Full Stage List Striking - New name

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I did not mean EVERYONE is biased, uneducated, or wrong, but there are a lot of pot-fillers who AREN'T educated about the game, but you feel their opinion is enough to overturn that of the BBR, who are the top players and TOs?

What? REALLY?

I'm a TO too, you know.

Because not everyone who isn't a TO or in the BBR is a pot-filler.

The average level of player has risen from where it used to be and players are starting to make better judgment calls on the game itself.

They matter when the stages your suggesting are ones that by mass majority disagree with, so it's not just pot-filler, it's also educated people who are against these stages.

Question:

Without stating "the community doesn't want it" (Which is irrelevant to the BBR ruleset regardless)

What "flaws" are in this system? What is illogical about it?

When we countered your points, we did the following:

Yeah but

• Logical reason #1
• Supporting evidence and claim
• Logical reasoning
• Logical reason #2
• Counterpoint
• Supporting evidence
• Logical reason #3
• Logical reasoning

In return we received:

• Ad Hominem [Worthless]
• "But the majority wants" (Irrelevant to a standard rule set)
• This stage is stupid, but I don't have a criteria (Worthless)
• You're all stupid (we gave some of this back, but on both sides it's worthless

See why we're getting a tad frustrated?

:leek:

Coming from the people who wanted to throw bricks at me, called me a tard, stupid, and cussed at anything I said.

I've never purposefully tried to call anyone stupid or use Ad Hominem, in fact I reported posts that did such for people on both sides of this.

 

[SuSa]

Because not everyone who isn't a TO or in the BBR is a pot-filler.

The average level of player has risen from where it used to be and players are starting to make better judgment calls on the game itself.

They matter when the stages your suggesting are ones that by mass majority disagree with, so it's not just pot-filler, it's also educated people who are against these stages.

And even a good portion of the BBR stated they were UNEDUCATED regarding stages, thus did not vote.

IF A GOOD PORTION OF THE BBR IS UNEDUCATED WHEN IT COMES TO STAGES I'M WILLING TO BET THE MASSES ARE MUCH THE SAME!

The difference?

The masses will vote regardless, bandwagoning etc. The BBR simply doesn't vote.

:leek:

 

[Juushichi]

Question:

Without stating "the community doesn't want it" (Which is irrelevant to the BBR ruleset regardless)

What "flaws" are in this system? What is illogical about it?

When we countered your points, we did the following:

Yeah but

• Logical reason #1
• Supporting evidence and claim
• Logical reasoning
• Logical reason #2
• Counterpoint
• Supporting evidence
• Logical reason #3
• Logical reasoning

In return we received:

• Ad Hominem [Worthless]
• "But the majority wants" (Irrelevant to a standard rule set)
• This stage is stupid, but I don't have a criteria (Worthless)
• You're all stupid (we gave some of this back, but on both sides it's worthless

See why we're getting a tad frustrated?

:leek:

Question I'm answering is in bold.

Answer is: Nothing I can think of without trying it first.

Edit - Addition: My initial concerns have been covered though the main points that have been argued on both sides. Along with people who are at least a bit interested, I think I'll try this out and see how it goes.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

And even a good portion of the BBR stated they were UNEDUCATED regarding stages, thus did not vote.

IF A GOOD PORTION OF THE BBR IS UNEDUCATED WHEN IT COMES TO STAGES I'M WILLING TO BET THE MASSES ARE MUCH THE SAME!

The difference?

The masses will vote regardless, bandwagoning etc. The BBR simply doesn't vote.

:leek:

Which is the responsible thing to do.

You should never talk about something or vote if your not fully educated on it. I've played on this stage before and tested it again when 3.1 came out.

Same issues like before and everyone hated what it brought with it, just like the other times we tried it out. A stage being ridiculously polar is banable criteria, I'm not talking about FD polar or even Brinstar polar. This stage is a whole new level of it in what it does.

The community wither they are educated or not goes with it banned, you have to convince them otherwise no matter how you debate this if you want this stage to be legal.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

So why should I listen to what your saying if the community is nothing but biased, wrong and uneducated people?

What separates you from that other member who posts, or makes your opinion more important than their opinion?

Stop generalizing.

What separates us? All right, what's the difference between:
-I think Rainbow Cruise should be banned because I don't like it
and
-I think Rainbow Cruise should not be banned because (very strong, legitimate reasons X, Y, and Z), and furthermore, if you'd ban RC because of that, (what you'd get by following that precedent)

That's pretty much the difference, for the most part, between us and 99% of the rest of the community.

