Full Stage List Striking - New name

[SuSa]

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

Except not once did I end up on Smashville in the 4 times I've done this in person.

Also, as always, if two players agree upon a stage they can play it. But it's only hurting the player in the end so it is their choice to do so if they wish.

I know sure as **** unless SV was the fairest stage I wouldn't be willingly putting myself at a disadvantage Game 1.

EDIT:
Most stages only end up on SV from a 5 stage list starter because the other 4 are polar or biased in some way. I rarely see a match NOT start on SV nowadays It's like asking me if I want:

Brinstar
Brinstar
SV
RC
RC

Opponent - RC
Me - WTF why is Brinstar listed twice
Opponent - IDK but so is RC]
Me - Looks like we're going Smashville. Brinstar

 

[DMG]

If you only had 1 degenerative stage legal though, you could solve the problem by banning or striking it for your set. Actually, you could allow every stage to be legal and simply have the players strike down what they believe is degenerative (giving them the option to play on a banned stage if they feel the matchup is fairly even due to neither character being able to abuse the stage to a degenerative level). It would give more depth because my opponent can choose to take a risk and let me have Hyrule, or ban something else he doesn't like because he believes I will strike Hyrule and I turn around and strike something else, etc

There's a line between degenerative and extremely polar. What defines that line? Sure, I can say Hyrule is banned for being degenerative and extremely polar, but what level of extremely polar does a stage have to achieve for it to become "degenerative?"

Skyworld is degenerative... yet it's only dominated by a select few of the cast (assuming they are playing gay in the first place). If those characters are not playing on the stage, it is perfectly acceptable for competitive play. Hanenbow only has 1 competitive problem and that is your character is boned vs the select few who have the mobility to circle camp here easily. There's no problem with Falco vs IC's here, but there would be if it was Wario vs IC's or G&W vs Lucario or Sonic vs Olimar.

Most banned stages besides Wario Ware and Mario Bros tend to be banned because "Well if your opponent picks any 1 character from a group that abuse the stage, and you are not also playing one of those characters, you basically auto lose." That's not very far off from some of our current/recently added CP stages at all.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

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.

Yeah, just like Temple where it's fine as long as your not too fast for your opponent or have a way to chase properly.

Do the tactic or be not affect by polar stages or lose, which is degenerate.

edit: Also what DMG said.

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?

Bringing up something unrelated to what I said, splitting has nothing to do with winning with players who play to win.

Completely unrelated point.

Post something related to what I posted next time.

 

[SuSa]

If you only had 1 degenerative stage legal though, you could solve the problem by banning or striking it for your set. Actually, you could allow every stage to be legal and simply have the players strike down what they believe is degenerative (giving them the option to play on a banned stage if they feel the matchup is fairly even due to neither character being able to abuse the stage to a degenerative level). It would give more depth because my opponent can choose to take a risk and let me have Hyrule, or ban something else he doesn't like because he believes I will strike Hyrule and I turn around and strike something else, etc

There's a line between degenerative and extremely polar. What defines that line? Sure, I can say Hyrule is banned for being degenerative and extremely polar, but what level of extremely polar does a stage have to achieve for it to become "degenerative?"

Skyworld is degenerative... yet it's only dominated by a select few of the cast (assuming they are playing gay in the first place). If those characters are not playing on the stage, it is perfectly acceptable for competitive play. Hanenbow only has 1 competitive problem and that is your character is boned vs the select few who have the mobility to circle camp here easily. There's no problem with Falco vs IC's here, but there would be if it was Wario vs IC's or G&W vs Lucario or Sonic vs Olimar.

Most banned stages besides Wario Ware and Mario Bros tend to be banned because "Well if your opponent picks any 1 character from a group that abuse the stage, and you are not also playing one of those characters, you basically auto lose." That's not very far off from some of our current/recently added CP stages at all.

Arguably we good strike from a 100% complete list. I'm not arguing for that, but you could. But by saying these stages aren't degenerative is to say you have no criteria to have them banned right now. Which is a huge no-no.

Temple isn't just any 1 character, it's "whatever character is faster in the ground/air". This applies to pretty much every stage banned for circle-camping.

Also there would be a problem with Falco vs IC's there. (Falco's side-B)

I already explained that line of extremely polar and degenerative. No matter what one character or the other is going to have a sure-win until it reduces to a ditto.

Please refer to my Jungle Japes/Temple example.

Bringing up something unrelated to what I said, splitting has nothing to do with winning with players who play to win.

Completely unrelated point.

