Full Stage List Striking - New name

[Jack Kieser]

No there aren't, because if they were "good", they'd have GOOD counterpicks in the first place. We have a really mistaken notion of what is "good" or "bad" in this community.

We don't decide which characters are good. We just discover it. It's the difference between discovery and invention. You don't say that humans invented the law of conservation of mass-energy, you say we DISCOVERED it, and good things happened to be in place because of it. Well, same here. We don't (or rather, shouldn't) create good characters with our rules; the game should naturally allow us to discover which characters were always good to begin with.

 

[Raziek]

Pretty much what Jack said.

ICs, and to a lesser extent, Diddy and Falco, are all artificially boosted by the system currently in place.

 

[SuSa]

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

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

A character will be good or bad based on what stages they are good on.

:leek:

 

[Raziek]

Inb4"acharacter'stoolsmakethemgood"

If a character's tools are effective on a very slim number of stages, they are not effective tools overall.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

So how are you going to convince people to adopt this?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Convincing them one by one. Hell, did we convince Nappy? O.o

 

[Omni]

No there aren't, because if they were "good", they'd have GOOD counterpicks in the first place.

A character will be good or bad based on what stages they are good on.

this is actually exactly what i said

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

if the counterpicks made available are good for that character then that character becomes good.

everything else you said [Jack] i agree with.

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

i placed "good" in quotations because i was specifically referencing character traits such as movesets, abilities, frame traits, etc. and not just stages. what makes a character high on the tier list is there ability to adapt to the given stage list, their own character ability, and how their character ability fairs against another character.

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.

this completely contradicts what was just said:
1.) ganon, as a character, is bad
2.) as a bad character he doesn't have good counterpicks

wtf are u guys on

 

[SuSa]

this completely contradicts what was just said:
1.) ganon, as a character, is bad
2.) as a bad character he doesn't have good counterpicks

wtf are u guys on

That is saying exactly what I just said.

A large part of what makes Ganon bad (besides the fact he is simply bad) is that he lacks any good counterpicks. Arguably his only two good ones (Norfair and Brinstar) usually has Norfair banned from the tournament, and all his opponent has to do is ban Brinstar.

Alternatively a large part of what makes Meta Knight good (besides the fact he is simply good) is that he can take you to any **** stage he pleases, possibly even "one of your best stages" and still do better than you do on it. This is part of what makes him so **** good. Even if you ban Brinstar, or Norfair, or Rainbow Cruise. He still has Battlefield, Delfino, and practically every other stage on the stage list to choose from. This is part of what makes him so very good.

Now we have Ice Climbers. A character that is only "good" because their moveset is good on a select number of stages. If you ban Final Destination, they have a few more options. Remove Battlefield, Smashville, and Pictochat from the equation and what are they left with? They are an overall decent character that is buffed to a large degree due to our static starters Game 1. Their moveset is not viable on many stages, and for this they are not as good as they currently are. Because the character is not as good without us making them that good.

:leek:

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Convincing them one by one. Hell, did we convince Nappy? O.o

Ok, but this doesn't change the status Quo we have that most TO's run, so go change it.

 

[Omni]

this is what you're not getting from your own contradiction

if the stages made available were only stages where Ganon was good he would be a much more viable character than he is now

your process above was that ganon is a bad character (bad moveset) and thus he won't have good counterpicks and thus will be bad. what i am telling you is that this thought process is false and contradictory to what we're discussing

 

[SuSa]

Ok, but this doesn't change the status Quo we have that most TO's run, so go change it.

It does slowly and it's working it's way in.

this is what you're not getting from your own contradiction

if the stages made available were only stages where Ganon was good he would be a much more viable character than he is now

your process above was that ganon is a bad character (bad moveset) and thus he won't have good counterpicks and thus will be bad. what i am telling you is that this thought process is false and contradictory to what we're discussing

I am not saying Ganon would be made a much more viable character than he is now. I am stating part of what make's him a worse character than he already is - is the current stage list. Shall I use a less extreme example? Sheik is a pretty good one, who's completely butchered by the current stage list.

