Full Stage List Striking - New name

[Ripple]

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.

a theory does not need to be tested to be proven "objective"

 

[UberMario]

Speaking of the BBR, instead of seeing this as immediately replacing the CP system with FSLS. (like that would happen), why not make it so that there are two "official" ways to set up a tournament? It's obvious that the majority of TOs read the BBR Ruleset as if it were law, so it'd make the chances of FSLS being used more likely. I'd guarantee, that after at least a half-a-year-to-a-year of having a dual system, FSLS will have been used enough in tournaments for people to KNOW if they do or do not want it.

 

[ADHD]

a theory does not need to be tested to be proven "objective"

In this case it does, lol.

 

[Jack Kieser]

No, ADHD. Objective theories can be wrong, yes, but "testing" is not one of the criteria for something to be "objective". This theory may turn out wrong, but to imply that the theory was not created objectively is, well, just wrong; SuSa (and everyone else arguing so far) has looked at this problem from as objective a viewpoint as possible... the viewpoint that says "my opinion is irrelevant; even if the conclusion does not fit my viewpoint, it must be upheld".

Case in point: I hate playing on Port Town. If it weren't for the ****** musics I hacked onto it, I wouldn't play there. But, just because I don't like it, doesn't mean I won't support it in competition... because whether I like something or not is irrelevant.

 

[Omni]

because whether I like something or not is irrelevant.

it is

because when we're making decisions there really isn't any wrong way to move forward.

using stocks, stamina, timer, etc. all of these were our options and we probably could have successfully created a competitive environment with each of these modes if we wanted to

but in the end it came down to a preference as i keep saying

and preferences are based on what we like and do not like

and we ended up liking stocks so booyah

again, if you keep suggesting that what you guys are trying to do is "right" or that something else is "wrong", "irrelevant", etc. and not a new/different idea then idk what to say.

you're ultimately arguing that your philosphy and approach to the game is better and more logical based on the fact that it is your preference to treat the shaping of the game as so

 

[SuSa]

We decided that the condition to win for our competitive community would be to eliminate the opponents stocks - stages would matter.

If we decided that the condition to win for our competitive community was to gather the most coins - stages would matter.

If we decided that the condition to win for our competitive community was to bash Sandbag the furthest - stages wouldn't matter.

Just because some things are made by a subjective choice because it has to be in order for our competitive community to exist does not mean we must subjective ourselves to this biasness as we go lower among these "levels".

I tell my soldier to fight for his country.
I train him to shoot a gun.
A trust him to know when to shoot it.

Notice how I let my control go after a certain point?

 

[Jack Kieser]

No, Omni, we're treating it like that because hundreds, if not thousands, of years of competitive design philosophy is on our side. Or rather, we're on IT'S side.

You see, you're right in that we COULD have made a competitive community around ANY facet of Brawl... but would it be the MOST competitive community possible? THAT'S the question. We don't care about BAD COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENTS. We only care about the BEST ones, and luckily for us, there is established rules and philosophy derived from examining the best and deepest games from thousands of years of competitive game history.

Go. Chess. Football. Guilty Gear. Games I probably can't even pronounce. All of these games have things in common. Compelling win states. High skill requirements. Strategic depth.

If you want to prove something is competitive, all you have to do is show it has those qualities. But, that's not to say that, by comparing the levels of each quality inherent to a system of competition, it is impossible to OBJECTIVELY quantify two or more ideas. Does item A create a MORE COMPELLING win state than item B? Does idea X have a higher skill requirement than idea Y? And does system 1 have more strategic depth than system 2?

All quantifiable questions. All possible to answer OBJECTIVELY. And in this thread, we are asking if restricting starter stages to 5 stages out of over 30 is MORE COMPETITIVE than striking from a full list.

And we've objectively proven that it isn't. Full list striking is more competitive. It creates a more compelling win state through its higher skill requirement of forcing knowledge of more stages and more matchups and has higher strategic depth that is associated with giving a player more viable choices.

It's simple, really. The only reason you wouldn't agree is if you didn't care about having the most competitive community possible. We do. You obviously don't. That doesn't foster a competitive community's health, though. That's what we're calling you out on.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

And we've objectively proven that it isn't.

You haven't, actually.

Also the most competitive? uhhhh that's not what it means to have full stage striking over the normal system, or rather it doesn't matter to what is more competitive.

Most competitive means more people competing in it. I could have a ST2 Akuma legal tournament contest with 1000s of people lining up to win because I'm offering a million dollars as a prize. Is the game degenerate and revolves around a single character? Yes. Is it competitive? Yes because it's people in droves are competing to see who is the best Akuma/top tier who doesn't get super ***** by him.