Post something related to what I posted next time.

No, it's extremely applicable.

You said the tournament with more entrants is the most competitive - due to a ludicrous example of incentive ($1,000,000).

I applied that same logic (more people=better) to other topics.

If I payed every user of the Atkins diet $10,000 to use and recommend my diet over other diets - assuming I had the funds to pay every person willing to do this. I would outshine my competition (other diets) right? Does that make me the better diet? No.

My diet could suck ***, but the incentive of $10,000 would make plenty of people use and recommend it, no matter how much it sucked. It could be one of the worst diets in the world, but I'm getting more people using my diet than any other.

Likewise with competition.

I'm likely to get far more entrants if I just place the only rules as "Default settings but 3 stocks, no timer" than if I used any other ruleset. Why?

A ****ton of casual players would probably come with competitive players (who are looking for the easy cash from the casuals). Does that make my ruleset more competitive? No, just more inviting.

After all - if it was more competitive, we'd all be casual players playing with items on any ol' stage we wished, because TO's are running more successful tournaments with a higher payout to the winners.

Right?

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Arguably we good strike from a 100% complete list. I'm not arguing for that, but you could. But by saying these stages aren't degenerative is to say you have no criteria to have them banned right now. Which is a huge no-no.

Temple isn't just any 1 character, it's "whatever character is faster in the ground/air". This applies to pretty much every stage banned for circle-camping.

Also there would be a problem with Falco vs IC's there. (Falco's side-B)

I already explained that line of extremely polar and degenerative. No matter what one character or the other is going to have a sure-win until it reduces to a ditto.

Please refer to my Jungle Japes/Temple example.

This doesn't draw a line on what is too far, your going to have to be objective...which banning inheritably isn't

No, it's extremely applicable.

You said the tournament with more entrants is the most competitive - due to a ludicrous example of incentive ($1,000,000).

I applied that same logic (more people=better) to other topics.

If I payed every user of the Atkins diet $10,000 to use and recommend my diet over other diets - assuming I had the funds to pay every person willing to do this. I would outshine my competition (other diets) right? Does that make me the better diet? No.

My diet could suck ***, but the incentive of $10,000 would make plenty of people use and recommend it, no matter how much it sucked. It could be one of the worst diets in the world, but I'm getting more people using my diet than any other.

Likewise with competition.

I'm likely to get far more entrants if I just place the only rules as "Default settings but 3 stocks, no timer" than if I used any other ruleset. Why?

A ****ton of casual players would probably come with competitive players (who are looking for the easy cash from the casuals). Does that make my ruleset more competitive? No, just more inviting.

After all - if it was more competitive, we'd all be casual players playing with items on any ol' stage we wished, because TO's are running more successful tournaments with a higher payout to the winners.

Right?

Your talking about something outside of the game itself, it's not applicable. You can split, but if you were playing to prove you were the best at something and win, then splitting isn't doing that.

Not applicable at all.

Same with your example, promoting a diet by bribing people is promoting an idea about how to stay healthy to live, not compete at a game to see who is better at it.

You would get more entrants with 3 stock no timer? If you put 1,000,000 dollars, yes your game would be competitive because you placed a large incentive on the line for people to play it, so yes it is more competitive because more people want to compete in it.

More people want to compete on non tier 3 stages because they placed a line down and said they crossed it.

It's objective when you set a standard, a community will always set what is the standard. Is Akuma too far and should be banned...well if the community thought they could handle it then it wouldn't be banable to them.

 

[DMG]

"Arguably we good strike from a 100% complete list. I'm not arguing for that, but you could. But by saying these stages aren't degenerative is to say you have no criteria to have them banned right now. Which is a huge no-no."

No I agree, the stages are still degenerative. There's no doubt about that. I just pointed out that technically you can handle degenerative stages by letting players strike them off for themselves. Instead of telling players "No that's too negative of a stage to start on", you can say "Just strike it if it's a problem".

 

[SuSa]

This doesn't draw a line on what is too far, your going to have to be objective...which banning inheritably is.

Yes, it does. We currently have that distinction.

That is why some stages are banned - and others are legal.

The issue is following our precedents we've set and our own criteria.

Your talking about something outside of the game itself, it's not applicable. You can split, but if you were playing to prove you were the best at something and win, then splitting isn't doing that.

Not applicable at all.

With this logic, anyone outside of money spots (Top3 for most tournaments) isn't competitive. You're playing to prove you are the best at something but losing because you aren't competitive/knowledgeable/skillfull enough to win.