:leek:

 

[Omni]

ok i'll drop trying to point out the contradiction in your earlier post

but this about sums up everything

this leads back to "why were the stages we have now the ones chosen to be made available"

that is your main problem and main concern

what i am saying is that the stage list used as of today was chosen not taking a character's ability to do well on there ASIDE from obvious removals where a single specific character has a broken tactic on there

so your next main problem and main concern becomes

"why are certain stages starters and others counterpick"

and again these stages were chosen in a way that had nothing to do with a chacter's ability or lack thereof on the selected stages. it was an independent process. and it was a process that involved the majority of the community expressing their like or dislike for certain stages

so ultimately what it comes down to is

how many people want to adapt your idea (not favoring dynamic over static or vice versa)
how many people want to stay with the status quo

what you point out in the current system isn't a flaw but rather a preference. you have a problem with the process but realize that the process was never a standard. there was no standard way to how we approached this game thus it's impossible for you to say that your way is right and the status quo is wrong

so basically it comes down to you just saying

"i dont like the current system. i think this is a better idea."

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Pretty much how I feel about this whole thing.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Eh, kinda sorta. I think it's more accuracte to say that SuSa is pointing out a flaw that is being rationalized as a preference, because he (and the rest of us, but it's his thread / OP) can prove logically that it is a flaw (that is to say, that the current starter system is unfairly balanced). Just because the current system wasn't created with the INTENTION of unbalancing the top tiers, that doesn't mean that it wasn't the EFFECT.

Remember, Omni: the road to hell is paved with good intentions. We intended good with the 5-stage starter list and striking. We kind of screwed that one up.

...whoops.

 

[Omni]

jack

susa's full stage striking system actually has the intention of balancing tiers. it's not even an effect. it's trying to reverse something in place in an attempt to balance the characters

and if his intention isn't to balance the characters his system will effect the tier list

so it's the same thing. it's just a different approach. unfortunately, another approach was used and it's hard to approach something when its foundation is already rooted

 

[Jack Kieser]

Ok, I know that subtraction is just negative addition, but that doesn't mean they are REALLY the same. What you're saying is the equivalent of saying "well, his proposed system affects balance in a way that corrects for the imbalances we already put in. see? It's affecting balance! That's wrong."

Yeah, it's having an effect relative to the balance that's in place NOW. But NOT relative to inherent, natural balance. It's not equivalent. Just because the tier list will change, that doesn't mean that the changes are being injected into the system by SuSa's striking procedure. We already did that! He's not ADDING anything! He's taking away what we already added unnecessarily and mistakenly!

Correcting a mistake is not as bad as making a mistake in the first place.

 

[Albert.]

SuSa, it seems like you completely missed the point of Junk's post

How disappointing.

 

[Omni]

it's not a mistake
it's not natural
it's not inherent

there are no wrongs or rights when no standard exists

they are both approaches. one was taken while the other wasn't.

on iPhone

 

[Jack Kieser]

Wait, are you saying that Brawl didn't have inherent balance? Because that's kind of foolish. It did. And then we started banning stuff, and we changed the inherent balance. Some changes were necessary (add timer for tournaments, ban WarioWare for bad mechanics, etc.). Some were not (only start on 5 stages, and make those stages the most static in the game).

It's those UNNECESSARY CHANGES that created problems, and those changes are what SuSa is trying to address in this thread. Again, all changes are not equal. Some are done for competitive reasons, and some are done for preferences.

But, just because everyone has a preference doesn't mean that preferences are GOOD COMPETITIVE REASONS to change things, or that we should promote a community attitude that allows for meaningless changes like that to be forced onto the whole of the competitive community by virtue of numbers.

Also, take your time if you're on iPhone. I've posted from a iPod Touch before... It sucks. >_<

 

[Omni]

who's to determine what is necessary?

stocks over stamina?
no items over items?
8 min over 10?

don't say things are necessary or not, Jack

we created a fighting game based off our own preference. we chose an approach and moved forward. that's it

when u start implementing your own philishophy about how the game should bd approached you're already in a rut

 

[SuSa]

Stamina is broken for competitive reasons.

IC's would be banned, 1 grab = game.
Falco would likely be banned I hear his CG goes to stupid high %'s and doesn't end.
DDD's infinites would likely be banned. Sure win against Mario, Luigi, DK, and Samus.
Many moves (due to the less change in knockback in stamina) become near 0-death strings with themselves. (Sheik's ftilt is one of these)

Items I have three words to say:
Super Ganon Time

Timer:
Tournaments running on time, Japan has a 10 minute timer we have 8. This is preference.