I could have Guilty Gear on the side with 10 people entering with a prize of $5 dollars to the winner. Is it balanced? yes. Is it very competitive? no.

Competitive matters more so what is at stake and how many people want to aim for it.

Edit: Also you should post Pierce's answer to your question from the chat last night.

 

[SuSa]

By your logic playing with items is obviously far more competitive. More people play with items than those who play without items. So is that more competitive? No. The amount of people does not dictate that it is more competitive, especially since you are giving such a strong reason to compete (one million dollar prize)

Imagine if you swapped those amounts now.

Is ST2 Akuma legal with a $5 pot and 10 entrants competitive?
Is Guilty Gear with a $1,000,000 pot and 1000's of people lining up competitive?

The answer is:
You don't dictate competition by the amount of entrants when such a motive to enter exists.

Imagine if you gave both games a $500 pot. Which game do you think would see more entrants?

Is my region's Track more competitive than the Olympic Games? I mean.. we do have more people running..... it's obviously more competitive?

Right?

WRONG.

 

[Jack Kieser]

All you're arguing is a difference in semantics. It's a legit point, I'll give you that, but it comes, mainly, from the fact that English doesn't have a word that can be used to distinguish the concept of philosophical competitiveness, those factors that make a game deep and compelling (all of that design philosophy from the past thousand years), and the concept of practical competition, the physical act of two people competing at something.

Honestly, if there were a better word, I'd use it. But, there isn't (at least, in this language), and I'm not good at making up words, so I use the word competitive.

Luckily for us, we don't have to WORRY about practical competition; that's already taken care of. People are already playing, joining the community, and people are engaged. So, we don't HAVE to focus on, for instance, maximizing tournament turnout for the purposes of health (TO's will always want higher turnouts). In fact, even if we pissed off all of NY/NJ and they just quit out of sheer stubbornness to change, we'd still have plenty of players to be a practically competitive community (and OoS driving would be less of a hassle, too ).

That means that it's time (well, it's ALWAYS time, but now especially) to worry, primarily, about the philosophical aspects of competition, of maximizing the competitive depth of the game. And this idea will maximize competitive DEPTH more than 5-stage striking will...

...and, again, that HAS been proven. Which is the whole argument.

TL;DR: Don't argue semantics with me. I love language too much and have too good an understanding of it for you to try that.

 

[ADHD]

No, ADHD. Objective theories can be wrong, yes, but "testing" is not one of the criteria for something to be "objective". This theory may turn out wrong, but to imply that the theory was not created objectively is, well, just wrong; SuSa (and everyone else arguing so far) has looked at this problem from as objective a viewpoint as possible... the viewpoint that says "my opinion is irrelevant; even if the conclusion does not fit my viewpoint, it must be upheld".

Case in point: I hate playing on Port Town. If it weren't for the ****** musics I hacked onto it, I wouldn't play there. But, just because I don't like it, doesn't mean I won't support it in competition... because whether I like something or not is irrelevant.

I would say in this case, it would have to be tested to be "objective." You're relying on the single viewpoint that everything possible be involved until it's proven guilty, but alot of the stages being proposed haven't even been experimented on completely in tournament.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Wait, I don't really see how that's relevant. I mean, the only stages that would be on a full list are... stages that aren't banned, anyway. First of all, the BBR did a MUCH better time this ruleset in giving stages that weren't PROPERLY tested before being banned a chance, but even with that in mind, this new CP standard isn't arguing to add stages to the list that aren't already legal.

It's just saying don't make a distinction between what stages can be started on and can't be started on.

 

[SuSa]

Which is why those that are not obviously degenerate are allowed until such a point they can be proven to be degenerate and be banned.

Even in an even numbered stage list where whoever strikes 2nd decided on the final stage - between 2 stages - that is on a more median of bias than how things currently run. (Could be decided by lower/higher port or even a RPS game who strikes first...)

So even banning stages 1 by 1 until the degenerate "borderline" stages have been removed (if any) is still more competitive*.

Underlined for emphasis.

Compelling win states. High skill requirements. Strategic depth.

*from now on when I say "more competitive" it is subject to the following points Jack made which have held true for over hundreds of years.

 

[ADHD]

Wait, I don't really see how that's relevant. I mean, the only stages that would be on a full list are... stages that aren't banned, anyway. First of all, the BBR did a MUCH better time this ruleset in giving stages that weren't PROPERLY tested before being banned a chance, but even with that in mind, this new CP standard isn't arguing to add stages to the list that aren't already legal.

It's just saying don't make a distinction between what stages can be started on and can't be started on.

Well, these newer stages introduced by the BBR were simply brushed upon by semi-good players. They weren't fully explored and tried for abusive tactics.