Same with your example, promoting a diet by bribing people is promoting an idea about how to stay healthy to live, not compete at a game to see who is better at it.

How about my diet is the McDonalds diet. Still saying it's promoting a healthy way to live? :B You're ignoring my POPULAR != BETTER argument entirely.

You would get more entrants with 3 stock no timer? If you put 1,000,000 dollars, yes your game would be competitive because you placed a large incentive on the line for people to play it, so yes it is more competitive because more people want to compete in it.

Quite frankly, there are far more casual players than competitive players. Than there is the distinction between casual/competitive and actual competitive.

Actual competitive players want the game to be the most competitive game possible to judge their skills and compete.

Casual/competitives may just want to play because it's fun to play with others and the rules let them play with the items they love oh-so-much.

It's objective when you set a standard, a community will always set what is the standard. Is Akuma too far and should be banned...well if the community thought they could handle it then it wouldn't be banable to them.

The issue is not "thinking" they can handle it. It's actually handling it. There is a point where things are obviously degenerate to gameplay. (Even the game designer saying the character is broken? Hint hint?)




You're trying to argue against hundreds and hundreds of years of accepted philosophy about what is best for competition. Are you completely ignoring Jack's posts or what?

I swear if I get the "But we chose stock!" argument I'm going to bust out a 3 page essay on how that's not even an argument. Instead I'll try to use a short example instead.


List of competitive sports:

• Soccer - uses a ball
• Baseball - uses a ball
• Basketball - uses a ball
• Football - uses a ball

List of game modes:

• Timer - is in Smash
• Stock - is in Smash
• Stamina - is in Smash
• Coins - is in Smash

How is this applicable in any way?

• Soccer = Timer
• Baseball = Stock
• Basketball = Stamina
• Football = Coins

See the difference yet? Or do I have to make it more obvious?

Yea, you're subjective as far as what game are you playing goes. Past that, you must be objective based on what is most competitive for your win criteria.


EDIT FOR DMG:

No I agree, the stages are still degenerative. There's no doubt about that. I just pointed out that technically you can handle degenerative stages by letting players strike them off for themselves. Instead of telling players "No that's too negative of a stage to start on", you can say "Just strike it if it's a problem".

Actually, I change my stance on this due to striking and the bias that would result in allowing degenerate stages.

Take the following example:

I'm a Sonic main. I'll let my opponent strike each and every degenerative stage - because it allows me to strike more towards my favor while he gets rid of over 10 SURE WINS.

Of course, these aren't sure wins because I'm horribly polar on the stage - but because the stage itself is degenerate.

Allowing degenerate stages would get rid of the neutral bias I'm trying to create for Game 1.

/yay for overlooking that on my first comment

 

[John12346]

Response to Red Ryu:
Okay, I'm gonna hold a tournament with 25 stocks, 0.5 damage ratio, Warioware, 75m, and Summit as the only legal stages, and Fans, Smashballs, Heart Containers, and Maxim Tomatoes set on high on Special Brawl with "Reflect" mode activated.

On the same day as this 3 stock, one million dollar tournament.

The pot in my tournament will have one billion dollars and one wish.

SUPAR COMPETITIVE!

Response to DMG, as an addendum to Susa, I guess:
Keep in mind that some stages aren't completely degenerate in specific matchups. For example, if I were fighting, say, Kirby, I wouldn't mind leaving Temple active because I could feel I could keep up with him should he decide to run away.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Seriously Red Ryu, just... stop. Your arguments have become AWFUL. It's just... god dammit, that's REALLY bad.

 

[SuSa]

I found an argument against allowing degenerate stages.

Actually, I change my stance on this due to striking and the bias that would result in allowing degenerate stages.

Take the following example:

I'm a Sonic main. I'll let my opponent strike each and every degenerative stage - because it allows me to strike more towards my favor while he gets rid of over 10 SURE WINS.
Of course, these aren't sure wins because I'm horribly polar on the stage - but because the stage itself is degenerate.

Allowing degenerate stages would get rid of the neutral bias I'm trying to create for Game 1.

I found the (stupidly obvious) way to allow a 22 stage list (no banning Pipes just yet! Or any other stage!)

Either the player with higher (or lower) port strikes first. Alternatively they can RPS.*

*Since RPS is used to decide port, it makes sense to use it for striking. Since if I win in RPS I can decide which port I want, I should be able to decide who strikes first.

I need to work on the best way to strike the stages however. Currently the OP is the only way I can think of.