Not all changes need to be made from preference. The timer has a reason. It's to keep tournaments running on time and to try and force conflict (by forcing the loser to approach). A fighting game is uncompetitive if no conflict ever happens? Correct?

:leek:

 

[Omni]

susa, you're missing the entire point and your eyes aren't large enough to see

so what if IC's can kill off one grab. there are characters like that in fighting games (usually grapplers) that when they get in it's over. it's essentially playing a 1 stock game for IC's. same applies to all your "exceptions" as to why you think stamina mode wont work without even really giving any thought about it

you ever heard of rounds? sets? have you even tested stamina mode at a tournament level? the point is that if we did move forward with stamina mode from the beginning it would probably still be used today. doesnt make it the right approach. just an approach. we've seen plenty of problems with stocks but things get altered and changed to move around it

and i didnt argue "no time", Susa. stop creating arguments out of thin air and address SPECIFICALLY what i am telling you. im going to assume that because you're not addressing me directly you have no real response

get over yourself, dude. you're just another guy with another idea. you're not "right" or "correct" and there's nothing "wrong" or "incorrect" with our current system. if you're still stuck on this concept then there's no way you can actually go about changing things

ive said this to many people but i'll say it here. this it isn't about who's right or who's wrong. it's about how many people support your approach, ideas, and philosophy towards the game. if you can accept that your concept is a preference and not an entitlement you may actually be able to move forward

 

[Ripple]

I can understand where both are coming from. I get that Susa is pointing out a flaw with our system and I understand that Omni is saying it was a prefrence to begin with, but that doesn't mean that those preferences weren't hypocritical in some nature or were not properly developed. I can say that I love norfair but hate brinstar as a starter but I wouldn't have any solid backing or criteria as to why. yes its a preference but it doesn't make sense

susa is trying to fully expand on the idea of the starters/striking system/stages concept

 

[SuSa]

Change in argument.

Each game mode sets a different objective on what the game is supposed to me.

Timer - Have the most kills/least deaths when time runs out.
Coins - Have the most coins when time runs out.
Stamina - Knock % off your opponent until it reaches 0%
Stock - Remove all of your opponents stocks.

Each of these could arguably be just as competitive as any of the others - the only difference is the goal in which you play to complete.

Just like I could argue that Home Run Contest is perfectly viable and we should hold tournaments just to see who can smash Sand Bag the furthest.

I could hold a tournament to see who kills the most Wire Frames in Cruel Brawl. This is just as competitive, no?

The difference is the end goal you wish to meet. What dictates if you win or lose?

This is where each "community" is made. There could very well be a competitive community using any of those game modes. No one is right or wrong, but what dictates on it is what our community decides to do.

I didn't argue "no time" either. I argued 10 minutes and 8 minutes as an example. I then gave the (competitive) reason why we have a timer. We can have the timer be at ANY AMOUNT of time, there is no specific amount of time (until we need to keep tournaments on time)


You know the thing about stages though? Compared to stocks and stamina and all that jazz?
No matter if it's Coin, Stock, Timer, or Stamina - the stage will effect the battle in different ways. The stage is one of the most important aspects of this stage. This is where you have to lose subjectivity and find what is the most competitive for the win condition you have set.

:leek:

 

[Omni]

yes but we chose 8 minutes. a preference.
we chose stocks. a preference.
we chose no items. a preference.
we chose a stage list. a preference.

but since you're admitting that you're trying to change the subject then i'll stop here and just assume you don't have a response to my previous statements

 

[Ripple]

yes but we chose 8 minutes. a preference.
we chose stocks. a preference.
we chose no items. a preference.
we chose a stage list. a preference.

but since you're admitting that you're trying to change the subject then i'll stop here and just assume you don't have a response to my previous statements

respond to me at least please

 

[SuSa]

yes but we chose 8 minutes. a preference.
we chose stocks. a preference.
we chose no items. a preference.
we chose a stage list. a preference.

but since you're admitting that you're trying to change the subject then i'll stop here and just assume you don't have a response to my previous statements

We had logical reasoning and criteria that helped us choose stocks .We had logical reasoning and criteria that helped us choose no items. We have no or little logical reasoning, precedents, and criteria that helped us choose stages.

