone is talking about right now.

The tone of the conversation right now is, essentially, about whether we should protect players from bad decisions, and that is a bad conversation to have, as thinking people trying to make a competitive ruleset. Allow me to explain how I came to this conclusion, and why we should abandon arguments that support it.

One of the main concerns about, for instance, PTAD (as it stands in THIS thread) is that it is unfair to certain characters because it punishes bad recoveries; for the sake of standards, "bad" in this case refers to easily punishable and restrictive recoveries, such as Link's or Mario's, or characters that RELY on tethers (such as Ivysaur or Oli), but not characters that have hard to punish recoveries or recoveries that don't RELY on tethers (ZSS actually has 2 recoveries).

The argument is that PTAD punishes bad recoveries because the stage has no ledge, and thus forces recoveries through the stage, when the opponent can easily intercept. Also of note is that characters that CAN'T recover incur either death or (actually a better alternative than a gimp) light damage. Thus, it is argued that it should not be added to a full stage strike because the stage is too powerful.

This argument is also applied to many other stages, as a reason that they shouldn't be on a full stage strike (the stage is too powerful, and it nerfs characters). This argument is a bad argument, and should not be used or given credence.

What is, essentially, being said here is that "it is unfair to have the stage nerf you because of your recovery in such a manner, so people should not be allowed to have the risk of being taken there for match 1". This is problematic for 2 reasons:

A ) It assumes that a reasonable, knowledgeable player would ever be taken there.
B ) It assumes that an unreasonable player lacking in stage knowledge should be protected from being taken there.

These are BOTH bad reasons to ban, restrict, or otherwise disallow the choosing of a stage, especially in the stage strike system. Remember that in a stage strike system, such as the one being proposed in this thread, a stage will not be played upon unless BOTH PLAYERS AGREE TO IT (although the agreement is inadvertent in nature). This means that you cannot be tricked into playing a stage for match 1 unless you already do not know that you shouldn't be going there.

It is also a bad argument because it assumes that characters with negative character traits need protection. This is folly at best, and destructive at worst. We, as players, TOs, and rulecrafters, cannot spend our valuable time and effort protecting characters that have flaws, nor should we. If you are taken to PTAD as a character that cannot easily recover due to INHERENT CHARACTER FLAWS, then you were out-picked. If the rulset spends all of its time and effort protecting players without the knowledge or skill to protect themselves from playing a CP stage round 1 in a FULL STRIKE SYSTEM, then it will surely fail, and the spirit of the tournament (to find the most knowledgeable and skilled player) will be undermined from the start.

So, stop arguing that PTAD is a bad stage because some characters suck on it. They suck for a reason, and its not our place to fix that.

I'm saying this again, the fact you can strike doesn't mean a thing.

Otherwise we could just throw in a stages that are the closest to borderline banable as possible and say, "Hey it's ok because they can strike/ban it"

Doesn't change the fact that if people go to the stage it will over centralize game play around the tactic that makes it borderline banable.

PTAD doesn't just hurt characters with bad recoveries, it hurt everyone who can't recovery safely on the platform. In which the number of people that can is in the mid single digits of numbers, 5-6 characters.

These aren't character weakness that are inherit to a degree, the stage is so polar that even characters that have decent recoveries are pure garbage on this stage.

Well, yes, but then you have 10 or 11 strikes, so the point is moot.

At that point the term "cp" tends more to reference stages with counterpick elements, which is where I take issue.

Port Town's ledges would be a huge issue if we were trying to argue that it's one of the most fair stages in the game, because it heavily disadvantages a huge chunk of the cast.

We're arguing that it isn't degenerate, it's just a strong counterpick quality.

Except when you add it to a stage list, your saying it's just as fair to start on SV as it is to start on PTAD because your adding it to the same list.

The fact it heavily puts the cast at a disadvantage is why this stage isn't worthy of being a legal stage, it's it polar by nature and is equivalent to many tier 3 CP stages if not worse in terms of polarity.

It's a bad stage for a majority of the cast to play on even if both characters playing on it have a bad recovery.