I need to update the OP to have an even-stage strike method. I'll probably edit that in tomorrow.

Anyone want to help? 3+ minds > 1

EDIT:

My post on the banned stages+criteria (still missing a few tidbits)
For my easy finding

 

[DMG]

After a certain point, the argument of "just strike/ban stages if there's a problem" goes out the window if you introduce way too many stages that have problems. Either both of you are gonna be wasting time striking all the newly introduced, formerly banned stages, or one of you is gonna get a lopsided advantage by not striking them and letting your opponent go down a long list of stages he has to strike or basically auto lose to you. I don't like the "strike/ban it" argument overall because it never asks the question of "Is this too much?" And in the more extreme case of allowing banned stages, you wouldn't have sufficient tools to respond to any problems if you just stick with "Ban/strike it".

 

[SuSa]

Did you read my current argument against the degenerative play?

Also you are still reaching a median of bias. If your opponent still gets an advantageous stage after you strike off the list. Tough break, they're playing a better character.

If your character is ONLY GOOD ON 3 STAGES. Sorry, your character has a flaw and is bad. We shouldn't be covering that up with a bandaid and take away Mr. Awesome's 15 good stages and leave him with his 5 worst stages because of Mr. Boo Boo over there who's only good on 3 stages.

Also I'm against allowing degenerative stages for the reason it ruins the median of bias. If I'm DDD and you're a character I can CG - I can just leave all 10 walkoff stages for you to strike. This let's me have a median of bias that is +10 in my favor only because of a degenerative stage.

Not because I'm just good on a number of stages, but because a number of stages were degenerative.

Also there shouldn't be any (well, besides POSSIBLY Skyworld?) banned stages that are introduced into gameplay. These stages are banned under a specific criteria and even some of the currently legal stages may be subject to the same criteria!

I currently see 23 stages being the max, 22 being the current, and maybe 18-19 being the lowest point if certain stages are banned.

EDIT:
tl;dr
FULL stage list striking is WORSE than any CURRENTLY LEGAL 5 stage starter....

 

[DMG]

askdjakd

It was addressed to him, not to you. Ofc I agree full stage striking is much worse. He sounded like he supported it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDEgCkLtELQ

This explains everything.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

I proposed striking out of the whole stage list a while ago, made a thread about it and an AiB blog [which I've deleted again].

If a stage's illegality is based on one character being to strong then usually it's not the character himself that's too good but more the stage that's broken. The character just happens to abuse the stage better or is affected less by it due to a certain attribute of his. Sonic is not "too good" by any means and yet his extreme speed is a huge argument on why Hyrule Temple must be banned - because he can abuse his biggest strength to an extent where it literally becomes a game of "pick Sonic or lose".
Not all stages are that extreme but it still applies to others - even though to a smaller extent. It's not that MK "is broken" on Brinstar or Rainbow Cruise. The stages themselves are broken and MK just happens to be less affected by it than any other character - not to an extent that he becomes unbeatable on either stage though.

It's fairly easy to reasonably ban either stage without using MKs strength on them as the basis of your argument. Much more than that, it's a [subjective] definition of competitive play. Some people stress the importance of the "counterpick system" as a pillar of game play. This is absolute nonsense as the counterpick system is nothing but a fictional idea that has been imposed on the ruleset but it's a completely subjective idea. You can argue that counterpicking and learning to deal with the hazards of stages is competitive. But that's completely subjective and dealing with it as if it was a fact is a huge fault on the "liberalist" side.
In the same hand I will argue that in a game, where the main goal is to remove 3 stocks of the opposing player, hazards should be removed if they pose a permanent threat to both players to an extent where the stage becomes more or equally important as the opposing players. This logic clearly applies to both Brinstar and Rainbow Cruise.

Why am I telling you all this? Because I want my rationale behind my personal interpretation of a good stage list and striking system. Whether you agree with it or not: I have a competitively logical explanation why - in my opinion - Brinstar and Rainbow Cruise have no place in tournament settings and it's never based on the power of an individual character.

Final Destination
Battlefield
Smashville
Pokémon Stadium
Pokémon Stadium 2
Yoshi's Island
Lylat Cruise
Castle Siege
Halberd
Delphino Plaza
Frigate Orpheon

These are the 11 stages in the game, where the stage neither threatens to damage you permanently [like Brinstar, Norfair, Rainbow Cruise] nor to an extent that can kill you drastically early [like PTAD, Norfair, Rainbow Cruise, Pictochat].

