SuSa
Banned via Administration
I'm thinking of just going back a few pages and copy-pasting it to be honest.
:leek:
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Full Stage List Striking - New name
- Thread starter SuSa
- Start date
:leek:
Raziek
Charging Limit All Day
If that's what he IS saying, the answer for that is pretty simple.
MK gains his advantage when you consider EVERYTHING.
The others only get that advantage on a small subset of stages tailored pretty much specifically for them.
Jack Kieser
Smash Champion
I don't get what DMG is arguing anymore. Do you think that the CP system, or at least the way in which we deal with match 1, is fine the way it is? Do you think this is just the wrong change to make? Or do you honestly don't see how selecting certain stages for match 1 will (and it will) artificially buff characters with certain skillsets?
Do you think it's fine that way?
I really want to know exactly what your position is on this, because short of holding the actual tournaments, we've pretty much logically destroyed any notion that the current widespread desire for a stereotypical "FD, BF, SV, + 2", five-static-stage starter set is competitively good. So, what exactly are you arguing against?
Do you think it's fine that way?
I really want to know exactly what your position is on this, because short of holding the actual tournaments, we've pretty much logically destroyed any notion that the current widespread desire for a stereotypical "FD, BF, SV, + 2", five-static-stage starter set is competitively good. So, what exactly are you arguing against?
Yes choosing the starters will buff and nerf certain characters. That's a given. There would be noticeable differences between a current starter list and a full starter list, some would be buffed and some would be nerfed. That's not the problem, that is something that will happen regardless of what stages you include. The problem is people trying to focus on that.
When I say "Hey, let's use a 5 starter list with FD BF SV etc", it's not because I'm trying to find some balance of "air" and "ground" stages. If your character likes FD, I don't care. If your character likes Brinstar, I don't care. I'm not basing my additions to the starter list based on how much I think characters like or dislike them.
Look at Brinstar. What makes it an acceptable starter stage at all? The fact that it's a polar opposite to a stage like FD and benefits characters who like to hop around all day? That would be a GARBAGE reason to add it. From what I am getting, it's basically "It's ok to use bad stages as long as they cancel each other out and people use the good stages". If that's your goal, to get people to start on good stages, why even give them the option of garbage stages? Why not just have a starter list of the good stages?
I don't see why adding clear (and I mean CLEAR) CP stages to the starter list will solve anything. They are labeled CP for a reason: they are inherently imbalanced towards certain characters quite strongly (noticeably more than the starters) but not to an unreasonable level (might have to reevaluate the legality of stages like Brinstar, at least with MK in the picture). If just about everyone can agree that a stage like Brinstar is pretty imbalanced and heavily favors those like MK and Wario to a strong degree, then I don't see why 5 minutes later everyone is like "Well let's add in Brinstar, it's balanced."
Maybe you think a common starter like FD should be a CP. Fine. I'll give you FD since it's a pretty strong CP for a lot of characters. It's not as bad as Brinstar: the characters who like FD all have to play RPS with each other for advantages and evens... while Brinstar is like " HE PICK MK, WHAT DO?!?!?". But sure, have FD taken off. Now replace it with something else like PS2. That's much better than saying "Clear CP stages are acceptable to start on because:
1. Players can choose to strike it/will strike it/can choose to keep it and make that decision
2. It balances out the overall starter list
3. Any legal stage is fine to start on despite any hard imbalances that would normally lead it to be labeled a clear CP stage
etc
When I say "Hey, let's use a 5 starter list with FD BF SV etc", it's not because I'm trying to find some balance of "air" and "ground" stages. If your character likes FD, I don't care. If your character likes Brinstar, I don't care. I'm not basing my additions to the starter list based on how much I think characters like or dislike them.
Look at Brinstar. What makes it an acceptable starter stage at all? The fact that it's a polar opposite to a stage like FD and benefits characters who like to hop around all day? That would be a GARBAGE reason to add it. From what I am getting, it's basically "It's ok to use bad stages as long as they cancel each other out and people use the good stages". If that's your goal, to get people to start on good stages, why even give them the option of garbage stages? Why not just have a starter list of the good stages?
I don't see why adding clear (and I mean CLEAR) CP stages to the starter list will solve anything. They are labeled CP for a reason: they are inherently imbalanced towards certain characters quite strongly (noticeably more than the starters) but not to an unreasonable level (might have to reevaluate the legality of stages like Brinstar, at least with MK in the picture). If just about everyone can agree that a stage like Brinstar is pretty imbalanced and heavily favors those like MK and Wario to a strong degree, then I don't see why 5 minutes later everyone is like "Well let's add in Brinstar, it's balanced."