We use the reasoning and criteria we have to form precedents to follow - which causes further impact.

The only one that remotely applies is the 8 minute timer. 8 minutes (why 8 minutes) is the problem with it. Not the timer itself, but the time it is set for. The timer is subject to change (Japan has a 10 minute timer) and in itself, does not actually need to be dictated. Each tournament could run on a different timer - and what difference would it make in the end? The number of time outs? That's all it changes.

:leek:

 

[Omni]

I can understand where both are coming from. I get that Susa is pointing out a flaw with our system and I understand that Omni is saying it was a prefrence to begin with, but that doesn't mean that those preferences weren't hypocritical in some nature or were not properly developed. I can say that I love norfair but hate brinstar as a starter but I wouldn't have any solid backing or criteria as to why. yes its a preference but it doesn't make sense

susa is trying to fully expand on the idea of the starters/striking system/stages concept

what makes a preference hypocritical or proper?

my argument is that you can't find a flaw in preference. you can DISAGREE with how that preference came about but you can't say it's wrong.

susa is saying, "we are doing it wrong" and that "he is doing it right". that is the basis of his argument. he believes that we should approach the game from another standpoint that is different from the one we've already taken.

if i keep going i'll just end up repeating myself. if my point hasn't been made yet then im not sure how to express it further

We have no or little logical reasoning, precedents, and criteria that helped us choose stages.

lmao, support this now

 

[SuSa]

what makes a preference hypocritical or proper?

We are against the banning of a character.
But go ahead and host tournaments with infinites banned.
But remember we're against it.

If you do not support something, you should be neutral on the subject when creating a standard.

lmao, support this now

*looks back on thread*

Following criteria, precedents, and logical reasoning (with tournament proofs)

Should get started on reading the 50 pages.

:leek:

 

[Jack Kieser]

Omni, you're right. you cannot prove that a preference based decision is empirically wrong (and if you CAN, then the decision wasn't really a preference based one; it was simply mislabeled as such).

You CAN, however, prove that preferences should not be used to make decisions. Imagine if I went up to an umpire in baseball and said that stealing bases was stupid and gay, and that the game is so much more fun and reasonable if you ban stealing bases. I'd get laughed off the diamond. Do you know why? Because...

When your aim is the creation of a competitive ruleset in any game with a community, you are IMPOSING rules on players; any time IMPOSING is happening, you must use logic and reason as basis, because it simply isn't ethical to force your preferences on a large number of people.

That applies to EVERY facet of civilized, social existence. Politics, law, sports, whatever. When there is a social dynamic, you DO NOT IMPOSE PREFERENCE ON A LARGE GROUP. It always ends in revolt and disaster. It always ends in fighting.

This is what we're telling you. Scrubs enforce rules based off of preference. If you want to be in that kind of a community, you are a scrub. I'm calling it right now.

That kind of thinking is bad for the health of the community and for the health of the game. You should tell yourself to stop. You, Omni, should have the mental fortitude and clear leadership to tell yourself that your line of reasoning is unhealthy towards a goal of a healthy community and metagame.

 

[Ripple]

what makes a preference hypocritical or proper?

my argument is that you can't find a flaw in preference. you can DISAGREE with how that preference came about but you can't say it's wrong.

susa is saying, "we are doing it wrong" and that "he is doing it right". that is the basis of his argument. he believes that we should approach the game from another standpoint that is different from the one we've already taken.

if the BBR is trying to be objective in its stance about stages then you shouldn't even have preference. you should have criteria that doesn't cause the game to be unplayable.

once we have the most (not completely) subjective parts of the creation of the game out of the way ( timer number/stocks) then we should be as objective as possible. stages should be under this. anything that fits bannable criteria is banned and everything else is allowed( in some way or another).

we have multilple stages that fall under non bannable criteria and yet we don't allow them. why? because of preference? that shouldn't be the case.

again it comes back to the "TO can do whatever they want" argument. while its true, it shouldn't be encouraged. why? because of double standards that arise during the stage choosing due to preference.

everything I said, but better

 

[SuSa]

BBR = As Objective as possible.
TO's = As Subjective as they feel to be.