Edit: Just to make this clear. I'm by no means a supporter of "conservative" ideas. These are just useless labels that nobody should care about. Just because a liberal person would look at my stage list as conservative, doesn't mean I can't agree with liberal ideas. I'm all for implementing custom stages into that striking system as long as the requirements for the stage are met.

 

[Omni]

you have so many arbitrary rules set in place for your stage list, susa

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

People are forgetting a key point in my people + money = competition.

People make a game competitive by wanting to play it. If no one wants to play a game then the game isn't very competitive.

Popular does equal competitive because you have to beat and work through more players to win. Money is a factor in these things because if you put more money on the line more people are likely to enter and compete for the glory/money.

A game could have key problem or just sound stupid, but that doesn't matter because if people like playing it for whatever reason and make it competitive because a lot of people want to compete in it. Money can add extra incentive for people to want to compete in something because you gave a greater reward for it.

People make something competitive by coming together and having an interest in competing. If no one wants to play Mighty Morphing Power Rangers Frighting Game, then the game isn't very competitive because there are less people you have to compete against.

~

The criteria that the community seems to put down is that the stage adds too much for some characters that they overly dominate on the stage or that the stage adds elements that they deem anti-competitive.

Change their minds about that.

 

[Life]

/nitpicking

In the same hand I will argue that in a game, where the main goal is to remove 3 stocks of the opposing player, hazards should be removed if they pose a permanent threat to both players to an extent where the stage becomes more or equally important as the opposing players.

Why is this? What is so bad about hazards? What makes the lava/acid more important than the players? If I'm Falco and I spike you into the lava/acid, the player is still the most important factor-you would not have jumped in by yourself, after all.

 

[SuSa]

you have so many arbitrary rules set in place for your stage list, susa

Point them out please. I've changed nothing.

1) Stages that are banned are banned due to being degenerate.
2) Striking is decided the same way it currently is (once I remember/take a look)
3) Counterpicking is exactly the same but more stages=more bans.

Please tell me where the arbitrary rules (you know, ones I've added) are set in place for my stage list?

I'm literally changing as little as possible. Except for the addition of bans (adding more polar stages for EVERY CHARACTER sort of requires this, otherwise the game would dwindle down to "Well of these 3 stupidly polar stages, pick the one you don't want to lose on."

The goal with my counterpick system is to never give someone a freebie or anything even CLOSE to it if you are picking a viable character.

I mean, if the goal of the current counterpick is to give freebies we should just call it "I'll always win Game2" instead of the counterpick system.


EDIT:
@Gheb
I've already explained the difference of degenerate play and polar play.

Sonic vs _____ is a free win on Temple. This is DEGENERATE .
Falco vs _____ on Japes is just polar depending on your opponents character. It's never a free-win against the entire cast. Just against the bad cast. This is POLAR.

EDIT 2:
@Gheb still

You can argue that counterpicking and learning to deal with the hazards of stages is competitive. But that's completely subjective

Uhm. No. Learning to deal with the hazards of the stage adds game depth and a higher skill level. Shall I refer back to what a competitive game is? It's objective.

Once you get past polar and into degenerate you take away from the skill level needed to win as well as other key aspects of the competitive game. This is why we ban things for being degenerate. They are UNCOMPETITIVE

Jack's post. Read it:

Spoiler

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.

 

[Yikarur]

I mean, if the goal of the current counterpick is to give freebies we should just call it "I'll always win Game2" instead of the counterpick system.

but it isn't.

 

[SuSa]

That's exactly what it goes Game 1. It may not be the goal, but that's the result.


Also @ those arguing that "groups can't be wrong" I'll bring in a scientific example.

How many people said the Earth was round? Not flat?
How many people said the Earth was flat?
How many people were wrong?


@Red Ryu
You can't see anything about drawing a parallel can you? I'm pretty sure everyone else but you get's the point I'm trying to make with my examples - but it goes right over your head.

The criteria that the community seems to put down is that the stage adds too much for some characters that they overly dominate on the stage or that the stage adds elements that they deem anti-competitive.

Except that they are wrong. The current 5 stage starter list detracts from so much characters that they are nerfed into submission on the stages and removes stage elements that they need. This is removing competitive depth and competitive knowledge from the game.

Both of which (duh) are competitive. Until you can get some criteria, follow a precedent, and look at things from an objective viewpoint (not just some biased one, which most everyone is which is why we need to have an objective viewpoint) you won't see why this is just that bad of an idea.


When you look at competition, and how competitive one thing is there is a major thing you have to look at.