For example--I don't know why Rookie is taking so **** long to upload our videos--but I was able to circle camp a couple of non-metaknight characters with kirby while the house was up, then able to air-camp and plank until it arose once more. And no, I did not circle camp ganondorf or bowser as my test subjects. I tried against fox, and wario, who did hit me eventually, but it was from my mistakes.

Which is why those that are not obviously degenerate are allowed until such a point they can be proven to be degenerate and be banned.

And why are we risking this when solid money is on the line?

Even in an even numbered stage list where whoever strikes 2nd decided on the final stage - between 2 stages - that is on a more median of bias than how things currently run. (Could be decided by lower/higher port or even a RPS game who strikes first...)



So even banning stages 1 by 1 until the degenerate "borderline" stages have been removed (if any) is still more competitive*.

Underlined for emphasis.

*from now on when I say "more competitive" it is subject to the following points Jack made which have held true for over hundreds of years.

I have been wondering why an even number of stage strikes haven't been considered so far.

 

[SuSa]

And why are we risking this when solid money is on the line?

Because we need to test it in locals and smaller tournaments before finding if it's great for those nationals is needed. If anything it needs to be tried seriously in friendlies in a competitive setting. That is much harder to use as data however.

Because I didn't even think about the issue of who strikes first and how an even stage list could be used. Removing the need to ban any stage (or add one) to begin with.

This is why rules/ideas aren't flawless when made by one person. I'm human I make mistakes.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

By your logic playing with items is obviously far more competitive. More people play with items than those who play without items. So is that more competitive? No. The amount of people does not dictate that it is more competitive, especially since you are giving such a strong reason to compete (one million dollar prize)

Imagine if you swapped those amounts now.

Is ST2 Akuma legal with a $5 pot and 10 entrants competitive?
Is Guilty Gear with a $1,000,000 pot and 1000's of people lining up competitive?

The answer is:
You don't dictate competition by the amount of entrants when such a motive to enter exists.

Imagine if you gave both games a $500 pot. Which game do you think would see more entrants?

Is my region's Track more competitive than the Olympic Games? I mean.. we do have more people running..... it's obviously more competitive?

Right?

WRONG.

If more people want to compete in something, regardless of the circumstances that game is more competitive because it is harder to win as there are more people who want to compete in it.

Could you flip the situation, sure. Don't change my point about what is competitive.

All you're arguing is a difference in semantics. It's a legit point, I'll give you that, but it comes, mainly, from the fact that English doesn't have a word that can be used to distinguish the concept of philosophical competitiveness, those factors that make a game deep and compelling (all of that design philosophy from the past thousand years), and the concept of practical competition, the physical act of two people competing at something.

Honestly, if there were a better word, I'd use it. But, there isn't (at least, in this language), and I'm not good at making up words, so I use the word competitive.

Luckily for us, we don't have to WORRY about practical competition; that's already taken care of. People are already playing, joining the community, and people are engaged. So, we don't HAVE to focus on, for instance, maximizing tournament turnout for the purposes of health (TO's will always want higher turnouts). In fact, even if we pissed off all of NY/NJ and they just quit out of sheer stubbornness to change, we'd still have plenty of players to be a practically competitive community (and OoS driving would be less of a hassle, too ).

That means that it's time (well, it's ALWAYS time, but now especially) to worry, primarily, about the philosophical aspects of competition, of maximizing the competitive depth of the game. And this idea will maximize competitive DEPTH more than 5-stage striking will...

...and, again, that HAS been proven. Which is the whole argument.

TL;DR: Don't argue semantics with me. I love language too much and have too good an understanding of it for you to try that.

Subjective.

There is no evidence that this is will maximize competition. Having more options doesn't make a game better if the options are bad for competitive play.

Also since you didn't post Pierce's answer to your question I will.

Pierce made it clear that this idea was brought up already in the past. He also said that the BBR thought that the stage list made some characters too good on CP stages.

Player vs Player or Character vs Character was more important to preserve than Player vs Player vs Stage than the outside elements some stages add are too disruptive.

Norfair and other stages aren't completely banned, rather being tier 3 stages because some member don't think these stages are banworthy while other do think they are unfit for competitive play.

Pierce answered my question about Norfair when I brought up Wario's and Speed timing out on this stage, he said not everyone was sure it was unbeatable because of the lava.

Stages are important for competitive play, stages shouldn't be the focus of who wins or loses. This is a stance I accept and agree with.

Take it up with the people who run this if you have a problem with it.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Dude, read the thread. I posted the ONLY RELEVANT PART of Pierce's answer (the fact that the BBR, at one time, discussed this idea), like, two pages ago. I didn't post it again because I already did. Calm down; it's not like I'm trying to misrepresent him or anything.