Maybe you think a common starter like FD should be a CP. Fine. I'll give you FD since it's a pretty strong CP for a lot of characters. It's not as bad as Brinstar: the characters who like FD all have to play RPS with each other for advantages and evens... while Brinstar is like " HE PICK MK, WHAT DO?!?!?". But sure, have FD taken off. Now replace it with something else like PS2. That's much better than saying "Clear CP stages are acceptable to start on because:
1. Players can choose to strike it/will strike it/can choose to keep it and make that decision
2. It balances out the overall starter list
3. Any legal stage is fine to start on despite any hard imbalances that would normally lead it to be labeled a clear CP stage
etc
Jack Kieser
Smash Champion
Ok, I see what your argument is now. That makes a lot more sense, so thank you for laying it out like that. Of course, I disagree, but I think you'll be surprised as to why.
Your premise (at least, in arguing against a full starter list) is that the starter system we have now is "clear cut" (I guess?), and doesn't allow what you think to be "strong CPs". The system we have now purposefully excludes certain stages on the grounds that they are simply too polarizing and that certain characters do too well on them to consider them for a 1st match stage. It stands to reason, then, that it is our job to decide which stages players can and cannot use match 1.
Now, here's the problem with that logic. And, just a warning, things are about to get philosophical in here, so those with pacemakers, heart conditions, or women who are pregnant or may become pregnant should exit the ride at this time.
One of the most popular arguments for gods is simply that the universe exists, and that something cannot come out of nothing, ex nihilo. Therefore, if the universe exists, a god must have been there to create it, or to circumvent the laws of physics that prevent creation from nothing. For thinking people, the flaw in the argument is obvious, but for the average joe, it's actually REALLY hard to find the problem with this argument. The answer may astound you with its simplicity.
Why not simply assume that, because the universe is here now, the universe was ALWAYS here? There's no reason to assume that the universe couldn't have always existed, other than the fact that it's remarkably hard for the human mind to conceive it.
Same basic principle. You say that the current starter system works, and that the fact that it has flaws A, B, and C is irrelevant since a full starter system would also be flawed... but you don't realize that, in fact, it is the current starter system that has to justify its SERIOUS flaw of buffing / nerfing characters arbitrarily (because your desire for a "static stage" system is totally arbitrary based off of the fact that you don't like match 1 stage interference). This is because, and here's the important part:
A full starter list stage system is the DEFAULT state of competitive Brawl!
You see, we constituted a 5-stage system for starters out of a perceived need (or, in my opinion, stubbornly clinging to an unnecessary old system). But, that need was never really justified, now was it? Is there any reason, other than the fact that, yes, Brinstar could be a round 1 stage for extraordinarily uneducated players, that a full system wouldn't work? It takes longer? Sure, but at the added benefit of having a more neutral round one for ALL characters, not just the top tier. And, much more importantly, round 1 stage balance would be NATURALLY OCCURRING.
This fake "RPS" balance between the top tiers is something WE CREATED, not something that would naturally occur in an unaltered metagame. Or rather, it MIGHT occur, but we never really found that out. Instead, we forced a crude top-tier balance onto the game instead of allowing that balance to occur over time in a natural manner.
What you don't understand (or maybe do, but just don't care) is that an unnatural top tier balance is WAY WAY WORSE than having Brinstar as a possible round 1. At least that is a natural part of the game. And, even that wouldn't really happen, at least not in a stage striking system. Because, you see, having Brinstar be a possible round 1 pick is only a threat in two instances:
A ) the stage is determined randomly
B ) one or both of the players is a n00b
...and, a stage striking system eliminates one of those automatically! So, should we, as a community, protect n00b players from having a skilled, knowledgeable player take them to a polarizing stage? OF COURSE NOT! That's not our responsibility. Hopefully, after getting wrecked the first time, the n00b player will do a bit of reading and find out why Brinstar is a bad stage to go R1. Either that, or he quits, which is also not our problem.
So, you see, your big fear about having polarizing stages be possible R1 picks is unfounded at BEST, and unnecessary at worst, while all of your other arguments beg the question, first assuming that the proposition you set out to prove (that starter stages need to be declared beforehand) is true before you even start to prove it (because we need starter stages to be balanced)!
Your whole argument goes around in circles! So, in short:
* The default ruleset state is a full stage strike system (or at least a full stage system)
* If we want to change that, we need to prove that it is necessary first, for COMPETITIVE REASONS
* A good argument for having a starter list has not been layed out in a competitive sense (because while having a reduced list is faster, it is less competitively deep)
* Having a reduced starter list damages the metagame more than it helps it by creating artificial balances in the top tiers of play
Thus, a full stage strike for match 1 is a better alternative. Q.E.D.