If you want to call in the money=competition, than the entire Brawl community is anticompetitive because there sure are a lot more communities out there that have more entrants at their tournaments and a larger pot for the winner.

 

[Yikarur]

That's exactly what it goes Game 1. It may not be the goal, but that's the result.

again, it isn't.

 

[SuSa]

Congratulations, epic debate.
It is.

(Refute the other points, or don't just say "it isn't" otherwise HELLO IGNORE LIST. Seeing as you aren't bringing anything useful to the debate.)

 

[Yikarur]

you always say stuff like
"Sheik is ***** by our current system" and stuff.
"Chars get autowins etc"
BUT IT JUST ISN'T THE CASE.

why do you think that? show me your arguments for this kind of testimony because I don't understand it.

 

[SuSa]

Sheik is forced to play on a poor stage the moment the opponent strikes Yoshi's Island (Brawl).

Anyone who excels on a static stage is given a huge boost over the cast compared to those who don't. (Why do you think most people strike FD first against Falco and Diddy Kong?)

Our system, whether it was the goal or not, has ended in a way that has an extremely large, and biased effect on the cast. We chose "starters=static stages" for absolutely no clear reason - and even if the "reason" was clear. It's not for a competitive reason, I've already disproven that.

Especially when you are a group such as the BBR - you need to be as objective as possible when creating a rule list. Let the TO's be the one's who end up being subjective and modifying it for their region, etc. But the top dogs, so to speak, must be objective.

This entire thread is turning into:

Side A argues objectively using philosophy from hundreds of years that has proven to work.
Side B argues subjectively against the idea.
Side A re-iterates itself in a new way.
Someone feels side A is logical/right so decide to host a tourney/try it out.
Side B again argues subjectively or tries to argue semantics.
Side A defends the point again, even bringing up criteria and precedents to suport us.
Another person comes along and decides to try out side A's idea.
Side B continues with their subjective standpoint.



This thread goes in circles until Side-A brings up something new and Side-B decides to attack it without thinking, we then spend about 7-8 pages defending it before you guys wait for us to bring something new up so you can attack that instead (because you see how you aren't going to win that other debate)

The issue with this circle debate?

One side is objective using criteria and precedents along with competitive philosophy that has been around far longer than anyone playing this game has been alive arguing what is best on a competitive level for the game.

The other is extremely subjective and biased - ignoring all criteria and precedents for what they feel is best for the game.

 

[ADHD]

The only reason is because when money is on the line, of course people are going to have the viewpoint that the more interactive stage hazards are "gay." This is not going to go away, either. If you play on these stages, you'd understand why because often they do strip you of options in a matter of seconds even if it's not of your doing. Now I wish I could have gone to Dallas and played one of you on something like Norfair with a play-by-play during the match to explain why it has it's flaws in a competitive environment.

Also, if your ruleset was so correct and pure, then why wouldn't more players be supporting it? It only seems to be the same 5 consistent people.

 

[SuSa]

*notices how a few people have dropped by to support* 2 non-debaters so far? Right? In one of the least active boards on SWF.

As for Norfair that could easily fall under degenerate if someone can prove that simply having more air mobility than your opponent will allow you to win once you get the first hit. I personally don't feel lava has a large effect on the circle camping, as if you have a large enough lead those what... 10-15 seconds of lava? won't make much of a difference. Just abuse the ledges, maybe hit your opponent, and wait for the lava to retreat.

But my goal isn't to ban Norfair, now is it? If you think it's degenerate, bring it up with the BBR and prove it falls under the criteria.



"If the world really was round and had reasoning behind it - why aren't more people supporting? They're just trying to lynch you for it, you're wrong."
Oh science, when have thou failed me?

 

[ADHD]

That would work if we weren't free to say whatever we wanted to already and the idea hadn't been introduced ages ago.

 

[SuSa]

Norfair isn't specific to my line of reasoning anyways. Even in the current system it can be seen as degenerate and banworthy. So your example was meaningless to begin with.

My point is:
The world is round.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

@Red Ryu
You can't see anything about drawing a parallel can you? I'm pretty sure everyone else but you get's the point I'm trying to make with my examples - but it goes right over your head.

Your missing the key points.

Doesn't matter if a game is "better or worse" what matters is if people want to play it or not. MvC2 has one of the worst character balances in a competitive fighter, yet people like the game play elements and play it, and work towards winning, therefore competitive.

Guilty Gear is very balanced and skill based, however many people notice the large difficulty the game inherently has, so some people have difficulty getting into it so they don't compete in it.