Also, the arguments we've posted so far, once again, aren't subjective just because you say they are. They are objective because...

...*drumroll*...

...they used an independent criterion for general competitive game design that has existed (and been proven to be true) for literally a thousand years. The arguments we've presented have been devoid of PERSONAL bias, because the arguments we put forth do not use concepts like "opinions"; everything is backed up with either previous Brawl precedent or previous competitive game design precedent, along with just common sense.

We have not, nor ever will, make an argument that infers we are right "because that's what we feel is best".

*slams head against brick wall... again*

 

[Life]

Jack, you'd better stop with the facewall or you'll lose too much brain function to keep fighting. Which would be a shame.

 

[SuSa]

If more people want to compete in something, regardless of the circumstances that game is more competitive because it is harder to win as there are more people who want to compete in it.

Could you flip the situation, sure. Don't change my point about what is competitive.

With that logic I could make anything competitive.

Eat 5 pounds of dog **** before anyone around us does, I'll pay you $1,000,000.

Bam. I just made a dog **** eating contest. Is it the most competitive concept ever? No... it has money though.

Would people normally compete in this? **** no, but money does some crazy **** to screwing with what people are willing to do.

Want to know why people play Soccer as a recreational sport that revolves around competition even though there is no money on the line until you get into pro-level play?

Because there isn't money on the line until you get into pro-level play. While there is more competition that does not involve money - that which does is the most competitive for a different reason than the money. It has less competitors but it's more competitive?

That's going entirely against your logic.

Want to find the most competitive aspect?

I'll pay you $5 to eat 5 pounds of dog **** before anyone else around here.
Alternatively I'll pay you $5 if you can score a goal against anyone around here. (Speaking of a soccer goal)

You can only choose one. Which would you choose?







Wow I'm tired. This post probably doesn't make sense... off to dinner though.

 

[Jack Kieser]

*drools on keyboard* ...daaah? Wha? *ahem* ...alright, gotta shake it off. *sigh* I think I'll be ok.

 

[ADHD]

Maybe not you specifically, but I know Raziek and BPC are doing this because they love stages.

 

[SuSa]

Irrelevant? The logic is still there.

There is a difference between blindly supporting something without reasoning or logic and supporting something because it is logical.

I'm leaning more towards "they love stages" because it is the logical choice.

 

[Raziek]

I'm doing it because I favor a more diverse, deep game.

I always laugh when people accuse me of bias towards Marth, when I advocate PTAD and Skyworld as legal stages. xD

 

[ADHD]

Irrelevant? The logic is still there.

There is a difference between blindly supporting something without reasoning or logic and supporting something because it is logical.

I'm leaning more towards "they love stages" because it is the logical choice.

In terms of the idea "banning everything unless necessary," then yes, it is the logical choice.

But I'm tired of the bull**** that comes with it, like adapting to stages. YES, YOU CAN ADAPT ON HARD COUNTERPICKS, but it's so slight, and completely outweighed by limiting every character even more so than the room to adapt. Even metaknight becomes more limited on RC than on battlefield and static stages. The metagame barely expands, and then shrinks--maybe in theory it's great--more options and everything's improved when you're not playing on these stages at the moment and typing on your keyboard, but let's analyze something like PS2 for example, which has been a major target of the common ironic notion that more = better.

Ice: Yes, you can slide. You can charge smashes with shutter-steps and running upsmash across the stadium.

Yet, you lose shield pressure due to it's almost nonexistent friction. There is no strategical planning on ice other than camping. Is this really expanding a player's skill? Think about it. If you want to attack, then just mindlessly sliding shield or something, I suppose.

Air: How are you supposed to do anything in this? You're brainlessly throwing out aerials and spamming airdodge if you are even in range of your opponent. Oh, and if you hit them, it won't lead into another attack because they've flown 5 feet above you in the air.

Treadmill: I can't even think of anything. When I've played on this stage, the only thing I remember any player doing was trying to avoid falling off, or just planking or residing on the levitating platforms. I can't even recall much hitting going on whatsoever.


So yes, technically, there is "more" to keep up with, but it's not as if you can really utilize this terrain in a skillful manner. It's constantly being said that "more" or "varying" terrain is equivalent to requiring more skill and therefor being better competitively. No, it's not, and no one has ever gone into great detail pointing out specific parts of unique stage terrain to prove it, either.

 

[Albert.]

So yes, technically, there is "more" to keep up with, but it's not as if you can really utilize this terrain in a skillful manner. It's constantly being said that "more" or "varying" terrain is equivalent to requiring more skill and therefor being better competitively. No, it's not, and no one has ever gone into great detail pointing out specific parts of unique stage terrain to prove it, either.