Wait.... so calling people scrubs randomly is a bad idea?

Yep. Calling people scrubs for actually acting like scrubs on the other hand is completely fair.

Also, someone help me out on this, I've hit a bump in the road. If we're trying to maximize the skill necessary in the game and we're using that as an argumentation regarding stages, why aren't we qualifying things like "Being good in the Home Run Contest/Target Tests" or "being able to get as far as possible as fast as possible without dying in SSE" as skills we should test? I know there's gotta be something very wrong with this reasoning, but I can't figure it out.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

What separates us? All right, what's the difference between:
-I think Rainbow Cruise should be banned because I don't like it
and
-I think Rainbow Cruise should not be banned because (very strong, legitimate reasons X, Y, and Z), and furthermore, if you'd ban RC because of that, (what you'd get by following that precedent)

That's pretty much the difference, for the most part, between us and 99% of the rest of the community.

99%? Try again.

Yep. Calling people scrubs for actually acting like scrubs on the other hand is completely fair.

Also, someone help me out on this, I've hit a bump in the road. If we're trying to maximize the skill necessary in the game and we're using that as an argumentation regarding stages, why aren't we qualifying things like "Being good in the Home Run Contest/Target Tests" or "being able to get as far as possible as fast as possible without dying in SSE" as skills we should test? I know there's gotta be something very wrong with this reasoning, but I can't figure it out.

Oh Serlin look what your poorly defined derogatory term has done to multiple communities.

 

[SuSa]

Question I'm answering is in bold.

Answer is: Nothing I can think of without trying it first.

Edit - Addition: My initial concerns have been covered though the main points that have been argued on both sides. Along with people who are at least a bit interested, I think I'll try this out and see how it goes.

****, we have a responsible thinker here!

Which is the responsible thing to do.

You should never talk about something or vote if your not fully educated on it. I've played on this stage before and tested it again when 3.1 came out.

Same issues like before and everyone hated what it brought with it, just like the other times we tried it out. A stage being ridiculously polar is banable criteria, I'm not talking about FD polar or even Brinstar polar. This stage is a whole new level of it in what it does.

The community wither they are educated or not goes with it banned, you have to convince them otherwise no matter how you debate this if you want this stage to be legal.

And how long did you try it? For like 3 matches? One tournament? A friendly?

First time I played Japes - hell the first few months I played Japes - I hated it. Now I CP DK's there and a few other characters who mostly kill Snake with moves that I can DI nearly straight-up. (AKA: Bowser too)

Also being stupidly polar is not a bannable criteria. Any more than being stupidly broken (See: Meta Knight) is.

:leek:

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

And how long did you try it? For like 3 matches? One tournament? A friendly?

First time I played Japes - hell the first few months I played Japes I hated it. Now I CP DK's there and a few other characters who mostly kill Snake with moves that I can DI nearly straight-up. (AKA: Bowser too)

Also being stupidly polar is not a bannable criteria. Any more than being stupidly broken (See: Meta Knight) is.

If I recall correctly about 7-8 times offline after 3.1 came out, I also tested on wifi, much more on wifi, but your going to discredit anything involving that so I won't bring it up.

A stage turning a 4:6 into a 8:2 is polar to the point it centralizes striking/banning is quite banable.

Stages are also not in the same leagues as characters.

 

[SuSa]

If I recall correctly about 7-8 times offline after 3.1 came out, I also tested on wifi, much more on wifi, but your going to discredit anything involving that so I won't bring it up.

A stage turning a 4:6 into a 8:2 is polar to the point it centralizes striking/banning is quite bannable.

Stages are also not in the same leagues as characters.

7-8 times?

And you expect to know every aspect of the stage by that point? (Even with "WiFi training which I did on a few stages.. it screws your matchup thoughts but it helps you LEARN THE STAGE)

Centralizing striking/banning is not an issue. I'd sooner give someone 1 extra ban than ban an entire stage that is only broken due to 1-3 characters.

:leek:

 

[napZzz]

The only problem I see with this (like usual) is how it favors mk

I really feel like skill level of a player and experience both need to come into an argument on how valid you may be, at least an above average player...(/side rant)

but the only way this would work is with a more liberal stage list...

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

7-8 times?

And you expect to know every aspect of the stage by that point? (Even with "WiFi training which I did on a few stages.. it screws your matchup thoughts but it helps you LEARN THE STAGE)

Centralizing striking/banning is not an issue. I'd sooner give someone 1 extra ban than ban an entire stage that is only broken due to 1-3 characters.