Get at me.
Your premise (at least, in arguing against a full starter list) is that the starter system we have now is "clear cut" (I guess?), and doesn't allow what you think to be "strong CPs". The system we have now purposefully excludes certain stages on the grounds that they are simply too polarizing and that certain characters do too well on them to consider them for a 1st match stage. It stands to reason, then, that it is our job to decide which stages players can and cannot use match 1.
Now, here's the problem with that logic. And, just a warning, things are about to get philosophical in here, so those with pacemakers, heart conditions, or women who are pregnant or may become pregnant should exit the ride at this time.
One of the most popular arguments for gods is simply that the universe exists, and that something cannot come out of nothing, ex nihilo. Therefore, if the universe exists, a god must have been there to create it, or to circumvent the laws of physics that prevent creation from nothing. For thinking people, the flaw in the argument is obvious, but for the average joe, it's actually REALLY hard to find the problem with this argument. The answer may astound you with its simplicity.
Why not simply assume that, because the universe is here now, the universe was ALWAYS here? There's no reason to assume that the universe couldn't have always existed, other than the fact that it's remarkably hard for the human mind to conceive it.
Same basic principle. You say that the current starter system works, and that the fact that it has flaws A, B, and C is irrelevant since a full starter system would also be flawed... but you don't realize that, in fact, it is the current starter system that has to justify its SERIOUS flaw of buffing / nerfing characters arbitrarily (because your desire for a "static stage" system is totally arbitrary based off of the fact that you don't like match 1 stage interference). This is because, and here's the important part:
A full starter list stage system is the DEFAULT state of competitive Brawl!
You see, we constituted a 5-stage system for starters out of a perceived need (or, in my opinion, stubbornly clinging to an unnecessary old system). But, that need was never really justified, now was it? Is there any reason, other than the fact that, yes, Brinstar could be a round 1 stage for extraordinarily uneducated players, that a full system wouldn't work? It takes longer? Sure, but at the added benefit of having a more neutral round one for ALL characters, not just the top tier. And, much more importantly, round 1 stage balance would be NATURALLY OCCURRING.
This fake "RPS" balance between the top tiers is something WE CREATED, not something that would naturally occur in an unaltered metagame. Or rather, it MIGHT occur, but we never really found that out. Instead, we forced a crude top-tier balance onto the game instead of allowing that balance to occur over time in a natural manner.
What you don't understand (or maybe do, but just don't care) is that an unnatural top tier balance is WAY WAY WORSE than having Brinstar as a possible round 1. At least that is a natural part of the game. And, even that wouldn't really happen, at least not in a stage striking system. Because, you see, having Brinstar be a possible round 1 pick is only a threat in two instances:
A ) the stage is determined randomly
B ) one or both of the players is a n00b
...and, a stage striking system eliminates one of those automatically! So, should we, as a community, protect n00b players from having a skilled, knowledgeable player take them to a polarizing stage? OF COURSE NOT! That's not our responsibility. Hopefully, after getting wrecked the first time, the n00b player will do a bit of reading and find out why Brinstar is a bad stage to go R1. Either that, or he quits, which is also not our problem.
So, you see, your big fear about having polarizing stages be possible R1 picks is unfounded at BEST, and unnecessary at worst, while all of your other arguments beg the question, first assuming that the proposition you set out to prove (that starter stages need to be declared beforehand) is true before you even start to prove it (because we need starter stages to be balanced)!
Your whole argument goes around in circles! So, in short:
* The default ruleset state is a full stage strike system (or at least a full stage system)
* If we want to change that, we need to prove that it is necessary first, for COMPETITIVE REASONS
* A good argument for having a starter list has not been layed out in a competitive sense (because while having a reduced list is faster, it is less competitively deep)
* Having a reduced starter list damages the metagame more than it helps it by creating artificial balances in the top tiers of play
Thus, a full stage strike for match 1 is a better alternative. Q.E.D.
Get at me.
ぱみゅ
❤ ~
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2008
- Messages
- 10,010
- Location
- Under your skirt
- NNID
- kyo.pamyu.pamyu
- 3DS FC
- 4785-5700-5699
- Switch FC
- SW 3264 5694 6605
Just (and only) read the OP.
It says that stages and MK (each, not necessarily both) are broken basically.
....
I think the whole thread just isn't worth.... =/
EDIT:
It says that stages and MK (each, not necessarily both) are broken basically.
....
I think the whole thread just isn't worth.... =/
EDIT:
Just noticed that, and I 138% agree!!
SuSa
Banned via Administration
DMG, that "CLEAR CP" is only a CP for certain characters in certain matchups.