**** I needed some lubing up after that last paragraph and I wasn't even the one gettin' *****

 

[SuSa]

And if that poses to honestly be a problem.

BAN IT

I'm not supporting PS2 specifically. I'm not supporting any stage that isn't currently legal. If you see a problem with a currently legal stage strike or ban it for the match. If it is degenerate to competitive play ban it altogether.

Guess what? Even Pierce stated the following:

For example. I have determined that on Final Destination, the MU for MK vs Diddy Kong on Final Destination is 6-4 Diddy Kong. The flat stage with no platforms favors Diddy and his banana super tool. However, on Rainbow Cruise, it is probably 70-30 Metaknight, because it favors MK, and his flying super tool.

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?

Shall I make that more understandable?

Wouldn't any smart -insert character here- or -insert character here- player ban those stages against those opponents?

Meaning any competitive player should know the best stages to strike on Game 1.

Essentially a full stage list system is exactly like our current one except 3 more bans and a less biased stage on Game 1.

Stupid **** like what you guys bring up would only happen to players who either lack skill or knowledge of the game. Trying to protect them is exactly comparable to banning Ganon because he's that bad and the player should never win as him due to the disadvantage - but we don't do that, and guess what. Ganon's won a few tourney matches.

I am not arguing for you to be completely ****ed over my the stage. Guess what? I'm arguing for the exact opposite and to save the portion of the cast that is screwed due to our biased and illogical stage list.

 

[WindMajor]

So yes, technically, there is "more" to keep up with, but it's not as if you can really utilize this terrain in a skillful manner. It's constantly being said that "more" or "varying" terrain is equivalent to requiring more skill and therefor being better competitively. No, it's not, and no one has ever gone into great detail pointing out specific parts of unique stage terrain to prove it, either.

The fact that there's "more to keep up with" means that there is more to adapt to, and adapting is a necessary skill in Brawl. The more things you have to "keep up with", the more competitive depth the game has, because having more to keep up with means that you have to use your adaptation skills more often. Assuming we're talking about a stage, you have to learn the mechanics of X hazard that you have to avoid, learn how to manage yourself, the opponent, and the stage at the same time, and make strategies that incorporate X object into your game, along with a couple of other things that I can't think of atm. If you were to simply remove said stage, you wouldn't have to learn anything about the stage, thus, making the game less competitive in terms of depth.

Utilizing the terrain in a skillful manner is a completely separate issue, and the examples you used for PS2 don't fall under degenerate as much as they fall under lame.

 

[SuSa]

The fact that there's "more to keep up with" means that there is more to adapt to, and adapting is a necessary skill in Brawl. The more things you have to "keep up with", the more competitive depth the game has, because having more to keep up with means that you have to use your adaptation skills more often. Assuming we're talking about a stage, you have to learn the mechanics of X hazard that you have to avoid, learn how to manage yourself, the opponent, and the stage at the same time, and make strategies that incorporate X object into your game, along with a couple of other things that I can't think of atm. If you were to simply remove said stage, you wouldn't have to learn anything about the stage, thus, making the game less competitive in terms of depth.

Utilizing the terrain in a skillful manner is a completely separate issue, and the examples you used for PS2 don't fall under degenerate as much as they fall under lame.

Why don't you post more often?

 

[WindMajor]

I'm always browsing from my phone, and when I'm on my PC, I'm usually doing homework.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I missed Ripple's post earlier, I'm sorry 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

So the premise becomes stop character X from running you out by playing the character or the counter character or you lose only.

That is ban worthy criteria right there.

Dude, read the thread. I posted the ONLY RELEVANT PART of Pierce's answer (the fact that the BBR, at one time, discussed this idea), like, two pages ago. I didn't post it again because I already did. Calm down; it's not like I'm trying to misrepresent him or anything.

Also, the arguments we've posted so far, once again, aren't subjective just because you say they are. They are objective because...

...*drumroll*...

...they used an independent criterion for general competitive game design that has existed (and been proven to be true) for literally a thousand years. The arguments we've presented have been devoid of PERSONAL bias, because the arguments we put forth do not use concepts like "opinions"; everything is backed up with either previous Brawl precedent or previous competitive game design precedent, along with just common sense.

We have not, nor ever will, make an argument that infers we are right "because that's what we feel is best".

*slams head against brick wall... again*

Oh Jack, silly silly silly, you know better than to cherry pick parts of a statement or article to prove your point. Then it allows you to twist what they said to your advantage so you can prove a point.

Oh might point out where you posted it. Because after this post.

****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.

You never posted a thing he talked about leaving out key points he brought up. Susa posted his offer on how to do match-ups purposefully focusing on the point about Diddy vs MK, oh one is a starter and the other is a CP stage? Don't care.