:leek:

I did it less because I had already tested it in the past and the new testing was going exactly how it had gone in the past.

And for the bolded, false.

If a character over centralizes gameplay, akuma in SF2, you ban it because it degenerates gameplay.

If a stage over centralizes it to make characters broken or horribly skew match-ups to absurd levels, Wario on Norfair vs DDD and many other characters is the one I keep bringing up, you ban it because it degenerates gameplay to revolve around that stage.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

The only problem I see with this (like usual) is how it favors mk

I really feel like skill level of a player and experience both need to come into an argument on how valid you may be, at least an above average player...(/side rant)

but the only way this would work is with a more liberal stage list...

The level of a player and his/her experience only matters when they're basing parts of their argumentation on it (A fallacy in and of itself). Otherwise it's ad hominem.

 

[SuSa]

Now you're comparing character bans to stages.

Further.
Proving.
My.
Point.

Let's ban FD, Diddy is toooooooo goooood.
Let's ban Norfair, Wario/MK are tooooooo goooood.
Let's ban RC, G&W and Snake are toooooo gooooood.
You know what. Let's ban everything that isn't Smashville.


Banning something because it's TOO GOOD is unwarranted and has a hard to enforce criteria.

Can you define:
"Too good'

For me?

Don't use subjective terms (matchup ratios) but rather tactics and data. Can you come up with a criteria that bans only what you want banned that is enforceable, understandable, and agreeable?

Because UNLIKE CHARACTERS I can't tell you "I strike Meta Knight. What do you strike?"

I also CAN'T TELL YOU (as a player) "I ban Wario. You can't counterpick him"

STAGES ALLOW US TO SAY AND DO THAT!

That's why it's far less of an issue to strike/ban a stage than it is to ban a character. This is also why the community sees it OK to ban stages "well it's always banned/striked anyways except by Bob. Bob likes it, but **** Bob he's stupid."

Again - it shouldn't be in a rule list that is created using precedents and criteria to warrant changes. It might be in the TO's rule list, but **** NO should it be recommended as a COMPETITIVE ruleset when it is EVERYTHING BUT THAT.

:leek:

 

[∫unk]

I think you guys are going to have trouble arguing about what's more fair and legitimate.

A better question is, how do we want to the ruleset to affect the metagame? Clearly this metagame is heavily influenced by ruleset, so the ruleset the SBR has out (which as far as I know isn't commonly used) isn't great in reflection of the metagame.

Do you want Metaknight to be at a fightable level? Gotta stick to traditional neutrals, stages where MK isn't particularly strong compared to their common counterpart (Ness on Norfair vs MK omg eveeeeeeeen matchup with MK hype), ban IDC, maybe have a LGL or Ground Time Rule among other things. You're effectively just limiting MK since he's the most versatile character in the game. How much you nerf him becomes the centerpiece of discussion in this future.

Do you want Metaknight to be banned? If that's the case, I think it's easy. For now, allow as much as possible and slowly ban things that are clearly degenerate or overcentralizing.

However, if we were to do that, it should have happened a long time ago. Which is actually why I think it's very very unlikely that MK gets banned.

 

[napZzz]

beautiful post susa....the stage list is always gonna be what its gonna be because of the characters who favor from it more than others, and theres no fixing that...

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Now you're comparing character bans to stages.

Further.
Proving.
My.
Point.

Let's ban FD, Diddy is toooooooo goooood.
Let's ban Norfair, Wario/MK are tooooooo goooood.
Let's ban RC, G&W and Snake are toooooo gooooood.
You know what. Let's ban everything that isn't Smashville.


Banning something because it's TOO GOOD is unwarranted and has a hard to enforce criteria.

Can you define:
"Too good'

For me?

Don't use subjective terms (matchup ratios) but rather tactics and data. Can you come up with a criteria that bans only what you want banned that is enforceable, understandable, and agreeable?

Because UNLIKE CHARACTERS I can't tell you "I strike Meta Knight. What do you strike?"

I also CAN'T TELL YOU (as a player) "I ban Wario. You can't counterpick him"

STAGES ALLOW US TO SAY AND DO THAT.

:leek:

There are different levels of too good.

It's possible to beat Diddy on FD, it's impossible for many characters to beat Wario on Norfair.

Aircamping to timeout victory is very easy for him on Norfair. Diddy needs to work with the match-up and beat his opponent with stage control.