People make competition, that is a fact.

Except that they are wrong. The current 5 stage starter list detracts from so much characters that they are nerfed into submission on the stages and removes stage elements that they need. This is removing competitive depth and competitive knowledge from the game.

OR we're adding stages that will ultimately limit the cast to huge proportions, because the CP stages are far too strong for competitive play.

And again, 5 stage starter lists don't care who benefits, since it's not a goal of it.

Both of which (duh) are competitive. Until you can get some criteria, follow a precedent, and look at things from an objective viewpoint (not just some biased one, which most everyone is which is why we need to have an objective viewpoint) you won't see why this is just that bad of an idea.


When you look at competition, and how competitive one thing is there is a major thing you have to look at.

If you want to call in the money=competition, than the entire Brawl community is anticompetitive because there sure are a lot more communities out there that have more entrants at their tournaments and a larger pot for the winner.

As I said before, banning to some level is going to be subject. It is impossible to be completely objective while doing it, because to one community Old Sagat is banable and to another he isn't.

What is too far? What is tolerable? People have to draw a line that will always be in some way subjective and you need to get people to agree with you.

In our communities case, people beleive that the stages are ban worthy.

Money is an incentive to create competition for some people, not everyone. You will get more people to compete when there is a larger sum of money on the line among competitive players.

Of course not everyone plays strictly for money, I don't consider money rather I want to just win and compete.

 

[SuSa]

Your missing the key points.

Doesn't matter if a game is "better or worse" what matters is if people want to play it or not. MvC2 has one of the worst character balances in a competitive fighter, yet people like the game play elements and play it, and work towards winning, therefore competitive.

Guilty Gear is very balanced and skill based, however many people notice the large difficulty the game inherently has, so some people have difficulty getting into it so they don't compete in it.

People make competition, that is a fact.

Yes. I am not arguing that. I'm arguing your incentive logic. Which one of those two makes more money?

As far as difficulty goes, that's a poor reason. Maybe GG is just a very poor competitive game? Melee is fairly balanced, skill based, but is very difficult to pick up and learn. But people do it anyways. Brawl on the other hand is less balanced, less skill based, and very easy to pick up and learn. People. Still. Play it.

So I'm going to look at GG being less competitive, it's as simple as that.

OR we're adding stages that will ultimately limit the cast to huge proportions, because the CP stages are far too strong for competitive play.

No, because you should never play on an extremely polar stage. EVER unless you are a complete idiot.

And again, 5 stage starter lists don't care who benefits, since it's not a goal of it.

I killed a man to protect myself. (With a goal)
I killed a man because I felt like it. (With no reason)

End result:
A man is dead

As I said before, banning to some level is going to be subject. It is impossible to be completely objective while doing it, because to one community Old Sagat is banable and to another he isn't.

That is called being subjective and being objective. I'm willing to bet one or the other is right - I just don't care to look into it. If I had to guess, the objective viewing people don't see O. Sagat as bannable (IIRC it's just a soft ban anyways?) While the subjective omfg he's broken people see him as bannable.

Needless to say, the objective side is right.

What is too far? What is tolerable? People have to draw a line that will always be in some way subjective and you need to get people to agree with you.

No. DEGENERATE is too far. POLAR is tolerable.

That line is very, very, very, very, very, very, very

Spoiler

very, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, veryvery, very, very, very, very, very, very

clear. I've explained it three times already.

In our communities case, people beleive that the stages are ban worthy.

That.
Doesn't.
Make.
Them.
Right.

That's why our community is so ****ing split apart it's pathetic. Because nobody seems to be able to be objective except a few outliers. No wonder our community is looked down upon as being a **** competitive community.

Because we're anticompetitive as ****.

 

[Yikarur]

No wonder our community is looked down upon as being a **** competitive community.

Because we're anticompetitive as ****.

I'm very sure people of other fighting game communitys would laugh about your concept.

 

[SuSa]

Yes, because there are sooooo many flaws in my objective concept.

The only "flaws" are "Omfg these stages are gay I don't want to learn them BAAAWWW" which is subjective as ****.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

The only reason is because when money is on the line, of course people are going to have the viewpoint that the more interactive stage hazards are "gay." This is not going to go away, either. If you play on these stages, you'd understand why because often they do strip you of options in a matter of seconds even if it's not of your doing. Now I wish I could have gone to Dallas and played one of you on something like Norfair with a play-by-play during the match to explain why it has it's flaws in a competitive environment.