Mu's change from stage to stage...well yeah if I gave Wario the perfect time out stage yeah his match-ups on that stage would drastically change, but hey after all you can strike it, since it's common character knowledge that Wario is good here so you should expect to ban the stage even though it focuses the game more on, who can abuse the most stages better, while removing, what can I do to my opponent if they are this character?

The fact that there's "more to keep up with" means that there is more to adapt to, and adapting is a necessary skill in Brawl. The more things you have to "keep up with", the more competitive depth the game has, because having more to keep up with means that you have to use your adaptation skills more often. Assuming we're talking about a stage, you have to learn the mechanics of X hazard that you have to avoid, learn how to manage yourself, the opponent, and the stage at the same time, and make strategies that incorporate X object into your game, along with a couple of other things that I can't think of atm. If you were to simply remove said stage, you wouldn't have to learn anything about the stage, thus, making the game less competitive in terms of depth.

Utilizing the terrain in a skillful manner is a completely separate issue, and the examples you used for PS2 don't fall under degenerate as much as they fall under lame.

Your missing a key point he said.

He said it removes options/depth from characters, not players. While there are stage that do buff or help more than hurt, CP more often nerf or limit the cast more than buff or help it.

It perfectly fair to expect people to learn a stage if it's in the game, but if the stage turns into who can abuse the stage list better for lol wins. Then it turns into what Melee had for a while with Fox & Jiggs on Pokefloats and other CP stages.

Edit: Dang it I missed Susa's now

With that logic I could make anything competitive.

Eat 5 pounds of dog **** before anyone around us does, I'll pay you $1,000,000.

Bam. I just made a dog **** eating contest. Is it the most competitive concept ever? No... it has money though.

Would people normally compete in this? **** no, but money does some crazy **** to screwing with what people are willing to do.

Want to know why people play Soccer as a recreational sport that revolves around competition even though there is no money on the line until you get into pro-level play?

Because there isn't money on the line until you get into pro-level play. While there is more competition that does not involve money - that which does is the most competitive for a different reason than the money. It has less competitors but it's more competitive?

That's going entirely against your logic.

Want to find the most competitive aspect?

I'll pay you $5 to eat 5 pounds of dog **** before anyone else around here.
Alternatively I'll pay you $5 if you can score a goal against anyone around here. (Speaking of a soccer goal)

You can only choose one. Which would you choose?







Wow I'm tired. This post probably doesn't make sense... off to dinner though.

Yep, because you put 1,000,000 dollars as incentive on the line so people are more willing to do it, if more people are willing to compete at eating dog crap then it's more competitive because more people want to compete in this.

Some people value money as part of a reason they compete as much as doing what wins and enjoy it.

 

[SuSa]

If this was true:

CP more often nerf or limit the cast more than buff or help it.

Than that is a horrible excuse to have any stage. Also what viewpoint are you speaking this from? One of a 5-stage-starter list?

Counterpicks play to a character's strengths and weaknesses. How genuinely good the character is on a given stage.

If your character is hurt by a lot of counterpicks that is saying something about your character.

Your character is bad.

The only reason you would even think otherwise is because of the biased and unneeded buff we gave to your character while nerfing a large majority of the cast with our current stage list.

 

[Albert.]

Does anyone else here really like Pokemon stadium 1 ?

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

If this was true:


Than that is a horrible excuse to have any stage. Also what viewpoint are you speaking this from? One of a 5-stage-starter list?

Counterpicks play to a character's strengths and weaknesses. How genuinely good the character is on a given stage.

If your character is hurt by a lot of counterpicks that is saying something about your character.

Your character is bad.

The only reason you would even think otherwise is because of the biased and unneeded buff we gave to your character while nerfing a large majority of the cast with our current stage list.

Your bolded is my rebuttal, is nerfs a large portion of the cast and has the game revolve around characters who do the broken tactics the best.

or I guess Snake is bad because he can't catch Wario on temple or New Pork City, but I guess that is just a character weakness and you should know who your faster or slower than, so it's perfectly fine to leave legal because you can strike it.

Also rebuttal to the dog crap contest in my previous post.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Oh Jack, silly silly silly, you know better than to cherry pick parts of a statement or article to prove your point. Then it allows you to twist what they said to your advantage so you can prove a point.

Ok, first of all, I didn't acutally ask Pierce about this thread, if you'll remember. The question I asked him, specifically, was if the BBR made a habit of discussing issues brought up by posters like us even if its not a popular issue. I didn't even ASK him about his opinion on this thread; the only reason I referenced it was to give an example of a highly discussed thread that the general community didn't really care about.