Wario just needs to get the lead once and time you out.

 

[Juushichi]

I did it less because I had already tested it in the past and the new testing was going exactly how it had gone in the past.

And for the bolded, false.

If a character over centralizes gameplay, akuma in SF2, you ban it because it degenerates gameplay.

If a stage over centralizes it to make characters broken or horribly skew match-ups to absurd levels, Wario on Norfair vs DDD and many other characters is the one I keep bringing up, you ban it because it degenerates gameplay to revolve around that stage.

But, Ryu. You can always pick another character that will net you better results (side note: most DDD players do this anyway because he's not viable by himself), whereas you couldn't do that against SFA2's Akuma. Unless you dittoed, I guess.

You also can ban the perfectly legal stage in your set. I don't think that Wario by himself over-centralizes and degenerates the game play. There are characters that can combat him on Norfar or you can... again ban Norfair.

Ultimately, I don't think you are accounting for the full human element of this striking precedure. It has everything to do with smash as the characters and stages do. Ultimately, I think SuSa and co are arguing that that should be kept in mind alongside. Absolute competitiveness also allows to you make stupid competitive decisions.

 

[napZzz]

thats because some characters are just flat out better than others red ryu, this game isn't very balanced character wise and the variety of rulesets coming in and out dont necessarily help

 

[SuSa]

I think you guys are going to have trouble arguing about what's more fair and legitimate.

Precedents and criteria. People have to see the logical reasoning behind this however.

A better question is, how do we want to the ruleset to affect the metagame? Clearly this metagame is heavily influenced by ruleset, so the ruleset the SBR has out (which as far as I know isn't commonly used) isn't great in reflection of the metagame.

The BBR should still recommend a ruleset based on precedents, criteria, and logic. Give logical reasons behind their changes and rules so that anyone with a question regarding "but why" can see exactly why and it is not disputable because it is a logical conclusion that follows rules that is not subjective, but objective.

You'd be hard put to argue objective data.

Do you want Metaknight to be at a fightable level? Gotta stick to traditional neutrals, stages where MK isn't particularly strong compared to their common counterpart (Ness on Norfair vs MK omg eveeeeeeeen matchup with MK hype), ban IDC, maybe have a LGL or Ground Time Rule among other things. You're effectively just limiting MK since he's the most versatile character in the game. How much you nerf him becomes the centerpiece of discussion in this future.

False, I beat and take Meta Knight's to Rainbow Cruise. One of the "most polar stages in the game" that is banned in several regions.

Also - you should not need to nerf MK so **** much to make him playable. LGL's are stupid, GTR is even worse (same with ATR), IDC at least has a criteria (def: stalling, and the many gray areas that would change via TO's about it being stalling)

Do you want Metaknight to be banned? If that's the case, I think it's easy. For now, allow as much as possible and slowly ban things that are clearly degenerate or overcentralizing.

Should've been done ages ago, but I'm not pushing for MK's ban. I'm pushing for a competitive game.

So many people point to MK and say "Yeah, he's good. But other games have characters like him that aren't banned."

Right there is saying you don't care for character diversity. So banning a stage warranted on such (because Wario is just too good) is the equivalent of saying you want to bring about a fairness of the cast and balance things.

It's a ****ing double standard, and again. It's laughable.

There are different levels of too good.

It's possible to beat Diddy on FD, it's impossible for many characters to beat Wario on Norfair.

Define "too good". You failed to do that for me.

It also isn't over-centralizing until everyone starts picking Wario just to counterpick Nofair in hopes of a win. I don't see that happening.
Hell, that isn't even really happening with MK - everyone just secondaries him.

:leek:

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

But, Ryu. You can always pick another character that will net you better results (side note: most DDD players do this anyway because he's not viable by himself), whereas you couldn't do that against SFA2's Akuma. Unless you dittoed, I guess.

You also can ban the perfectly legal stage in your set. I don't think that Wario by himself over-centralizes and degenerates the game play. There are characters that can combat him on Norfar or you can... ban Norfair.

Like I said before, you can strike banned stages from characters that would make it stupid, doesn't change what the stage does at a competitive level when people do play on it.

Most of the cast can't catch characters like Wario or at MLG Columbus where Speed timed out people on this stage with Sonic.

It's do it or lose, which is banable criteria.

 

[SuSa]

Like I said before, you can strike banned stages from characters that would make it stupid, doesn't change what the stage does at a competitive level when people do play on it.