Also, if your ruleset was so correct and pure, then why wouldn't more players be supporting it? It only seems to be the same 5 consistent people.

Need I remind you that the country voted Bush in twice, and that one of the elections was a blatant cheat that we let him get away with? Need I remind you that one seriously looked-at politician is against the separation of church and state? Need I remind you that the ********, full-of-**** incarnation of the tea party is on the rise, sponsored by big business? Need I remind you that people are ****ing ********? I went over this just a few pages ago! Jesus ****ing christ man!

I'm very sure people of other fighting game communitys would laugh about your concept.

LOLOLOLO

Seriously, you wanna know why other fighting game communities laugh at us?
BECAUSE WE ARE ****ING SCRUBS! Seriously! Think about it for a moment! We choose subjective bull**** reasoning above the objectively best way to play the game for no reason. Seriously, this post is everything that is wrong with the community.

 

[Omni]

what part of there is no right or wrong don't you get susa

 

[SuSa]

There is no right and wrong on a subjective level. There is on an objective level.

What part of that don't you get Omni dearest?

 

[UberMario]

Need I remind you that the country voted Bush in twice, and that one of the elections was a blatant cheat that we let him get away with? Need I remind you that one seriously looked-at politician is against the separation of church and state? Need I remind you that the ********, full-of-**** incarnation of the tea party is on the rise, sponsored by big business? Need I remind you that people are ****ing ********?.

Was that really necessary? And it's not like the democrats were better.

The only reason is because when money is on the line, of course people are going to have the viewpoint that the more interactive stage hazards are "gay."

You mean like how people view things such as Meta-Knight's antics, DeDeDe's grab, bananas, lasers, and the like?

This is not going to go away, either.

True.

If you play on these stages, you'd understand why because often they do strip you of options in a matter of seconds even if it's not of your doing.

Only IF you do NOT know what you are doing and can not adapt, the only tourney legal stages that can strip options rapidly are Brinstar, Rainbow Cruise, Pirate Ship, and Pictochat. All of the others are benign in nature. INCLUDING Norfair. In most cases, the options lost are replaced with more options that were not available beforehand, most notably at stages like Pokemon Stadium 1/2, Norfair, Castle Siege, Delfino Plaza, Port Town, and Luigi's Mansion.

Now I wish I could have gone to Dallas and played one of you on something like Norfair with a play-by-play during the match to explain why it has it's flaws in a competitive environment.

How many of us were going to go anyway? Most of us don't live that close to Texas you know. The closest we'd get to battling you anytime soon would presumably be online, considering at least you, BPC, and I [SuSa can't though] have our FCs posted that isn't unfeasible, though it's obviously worse than playing in person, it'd be [debatably] better than not playing at all.

I still don't know how you managed at 17 [or younger] to get permission to go across the nation to play video games . . . . . .

Also, if your ruleset was so correct and pure, then why wouldn't more players be supporting it? It only seems to be the same 5 consistent people.

There is no "correct" ruleset for Smash, there are only what is preferred and what is not. Also, the BBR Ruleset, 'nuff said. The only two things that consistently differ from it are ledge-grab-related and sacrificial ko-related.

 

[Omni]

There is no right and wrong on a subjective level. There is on an objective level.

What part of that don't you get Omni dearest?

you approaching the game objectively is subjective, lol.

and even on an objective level there STILL isn't a right or wrong. just paths. there is no right or wrong way to tackle how the stage list should be handled no matter how objective you get. depending on which path you choose you have to commit to a preference

you already completely ignored the majority of my arguments earlier. try not to avoid these/change the subject, Susa

 

[SuSa]

Second thought, ignore what I posted here.

I'll give you a response on Sunday when I get back from the tournament.

For now, this will do:

There is no such thing as right or wrong to begin with. It's a human concept. It doesn't actually exist. So let's not argue semantics here. You know very well what I mean.

 

[Omni]

omni

vs.

hundreds and hundreds of years of competitive philosophy

...

lmao, i got this

btw, you slipped when you said philosophy. as you probably know philosophy is a belief which is what you're backing your argument with. but let me see if i can get this straight

you are trying to enforce your BELIEF on how you THINK we should play this VIDEO GAME based on HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS of YEARS of COMPETITIVE PHILOSOPHY.

wtf

 

[SuSa]

You left out one aspect.

we should play this VIDEO GAME

Should be:

we should play this COMPETITIVE GAME

Because that's what we're trying to do? No?

Anyways. Bus time. Bye.