Yeah, Brinstar may be broken vs Wario/MK. If you happen to be against either of those characters, simply strike the stage. Problem solved.
But who is to say that ____ vs _____ on Brinstar is not their most neutral stage to battle on? You're only dismissing the stage based on what... two matchups? (Yeah, I know you can find more examples but it's still not centralizing)
So I ask you again. Strike from that full list I gave you, and try to come up with a way why it doesn't work. (Remember how you "broke my allowing cp system" by striking 3 at a time and I proved you wrong? Yeah, doing that again.)
EDIT:
(Jack hasn't seen this yet)
PS: Stop using MK as an example for any of your arguments. He sort of... breaks the counterpick system + stage system + character system regardless of what we create. So he's a horrible example to be using.
:leek:
Yeah, Brinstar may be broken vs Wario/MK. If you happen to be against either of those characters, simply strike the stage. Problem solved.
But who is to say that ____ vs _____ on Brinstar is not their most neutral stage to battle on? You're only dismissing the stage based on what... two matchups? (Yeah, I know you can find more examples but it's still not centralizing)
So I ask you again. Strike from that full list I gave you, and try to come up with a way why it doesn't work. (Remember how you "broke my allowing cp system" by striking 3 at a time and I proved you wrong? Yeah, doing that again.)
EDIT:
(Jack hasn't seen this yet)
PS: Stop using MK as an example for any of your arguments. He sort of... breaks the counterpick system + stage system + character system regardless of what we create. So he's a horrible example to be using.
:leek:
Jack Kieser
Smash Champion
It's cool, SuSa. I'm pretty sure we already ended the thread. 
Also, thanks for posting that; it was the one argument I forgot to make, haha.
Also, thanks for posting that; it was the one argument I forgot to make, haha.
Raziek
Charging Limit All Day
Jack laying down the hurt.
This is entertaining. xD
This is entertaining. xD
ADHD
Smash Hero
For once Jack Pickles doesn't seem crazy.
Jack Kieser
Smash Champion
You know what I say to that, ADHD?
Boogaloogaasdhasjhajsh.
... ... ...
*ahem* I mean, thanks. ^_-
Boogaloogaasdhasjhajsh.
... ... ...
*ahem* I mean, thanks. ^_-
ADHD
Smash Hero
I agree with what you're saying about the starter list, because you actually went in-depth with it more than anyone else ever has.
I still think that for competition sake though, it will always be closer to what we currently have. I can't refute what you said, but that's because there aren't any solid reasons other than I personally think it's better and the community will last far longer with 5 neutrals. And I mean, maybe playing the game simply how the majority of us feel like it isn't the best in logic, but it can be better for maintaining attendance. Striking from every unbanned stage imaginable will result in many extremities within the character cast to the point where it probably won't even be considered.
I still think that for competition sake though, it will always be closer to what we currently have. I can't refute what you said, but that's because there aren't any solid reasons other than I personally think it's better and the community will last far longer with 5 neutrals. And I mean, maybe playing the game simply how the majority of us feel like it isn't the best in logic, but it can be better for maintaining attendance. Striking from every unbanned stage imaginable will result in many extremities within the character cast to the point where it probably won't even be considered.
SuSa
Banned via Administration
What extremeties? If anything a few characters who are inherently bad but are boosted by our current system will weaken, likewise a few characters who are amazing on every stage that isn't one of our current "neutrals" will be strengthened.
Stages for Game 1 will be more fair overall to the players, by allowing them to gain an actual even match for Game 1 - instead of starting off at a disadvantage due to a stage list.
I do agree it's not something you can go cold-turkey into, but it can (and should) be eased into gameplay. The only thing missing is the method in which to strike said stages in a fair way (unlike DMG's broken way he tried to use and get away with) and a way to keep track of said stricken stages.
(21~ stages for example, each player would have to remember what was striked... which is the only real major flaw in this method.... and I'll admit that is a relatively big flaw but I'm certain there is an easy way around it)
[I'm suprised nobody brought THAT argument up....]
Also, again, not every TO has to run their tourney like this. People can stick with their conservative 5 neutral stage stage lists. But I don't feel that should be what the BBR reccommends (seeing as they are all for competition and based their rules off such)
Also - players who do this actually benefit as they will be forced to learn more stages, which will allow them to learn those "lesser played" stages; which the conservative players will then be at a disadvantage (much like the "why we can't ban MK argument, but in reverse") and, if it is effecting their placings at national events - they may adapt.