It's banable.

 

[Raziek]

Ryu, you're seriously just WRONG.

Like, I've been using this stage in tournament for MONTHS, and it gets picked by a few specific people. A Wario main, and a Kirby main, most notably. Know what though? They're not blowing out their opponents like you claim they SHOULD BE. It just DOESN'T HAPPEN.

It's a strong counterpick, and even when considered as the sum of its parts, it is NOT bannable.

 

[SuSa]

I think it ban worthy because of how it affects the cast, most of the cast can't land safely on the platform as it's moving because it lacks ledges. That's pretty dangerous and polarize for the few how can land safely and gives them a huge polarized advantage

Competition doesn't care what you THINK, it cares about enforceable rules, precedents, and CRITERIA. Please name the criteria it should be banned for (Please remember my post a few posts back)

Yes, it's EXTREMELY polarizing, but not bannable.

Or the cars just happened to come at the wrong time and I died because the cars just so happened to come when I was in a bad position.

The cars don't just come randomly, you're just proving your ignorance over the stage.

Yeah, one I can be forced into taking because the stage just happened to have cars come by while I'm fighting my opponent while the other only needs me to watch for what a character does alone.

Read.
Above.
Comment.

Extreme counter picks centralize game play because of stage layout and other hazard factors are bad when they amplify the strength of characters to absurd levels.

This stage nerfs the cast to the point where the above happens.

Making it an extreme counter pick. You just said so yourself.

I'm saying this again, the fact you can strike doesn't mean a thing.

It doesn't mean A thing. It means EVERY thing.

Otherwise we could just throw in a stages that are the closest to borderline banable as possible and say, "Hey it's ok because they can strike/ban it"

Already doing that, currently banned stages are banned and all of those "borderlines" in Group 3 of Counterpicks are legal.

So yes, yes I am saying that. JUST BECAUSE ITS RARE DOESNT MAKE IT NEVER.

Doesn't change the fact that if people go to the stage it will over centralize game play around the tactic that makes it borderline banable.

RAC (Read above comment)
RAAC (Read above above comment)
RAAAC

PTAD doesn't just hurt characters with bad recoveries, it hurt everyone who can't recovery safely on the platform. In which the number of people that can is in the mid single digits of numbers, 5-6 characters.

Jigglypuff, Pit, Charizard, Meta Knight, Kirby, King DeDeDe

Guessing those are your 5-6 chars?

Because I can name off more, and just because you have to hit the floor and take some damage doesn't mean you can't recover safely.

These aren't character weakness that are inherit to a degree, the stage is so polar that even characters that have decent recoveries are pure garbage on this stage.

So.
Strike
and
or
Ban
it.

Except when you add it to a stage list, your saying it's just as fair to start on SV as it is to start on PTAD because your adding it to the same list.

I am not saying anything about fairness. I'm letting the players decide on what is fair or what is not.

If you think a stage is unfair, you strike it.

What the **** are you unable to comprehend about this?

If you're too stupid to know a stage is unfair.
Get better at the game then

:leek:

 

[WindMajor]

It was great for the money matches I had it in, just had to explain it a few times since it was new to them (duuuuhhh)

Outside of that, I honestly think I've been the only one to actually do it so far, but other TO's are interested.

I thank you for giving the idea a shot and be willing to run a tournament using the system. If I had a means to run a tournament myself I'd also be using it.

I've always been a supporter of larger stage lists and logical rule changes (BBR's new bowsercide rule, 1.1, etc.). I just don't argue for them here though because (1) you guys say exactly what I would say anyways, and (2) because I don't want to be like BPC in the sense that he can express his arguments soundly, but he has to explain it over and over and over and take mindless criticism like a punching bag. I already get enough crap for being a mod as it is. x__x

*goes back to lurking*

 

[Raziek]

I don't want to be like BPC in the sense that he can express his arguments soundly, but he has to explain it over and over and over and take mindless criticism like a punching bag.

Honestly, this is the thing that amazes me most about how he keeps going. xD