Most of the cast can't catch characters like Wario or at MLG Columbus where Speed timed out people on this stage with Sonic.

It's do it or lose, which is bannable criteria.

1) Okay.
2) YES IT DOES! You should never play it against a character that breaks it on a competitive level! You'd only play it knowing you are going into the stage. Just like you won't be facing a Diddy on FD anytime soon - you won't be facing a Wario on Norfair.

It's not "do it or lose" it's "do it to win" and your opponent should know your options and ban accordingly.

PS:
Bannable not banable. It's bothering me.
:leek:

 

[chaosmaster1991]

Also, someone help me out on this, I've hit a bump in the road. If we're trying to maximize the skill necessary in the game and we're using that as an argumentation regarding stages, why aren't we qualifying things like "Being good in the Home Run Contest/Target Tests" or "being able to get as far as possible as fast as possible without dying in SSE" as skills we should test? I know there's gotta be something very wrong with this reasoning, but I can't figure it out.

Well, you could test them, why not?
There could be a champion for Vs Mode and one for 1P Mode (a combination of all the stuff 1P has, you get points for your placing in the seperate disciplines and whoever has the most in the end wins).

I'd view them more as different disciplines, whereas stages are a special feature of the Vs Mode. So the Vs Mode champ should be expected to know as much about the mode as possible. Following that, you could try to incorporate the special modes, as long as they add to the competitive depth (don't really know, I don't use them).

Hmm that's kinda worse than I thought it would be... does it help at least a bit?

 

[∫unk]

SuSa one point you don't really address is things like how MK and Diddy/Falco as a combination makes it really hard to CP a good stage as anyone.

 

[napZzz]

a pocket mk makes cp'ing any character hard period

 

[SuSa]

He asking why we wouldn't test them. I answered him via AIM.

They test for a different result.

In Home Run Contest - we do not compete to see who is the better fighter, we compete to see who can hit Sandbag the furthest. Thus - it does not concern our goal. There is a competitive Home Run Contest scene (it's pretty small) and they go for world records on the thing. That's fine and dandy, but it doesn't concern our community.

Same with SSE speed runs/no death trials etc. It's a different test.

For battles the only thing that matters is Vs Mode, Characters, and Stages - and all possible options given within them.

We could use 1.1, and that is why there is a thread on testing about it.

SuSa one point you don't really address is things like how MK and Diddy/Falco as a combination makes it really hard to CP a good stage as anyone.

Possibly because they are good characters?

You don't see me addressing how easy it is to CP Ganon. Do you?

:leek:

 

[Juushichi]

SuSa one point you don't really address is things like how MK and Diddy/Falco as a combination makes it really hard to CP a good stage as anyone.

MK being extremely versatile makes it less about a hard-stage CP and more about a personal preference, trait judgement (about your style's/character's and MK character strengths vs weaknesses) and opponent's tendencies. Which isn't exactly a bad thing.

As for Diddy/Falco... I dunno, more dynamic stages seem to hurt them... but they are among the best characters in the game so I'm sure they'd adapt. It seems like you would use the same judgement you would against MK, but you have a bit more leeway of error.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

1) Okay.
2) YES IT DOES! You should never play it against a character that breaks it on a competitive level! You'd only play it knowing you are going into the stage. Just like you won't be facing a Diddy on FD anytime soon - you won't be facing a Wario on Norfair.

It's not "do it or lose" it's "do it to win" and your opponent should know your options and ban accordingly.

PS:
Bannable not banable. It's bothering me.
:leek:

Susa, do it or you lose has and always has been bannable criteria in every competitive game. Of course competitive players would do that, because it's the only way to win which is degenerate.

If they break it, you ban it from competitive play.

PS: my spelling/typing on the internet sucks .

 

[SuSa]

Susa, do it or you lose has and always has been bannable criteria in every competitive game. Of course competitive players would do that, because it's the only way to win which is degenerate.

If they break it, you ban it from competitive play.

PS: my spelling/typing on the internet sucks .

Except it is not do it or you lose.

It's do it to win.

If I DON'T go Wario on Norfair, but instead go Snake on Japes - are you hinting that I will lose? No, I'll probably win.

But if I DO go Wario on Norfair do I have a better chance at winning? Probably, not likely since I'm not good at running away.

I repeat.

It is not "do it or you lose" it's "do it to win".

If they break it, you ban it from competitive play.