[But as I take it, EC is pretty conservative, you're from EC, and you did just fine on MLG's stage list...so I'm prepared for counterarguments]
:leek:
Stages for Game 1 will be more fair overall to the players, by allowing them to gain an actual even match for Game 1 - instead of starting off at a disadvantage due to a stage list.
I do agree it's not something you can go cold-turkey into, but it can (and should) be eased into gameplay. The only thing missing is the method in which to strike said stages in a fair way (unlike DMG's broken way he tried to use and get away with) and a way to keep track of said stricken stages.
(21~ stages for example, each player would have to remember what was striked... which is the only real major flaw in this method.... and I'll admit that is a relatively big flaw but I'm certain there is an easy way around it)
[I'm suprised nobody brought THAT argument up....]
Also, again, not every TO has to run their tourney like this. People can stick with their conservative 5 neutral stage stage lists. But I don't feel that should be what the BBR reccommends (seeing as they are all for competition and based their rules off such)
Also - players who do this actually benefit as they will be forced to learn more stages, which will allow them to learn those "lesser played" stages; which the conservative players will then be at a disadvantage (much like the "why we can't ban MK argument, but in reverse") and, if it is effecting their placings at national events - they may adapt.
[But as I take it, EC is pretty conservative, you're from EC, and you did just fine on MLG's stage list...so I'm prepared for counterarguments]
:leek:
Raziek
Charging Limit All Day
SuSa, just use the stage select screen.
I have every legal stage memorized. xD
I have every legal stage memorized. xD
SuSa
Banned via Administration
And the common sense approach worked. <3
Knew it'd be something simple.
:leek:
Knew it'd be something simple.
:leek:
ぱみゅ
❤ ~
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2008
- Messages
- 10,010
- Location
- Under your skirt
- NNID
- kyo.pamyu.pamyu
- 3DS FC
- 4785-5700-5699
- Switch FC
- SW 3264 5694 6605
Only problem I have with having that much stages to strike is the amount od time it would take.
Tournaments would just last forever, wasting too much time only choosing a stage...
Tournaments would just last forever, wasting too much time only choosing a stage...
SuSa
Banned via Administration
Uhm.... no.
I already countered that argument with choosing a fair method of striking stages that makes the process relatively quick, so long as the player is knowledgeable.
It'd take long for indecisive people, which the same could be stated about a 5 stage strike. "Uhm.. I strike..... Final Des-... nah.. Smashv-.... Final De-.... Sma....F-...S-....F-..S-.."
:leek:
I already countered that argument with choosing a fair method of striking stages that makes the process relatively quick, so long as the player is knowledgeable.
It'd take long for indecisive people, which the same could be stated about a 5 stage strike. "Uhm.. I strike..... Final Des-... nah.. Smashv-.... Final De-.... Sma....F-...S-....F-..S-.."
:leek:
Jack Kieser
Smash Champion
"Fin--, Battl--, Fina-- ... ... ...**** it, let's play Smashville."
Strategy of Champions.
Strategy of Champions.
Budget Player Cadet_
Smash Hero
Because, and WE HAVE SAID THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN, the "good" stages in a matchup change from matchup to matchup.
DMG, really, either you can't read, you have a learning disability, or you're actively TRYING not to get it. Also, again, stages like brinstar only matter if it IS the most fair stage or one of the players is awful at striking. Otherwise, your opponent is going to strike it very, very quickly. And they have enough strikes. It isn't like the current 5-stage system where a certain subset of chars has all of their best stages in the very small starter list, and you can't strike enough of them to really make a difference. You have 10 strikes, if you can't throw out every stage MK is broken on with that, MK is probably ****ing broken. But... you can. And I demonstrated it.
Just figured I'd edit that paragraph to fit the other side. ^_^
No seriously, the current problem with the starter list is that a certain group of characters has all their favorite counterpicks in the starter list (because they are bad and don't HAVE strong counterpicks, only stages where they aren't ***), and they will automatically get one of their best stages. When the best I can hope for against falco is the 4th-worst (or, in germany, 2nd-worst) stage in the matchup, there's something wrong. In this system, that does not happen. Everyone has all their best counterpicks in the starter list, but everyone has ten strikes. You think falco would EVER go to FD, BF, or SV? Those stages are a boon for him like no other! No, he'd go to Frigate, or Delfino, or Halberd. Some stage where he's NOT that great.
Umm... Actually you just summed up why it's best and didn't even see it. And point 3 is directly countered by point 1.
I really can't make this any more obvious to you. Reread the thread, and if you still don't get it, you REALLY should resign from the BBR. This isn't an opinionated differentiation like ADHD's. You are trying to argue directly against us without going "well, we think it's better like this", and you are going to fail every time. You're failing very, very hard at logic and reading comprehension here.