His answer, with the exception of that ONE LINE where he said this topic had been discussed before, was solely about the BBR's procedures for bringing up discussion topics, which was all I asked him about. And, when I posted the ONE LINE of his response that was relevant to this thread, if you'll take the time to read, it was ONLY to let SuSa know that this topic had been discussed in the BBR before, NOT to "prove a point".

Don't you dare accuse me of misrepresenting Pierce or his statements, because I didn't. In no way have I used anything he said as an argument. I respect that man immensely, and I would NEVER dare to do that.

 

[SuSa]

Difference between degenerate tactic and "gay/stupid" tactic. I've already explained this point.

It's why Temple and New Pork City are currently banned. They are degenerate.

You know what stages aren't degenerate?

Currently.
Legal.
Stages.

Why aren't they degenerate?

Because we haven't banned them for being degenerate yet. As far as the current legal stages is concerned, I only see a few in the current Group 3 of Counterpicks that could be argued to be degenerate. But the current fact is they haven't been stated to be degenerate yet.

There is a difference between being polar as hell and degenerate. You know where that line is crossed?

Legal | Banned

See that line? That's where you cross it.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Ok, first of all, I didn't acutally ask Pierce about this thread, if you'll remember. The question I asked him, specifically, was if the BBR made a habit of discussing issues brought up by posters like us even if its not a popular issue. I didn't even ASK him about his opinion on this thread; the only reason I referenced it was to give an example of a highly discussed thread that the general community didn't really care about.

His answer, with the exception of that ONE LINE where he said this topic had been discussed before, was solely about the BBR's procedures for bringing up discussion topics, which was all I asked him about. And, when I posted the ONE LINE of his response that was relevant to this thread, if you'll take the time to read, it was ONLY to let SuSa know that this topic had been discussed in the BBR before, NOT to "prove a point".

Don't you dare accuse me of misrepresenting Pierce or his statements, because I didn't. In no way have I used anything he said as an argument. I respect that man immensely, and I would NEVER dare to do that.

You brought up the policy and used this thread as a key example in which he addressed this thread, by talking about it.

You left out key parts he said about this.

Which is lie by omission.

Difference between degenerate tactic and "gay/stupid" tactic. I've already explained this point.

It's why Temple and New Pork City are currently banned. They are degenerate.

You know what stages aren't degenerate?

Currently.
Legal.
Stages.

Why aren't they degenerate?

Because we haven't banned them for being degenerate yet. As far as the current legal stages is concerned, I only see a few in the current Group 3 of Counterpicks that could be argued to be degenerate. But the current fact is they haven't been stated to be degenerate yet.

But wait!

You know if your character can't handle this tactic so there fore you should have banned the stage.

I'm pointing out the flaw in your, "Giving characters hard counter picks that gives them ridiculous polar advantages which turns the game into who can do more broken tactics on stages" more than "Who is the better character against the cast against other characters."

 

[SuSa]

Difference between degenerate tactic and "gay/stupid" tactic. I've already explained this point.

It's why Temple and New Pork City are currently banned. They are degenerate.

You know what stages aren't degenerate?

Currently.
Legal.
Stages.

Why aren't they degenerate?

Because we haven't banned them for being degenerate yet. As far as the current legal stages is concerned, I only see a few in the current Group 3 of Counterpicks that could be argued to be degenerate. But the current fact is they haven't been stated to be degenerate yet.

There is a difference between being polar as hell and degenerate. You know where that line is crossed?

Legal | Banned

See that line? That's where you cross it.

Got the end of a page + wanted to address another point.

Yep, because you put 1,000,000 dollars as incentive on the line so people are more willing to do it, if more people are willing to compete at eating dog crap then it's more competitive because more people want to compete in this.

Your argument is now "whatever has the most incentive is more competitive".

If you don't see the problem with that logic - I'll assume splitting is competitive and getting payed to throw a match is competitive.

Please go tell that to MLG and see how it passes with them.

EDIT:
Jesus ****ing christ riding on a llama. You don't get it? Do you?

Having a polar counterpick (which should've been banned against you by your opponent) is not comparable to having a degenerate stage.

Falco vs Bowser on Japes = Polar as hell, Falco should win.
Kirby vs Jigglypuff on Japes = Far less polar, possibly even pretty even.
Snake vs DK on Japes = Mildy in one's favor (it's argued over who's, I say Snake's most people disagree with me)
Marth vs Ike on Japes = I don't even know this matchup on this stage.

Falco vs Bowser on Temple = Degenerate. Falco can circle camp Bowser with ease by outspeeding him.
Kirby vs Jigglypuff on Temple = Degenerate. Jigglypuff can circle camp Kirby with ease by outspeeding him.
Snake vs DK on Temple = Degenerate. Snake can circle camp DK with ease by outspeeding him.
Marth vs Ike on Temple = Degenerate. Marth can circle camp Ike with ease by outspeeding him.