/end argument

If that's not the case - the BBR serves absolutely no purpose. Of course, it'd never be abolished with the amount of them that are staff, even one major one being an admin.

I can ban Lucas in my tournaments if I **** well feel like it. Hell - if the entire NATION decided to just ban Lucas. (No reason, whatsoever) would the BBR support it? Just a random, community inspired ban against Lucas?

Hell no they wouldn't, because there isn't any competitive reason to. There is no criteria, precedent, or logical reason behind his ban.

I'm glad the BBR fixed their Bowsercide rule to become more objective on the situation. Will every TO follow suit? Highly doubtful - but that doesn't mean you recommend it.

:leek:

 

[Jack Kieser]

****it, I got BoP'ed. And I tried so hard, too.

Oh, SuSa. I don't know if you were in Pierce's BBR discussion chat today, but since he said it in public, I guess it's ok to post it here. He said that the BBR had already considered full stage striking before this thread was made. Don't know if all of these arguments were brought up, though. So, yeah.

 

[Albert.]

omni is a god

 

[SuSa]

I approve of Pierce's opinion.... except the matchup #'s/words thing. Advantage is so much better than 55:45 or 60:40...


Cut down for relevance, link to thread posted.

MUs in Brawl vary from stage to stage because relevant tools vary. This is especially true in the top match-ups, because characters base their strategies on a dynamic super tools a lot, instead of relying on standard space,zone,poke,pressure,camp techniques that most of the cast uses

However, you probably correctly predicted that this lead me to several dilemmas. How do you determine the overall MU? Also, why would MK ever fight Diddy on FD, or Diddy ever fight MK on Rainbow. Wouldn't any smart Diddy or MK player ban those stages against those opponents?

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=11542937#post11542937

 

[ADHD]

BBR = As Objective as possible.
TO's = As Subjective as they feel to be.

/end argument

If that's not the case - the BBR serves absolutely no purpose. Of course, it'd never be abolished with the amount of them that are staff, even one major one being an admin.

I can ban Lucas in my tournaments if I **** well feel like it. Hell - if the entire NATION decided to just ban Lucas. (No reason, whatsoever) would the BBR support it? Just a random, community inspired ban against Lucas?

Hell no they wouldn't, because there isn't any competitive reason to. There is no criteria, precedent, or logical reason behind his ban.

I'm glad the BBR fixed their Bowsercide rule to become more objective on the situation. Will every TO follow suit? Highly doubtful - but that doesn't mean you recommend it.

:leek:

No offense, but as much as you guys debate, you don't have that much credibility or anything to really back it up other than theory. It hasn't even been tried, so..

Sorry if you feel it's an ad your mominem, because I really don't care when it's true.

 

[SuSa]

I'll have more supporting matches after this Sat. I already had 4 last Sun.

I'll also be speaking to the TO about it while I'm at the tournament, and I also plan to speak to Havok (since he hosts SD tourneys) about it as well when he get's back from Dallas.

You've still yet to argue against my point that the BBR should be as objective as possible, and at this point I don't even care for the ad hominem. My points in the post you quoted still stand.

 

[ADHD]

I'll have more supporting matches after this Sat. I already had 4 last Sun.

I'll also be speaking to the TO about it while I'm at the tournament, and I also plan to speak to Havok (since he hosts SD tourneys) about it as well when he get's back from Dallas.

You've still yet to argue against my point that the BBR should be as objective as possible, and at this point I don't even care for the ad hominem. My points in the post you quoted still stand.

K, and well I don't disagree that it shouldn't be, I'm just arguing that you can sit on your high horses all you want but you won't produce change if your case isn't yet proven to be objective.

 

[Ripple]

K, and well I don't disagree that it shouldn't be, I'm just arguing that you can sit on your high horses all you want but you won't produce change if your case isn't yet proven to be objective.

....its been proven to be objective.....using the BBR criteria for bans

 

[ADHD]

....its been proven to be objective.....using the BBR criteria for bans

How can it be proven objective if it hasn't even been tested out in tournament? Words = / = actions, especially when for something to be foolproof it has to work out in the real deal. I don't know anyone that's tried using this in tournament.