To make this perfectly clear: MK would strike Brinstar against Ness. Wario would love to take MK to brinstar; miles better than FD, or SV. G&W would love to go to RC against MK. Snake doesn't really care as long as he avoids Brinstar. Et cetera. Are we getting through at all?
Susa: The same holds true for a lot of the banned stages. They are only bad if you pick x character/s and proceed to run away/abuse the stage. They are still banned however because it's assumed that people will in fact abuse that. Same thing with CP stages: Brinstar is not suddenly a starter if no one picks MK and sharks all day and people fiddle around with Peach vs Diddy instead.
Of course CP's are really strong for only a few characters. What makes them a CP is not specifically favoring a character over another, but the DEGREE to which it favors them. Yoshi's Island Brawl favors a few characters. Sonic and DK really like the stage, but they obviously do not dominate it. Brinstar heavily favors MK over the rest, and then a few like Wario/G&W over the rest. MK dominates the stage clearly. It does not matter if Luigi vs Captain Falcon is even here, or if Wolf does well against Fox here. MK will crap on you. Not in a general "Hey MK beats everyone already on nearly anywhere" sense either.
If the only thing that concerns you about stages is how overall matchups are on the stage, then frankly you would have quite a few banned stages now legal: there are pretty broken *** strategies and abuses on there, but only for a select few characters with everyone else being fairly evenish on the stage. Look at Skyworld: If you don't count x characters who ruin the stage competitively, you can allow it cause Mario can take on Snake here and Peach isn't afraid of Falco anymore. If a few, or even just a single, character dominating a stage extremely hard isn't a problem, then bring forth the horrific skyworld and Hanenbow and friends because some of them are only a problem cause x characters run away too well.
Jack: I disagree with a full stage strike list being the competitive default for Brawl, because there is no set competitive default for Brawl: there is only what we want for the game. There are ingame defaults, but that is just what the game offers. That will not always reflect upon what we want concerning competitive play.
"* The default ruleset state is a full stage strike system (or at least a full stage system)
* If we want to change that, we need to prove that it is necessary first, for COMPETITIVE REASONS
* A good argument for having a starter list has not been layed out in a competitive sense (because while having a reduced list is faster, it is less competitively deep)
* Having a reduced starter list damages the metagame more than it helps it by creating artificial balances in the top tiers of play"
Using every stage that the game offers would be the default. We already break away from that by banning stages that we deem competitively unfit based on our ideals. If you wanted, you could play on Hyrule and see who is the best at abusing running away with the lead. You could include that in your stage list if your ideals were different to where that is acceptable. Heck, if you just included 1 banned stage to the current list like a Hyrule or a Wario Ware, you could accept it into the stage list under the grounds that "people can auto ban it and even if it was a problem it will never see the day of light because of this".
There are only 2 things: the game defaults and what we decide to do based on our competitive ideals. If we really are embracing the idea of "playing Brawl as natural as possible", then we would have no banned stages despite how ugly or ******** they may seem in our competitive sense. We also would have to choose what is the most natural: stocks, coin, or time. Then decide what is most natural: no timer or a timer at all, and if so what amount of time. Items would be what, all items on medium setting?
If we change anything from that, we are shaping the game into what we want based on what we believe is best for the game. After that point, there are no defaults and only that which you believe is acceptable for competition purposes.
Concerning Match 1: there are no competitive defaults for what to do. We conceived the idea of sets in the first place for competitive purposes. The game doesn't tell us what stages are legal, what stages are starters or CP's, how many games to use for a set, whether there should be any differences in stage selection for Game 1 of a set, etc. We have to decide that for ourselves, the game doesn't tell us that and realistically it can't since we were the ones in the first place to ban stages and come up with sets. Sure, maybe your competitive ideals tell you that striking from the full list of legal stages is the way to go, that's fine you are entitled to opinions. But you can't honestly say that your ideals are the default for how the game should be played when frankly we go off of people's varying opinions on what would be best for gameplay and not just always use what the game gives us.
I do agree though that we haven't yet seen how potentially amazing a full list strike system could be. It's still completely unknown what impact it will have IRL. I mean at this point, I would agree that the thought at least deserves some testing. We don't have much to lose from trying it out.
Edit: BPC actually Wario would not want to take MK to Brinstar. Same with G&W. They like the stage, but there's no improvement matchup wise.
Of course CP's are really strong for only a few characters. What makes them a CP is not specifically favoring a character over another, but the DEGREE to which it favors them. Yoshi's Island Brawl favors a few characters. Sonic and DK really like the stage, but they obviously do not dominate it. Brinstar heavily favors MK over the rest, and then a few like Wario/G&W over the rest. MK dominates the stage clearly. It does not matter if Luigi vs Captain Falcon is even here, or if Wolf does well against Fox here. MK will crap on you. Not in a general "Hey MK beats everyone already on nearly anywhere" sense either.