Temple will always be degenerate simply because the faster character will win.
Japes, however polar, will not always give a certain character trait the win.

If you still can't see the difference between polar and degenerate at that point, I advise you just keep any comments about the competitive scene to yourself. Please. Do us all a favor.

Why isn't Brinstar banned?

Because it's only heavily polar for a portion of the cast. It's not degenerate. This is why the player should ban it against their opponent if their opponent is a member of the cast that is polar.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Got the end of a page + wanted to address another point.

How is this different from PTAD or other stages, you lose unless you are someone who can abuse the stage the best rather than being a better player with your character.

Your argument is now "whatever has the most incentive is more competitive".

If you don't see the problem with that logic - I'll assume splitting is competitive and getting payed to throw a match is competitive.

Please go tell that to MLG and see how it passes with them.

EDIT:
Jesus ****ing christ riding on a llama. You don't get it? Do you?

Sonic = Fastest char. in game. Uncatchable if he circle camps. He overcentralizes the game and makes it degenerate. Truly a "Pick Sonic or lose" situation.

Having a polar counterpick (which should've been banned against you by your opponent) is not comparable to having a degenerate stage.

Not necessarily, some might have more incentive but it's what people want to play with the incentive. Adding the incentive is a way to get more players so people will want to play it more.

People can pick and choose which they want, they don't want PTAD, because people think the stage is bad for competitive play for what it does.

Our community drew a line of what was too far and we go with it.

 

[SuSa]

Got the end of a page + wanted to address another point.



Your argument is now "whatever has the most incentive is more competitive".

If you don't see the problem with that logic - I'll assume splitting is competitive and getting payed to throw a match is competitive.

Please go tell that to MLG and see how it passes with them.

EDIT:
Jesus ****ing christ riding on a llama. You don't get it? Do you?

Having a polar counterpick (which should've been banned against you by your opponent) is not comparable to having a degenerate stage.

Falco vs Bowser on Japes = Polar as hell, Falco should win.
Kirby vs Jigglypuff on Japes = Far less polar, possibly even pretty even.
Snake vs DK on Japes = Mildy in one's favor (it's argued over who's, I say Snake's most people disagree with me)
Marth vs Ike on Japes = I don't even know this matchup on this stage.

Falco vs Bowser on Temple = Degenerate. Falco can circle camp Bowser with ease by outspeeding him.
Kirby vs Jigglypuff on Temple = Degenerate. Jigglypuff can circle camp Kirby with ease by outspeeding him.
Snake vs DK on Temple = Degenerate. Snake can circle camp DK with ease by outspeeding him.
Marth vs Ike on Temple = Degenerate. Marth can circle camp Ike with ease by outspeeding him.

Temple will always be degenerate simply because the faster character will win.
Japes, however polar, will not always give a certain character trait the win.

If you still can't see the difference between polar and degenerate at that point, I advise you just keep any comments about the competitive scene to yourself. Please. Do us all a favor.

Why isn't Brinstar banned?

Because it's only heavily polar for a portion of the cast. It's not degenerate. This is why the player should ban it against their opponent if their opponent is a member of the cast that is polar.

I edited it because you still can't see the difference between polar and degenerative.

PTAD is only polar for a select portion (under 5-6) of the cast. You said this yourself. Ban it vs those 5-6, it's perfectly fine for every other matchup that doesn't include those 5-6. Correct? Heavily polar != degenerative.

Not necessarily, some might have more incentive but it's what people want to play with the incentive. Adding the incentive is a way to get more players so people will want to play it more.

If I'm getting payed to throw matches, I'll totally play. Especially if it's a known thing "Yah, you get payed to throw the final match sometimes to build hype and such."

I know I'd be attending a lot more tournaments if I was getting payed to lose. Must be reallllllll competitive.

Incentive does not make competitive play. It makes an incentive to play. Huge difference.

If I payed you $30,000 to use the Atkins Diet instead of some other diet (or you know, just exercising and eating properly) but I told you if you exercised or used meals not from my diet you won't get the $30,000 what would you do?

Does this make my diet the best way for you to lose weight or are you doing it for the $30,000?

How about if you really, really, really love the color blue. It beats red in every possible ****ing way, blue is awesome - you hate red.
But hey buddy, we're taking a personal quiz today and I'll give you $5,000 to say you like red more than blue. Would you say it? I mean.. $5000 just to lie over your favorite color? Are you saying red is the better color? Or are you lying for the money?

 

[-LzR-]

Striking from the full list might be nice in theory, but in the end, it would be just the long route to smashville.