You're antiban right? Because this statement is so **** hypocritical it makes me laugh. We have sooooo many restrictions to try and make him "break it" a little less.

:leek:

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Except it is not do it or you lose.

It's do it to win.

If I DON'T go Wario on Norfair, but instead go Snake on Japes - are you hinting that I will lose? No, I'll probably win.

But if I DO go Wario on Norfair do I have a better chance at winning?

All we are arguing at this point is, does the strat of timing out or hardcore camping breaks the stage.

I say yes based on what has happened in tournament and what I've seen Wario's be capable of on this stage.

You're antiban right? Because this statement is so **** hypocritical it makes me laugh. We have sooooo many restrictions to try and make him "break it" a little less.

Pro ban.

 

[Ripple]

norfair is pick, MK, G&W, sonic, wario, Jiggs, Pit, DK,

or lose....

you can CP wario and beat him on norfair with sonic since he has a better run away game. which can be counterpicked by say a pit since he has a projectile which can be countered by MK since he can abuse invincibility who can be countered by guess who? wario

 

[SuSa]

All we are arguing at this point is, does the strat of timing out or hardcore camping breaks the stage.

I say yes based on what has happened in tournament and what I've seen Wario's be capable of on this stage.

So why isn't this stage being banned by the opponent?

If the option is "pick your poison" (norfair or brinstar) why don't we have two bans? More stages = more possibilities of a broken stage = more bans needed.


Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any character who gets a "sure win" on a 21 stage list where 3 of the stages are banned to fit their character. I can think of some stupid matches - but not any sure wins.

Wario - Norfair, Brinstar, Luigi's Mansion
MK - Same as above
DK - Luigi's Mansion, Yoshi's Island (brawl), Japes*

*not IMO

Shall I go on? Or can you see it from here?

EDIT:

I honestly think 1/7 stages = 1 ban is an extremely fair ratio.
14 stages = 2 bans (this includes all starters+counterpicks)
21 stages = 3 bans

:leek:

 

[napZzz]

I had always thought of the multiple ban idea, but never knew exactly how to put it

I like the ratio you put up SuSa, because for people like me who hate any "janky" stage it gives us a little more freedom to drop what we hate as well as the other person...(maybe)

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

If more bans are necessary in order to keep the balance up, then go for it. I'd only add them if you notice that there will be problems if you don't, however.

 

[SuSa]

Well, I had to put a **** ton of thought into the number of broken stages each character has, then look at quite a number of stage lists to see the "normal" amount of stages (and which they were) to decide how many "broken stages" a character would usually have.

The higher tiers have 2-3 while pretty much everyone below (and some including) A tier have 1, and the further and further you go you may even see a few 0's. <_<

/bull****ted

Me and my friend decided on it after about 3 seconds of thinking based off of stage knowledge we both already have and our view that NOT A SINGLE CHARACTER IN THIS GAME is broken on over 3 stages.

Currently a semi-liberal stagelist and 1 ban ****s over a large portion of the cast with the "choose your poison" concept.

:leek:

 

[Raziek]

I've been advocating more bans with a big list for AGES.

We use two in my region already, and I'll probably up it to three when I decide if I'm adding any customs and such.

 

[SuSa]

The only issue with customs is asking for them to become a standard.

I honestly don't see any issues with them besides practicality and the judgement of what is "fair" or not. (Oh, and the fact that the custom stage creation thing is buggy as hell and adds so many glitches that mess with competitive play into existence...but these are somewhat avoidable but just limit what you can create)

Again, only against it due to practicality and the glitches.

:leek:

 

[Albert.]

Why would you just brush off Junk like that?

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

If you go with full stage striking extra bans is a good idea if the stage list is quite large.

I'll agree with that it's a nice idea.

 

[SuSa]

Because frankly, he was wrong and seeing it from one side.

Using an extremely good character to show why stages should be banned to favor character balance is the exact same thing as taking an awfully bad character to show why stages should be banned to favor character balance.

Just because good characters have many CP's doesn't mean we should limit that. It's why they are good characters.

Ganon is a bad character. As such, he doesn't have any good counterpicks. He's bad.
MK is a good character. As such, he has many good counterpicks. He's good.

The argument is moot.

:leek:

 

[Omni]

Ganon is a bad character. As such, he doesn't have any good counterpicks. He's bad.
MK is a good character. As such, he has many good counterpicks. He's good.

The argument is moot.

:leek:

a character will be good or bad based on what counterpicks are available.

there are plenty of "good" characters that have awful counterpicks.