If the only thing that concerns you about stages is how overall matchups are on the stage, then frankly you would have quite a few banned stages now legal: there are pretty broken *** strategies and abuses on there, but only for a select few characters with everyone else being fairly evenish on the stage. Look at Skyworld: If you don't count x characters who ruin the stage competitively, you can allow it cause Mario can take on Snake here and Peach isn't afraid of Falco anymore. If a few, or even just a single, character dominating a stage extremely hard isn't a problem, then bring forth the horrific skyworld and Hanenbow and friends because some of them are only a problem cause x characters run away too well.
Jack: I disagree with a full stage strike list being the competitive default for Brawl, because there is no set competitive default for Brawl: there is only what we want for the game. There are ingame defaults, but that is just what the game offers. That will not always reflect upon what we want concerning competitive play.
"* The default ruleset state is a full stage strike system (or at least a full stage system)
* If we want to change that, we need to prove that it is necessary first, for COMPETITIVE REASONS
* A good argument for having a starter list has not been layed out in a competitive sense (because while having a reduced list is faster, it is less competitively deep)
* Having a reduced starter list damages the metagame more than it helps it by creating artificial balances in the top tiers of play"
Using every stage that the game offers would be the default. We already break away from that by banning stages that we deem competitively unfit based on our ideals. If you wanted, you could play on Hyrule and see who is the best at abusing running away with the lead. You could include that in your stage list if your ideals were different to where that is acceptable. Heck, if you just included 1 banned stage to the current list like a Hyrule or a Wario Ware, you could accept it into the stage list under the grounds that "people can auto ban it and even if it was a problem it will never see the day of light because of this".
There are only 2 things: the game defaults and what we decide to do based on our competitive ideals. If we really are embracing the idea of "playing Brawl as natural as possible", then we would have no banned stages despite how ugly or ******** they may seem in our competitive sense. We also would have to choose what is the most natural: stocks, coin, or time. Then decide what is most natural: no timer or a timer at all, and if so what amount of time. Items would be what, all items on medium setting?
If we change anything from that, we are shaping the game into what we want based on what we believe is best for the game. After that point, there are no defaults and only that which you believe is acceptable for competition purposes.
Concerning Match 1: there are no competitive defaults for what to do. We conceived the idea of sets in the first place for competitive purposes. The game doesn't tell us what stages are legal, what stages are starters or CP's, how many games to use for a set, whether there should be any differences in stage selection for Game 1 of a set, etc. We have to decide that for ourselves, the game doesn't tell us that and realistically it can't since we were the ones in the first place to ban stages and come up with sets. Sure, maybe your competitive ideals tell you that striking from the full list of legal stages is the way to go, that's fine you are entitled to opinions. But you can't honestly say that your ideals are the default for how the game should be played when frankly we go off of people's varying opinions on what would be best for gameplay and not just always use what the game gives us.
I do agree though that we haven't yet seen how potentially amazing a full list strike system could be. It's still completely unknown what impact it will have IRL. I mean at this point, I would agree that the thought at least deserves some testing. We don't have much to lose from trying it out.
Edit: BPC actually Wario would not want to take MK to Brinstar. Same with G&W. They like the stage, but there's no improvement matchup wise.
SuSa
Banned via Administration
Response to this, I'll edit if anything more to say:
I can go play on Temple if my opponent agrees to it. (And one of these days, I WILL have a legit tourney match on temple, abusing that cave o' life with no circle camping. It will be a game of honor and of teching!)
EDIT:
Also I'm not to say that a "fair" starter list could not be created by doing this. Even if the starter list is somewhat larger than the "5 normal" it could be adapted, and would be FAR LESS POLARIZED than the crap we have now...but the way in which we created the current starter list is a biased, uncompetitive standpoint that places ideals and characteristics over others for uncompetitive reasons.
If the current starter list wasn't so polarized, and certain CP's highly overrated I'd be inclined to agree the system is fine how it stands. But currently the only way to reasonably improve it is to first be willing to change it.
I again bring forwarth Pierce's statement of "We have yet to have been proposed a better system" (paraphrased)
How can you disprove a system is not better (unless it has obvious flaws...) without first trying it?
If you are not willing to try it, how would you ever find improvement?
To quote someone; somewhat out of context, but I feel it applies.
"I've failed over and over again, and that is why I succeed"
You have to be willing to go through a few methods that may fail, if you wish to succeed.
Edit2:
I'm also willing to add those banned stages you mentioned to the list, as they'd be auto-stricken anyways.... but the stages that ARE banned are easily abused by a MAJORITY of the cast... not just a few. (EG: On Temple, even Sonic can circle camp and run all day... something he's hard pressed doing on other stages)
:leek:
Banned stages are assumed to be centralizing and are banned due to that tactics. CP are to a somewhat lesser degree. Also, the CP that is such a dominant CP would have to practically be AGREED TO PLAY UPON by the two players (or one would simply strike it), so there is some say in what stage you play on.
I can go play on Temple if my opponent agrees to it. (And one of these days, I WILL have a legit tourney match on temple, abusing that cave o' life with no circle camping. It will be a game of honor and of teching!)
EDIT:
Also I'm not to say that a "fair" starter list could not be created by doing this. Even if the starter list is somewhat larger than the "5 normal" it could be adapted, and would be FAR LESS POLARIZED than the crap we have now...but the way in which we created the current starter list is a biased, uncompetitive standpoint that places ideals and characteristics over others for uncompetitive reasons.
If the current starter list wasn't so polarized, and certain CP's highly overrated I'd be inclined to agree the system is fine how it stands. But currently the only way to reasonably improve it is to first be willing to change it.
I again bring forwarth Pierce's statement of "We have yet to have been proposed a better system" (paraphrased)
How can you disprove a system is not better (unless it has obvious flaws...) without first trying it?
If you are not willing to try it, how would you ever find improvement?
To quote someone; somewhat out of context, but I feel it applies.
"I've failed over and over again, and that is why I succeed"
You have to be willing to go through a few methods that may fail, if you wish to succeed.
Edit2:
I'm also willing to add those banned stages you mentioned to the list, as they'd be auto-stricken anyways.... but the stages that ARE banned are easily abused by a MAJORITY of the cast... not just a few. (EG: On Temple, even Sonic can circle camp and run all day... something he's hard pressed doing on other stages)
:leek:
ADHD
Smash Hero
Sounds great in words, but no one would hope to defeat Metaknight other than himself, and Wario's ability becomes greatly enhanced to time-out because of the far more accessibly good "time-out stages."PT becomes--wait, PT would still suck. There are others, but these are the only two I could think of that are the worst scenario.
I also do not like how you claim "inherently bad," when characters are just as viable as they are in the result you create. You're assuming that your ruleset is of purity, but you still have tweaked the game from it's natural state. There are banned stages removed, a timer, etc.
Even in terms of the matchup? What about player preference? That can't dictate anything "overall," because it's a wild and unpredictable factor. There is a player controlling each character with different tastes and a different way of playing. It wouldn't be even, either. It would more often be 60-40 in one or the other's favor, but you claim that this is inherit. I find that to be silly and I've said why.
Budget Player Cadet_
Smash Hero
This is what I wanted to hear... Generally, I think the basis for this philosophy (nobody gets their best stages) not only is very "fair"; more fair than almost any other method, it's also fully functional, and runs closer to what was originally considered the ideal for a starter list than, well, the original starter list!
Well, it's better than FD (WAY better). RC is definitely a (fairly) strong G&W stage against MK, I know that much...
EDIT: @ADHD: So, we set the system up so that we can abuse it as we want to arbitrarily buff/nerf characters? Also, refer to what AA said about MK's dominance being pretty much independant referring to stages. Also, M2K losing to brood on Delfino. Stuff like that.
Budget Player Cadet_
Smash Hero
Fun fact: that's everyone here.
whoah you suddenly go to german smash fests and count yourself as deeply playing this game right?
*claps*
why does someone who doesn't like Brawl try to change the game in a way like changing a states political view? (You're acting like this)
Budget Player Cadet_
Smash Hero
I'm going to literally every large/medium-scale tournament in the near future in germany. If it's large enough to be considered "regional", I'm there. I've been studying the game for ages, I'm trying to teach any of my friends who show any interest how to play, and I placed 4th at raven's SF, which is not bad for my first tournament. So cut the bull****, k? Not to mention we have Jack, a Norcal TO (?), Raziek, the top NS TO, SuSa, a top socal snake main... The guys you're trying to support by referring to them as "actually playing the game" have DMG and ADHD, one of which is proven very stupid when it comes to stages, the other of which is getting there.
Stop acting like ad hominem is a legitimate form of argument. You're acting almost as stupidly as Kadaj was when he demanded input "only from top players and TOs" on the ground time limit rule. The sad truth of the smash community is that most of our top players are ******** when it comes to creating rulesets. Like, ate paint chips and was dropped on their heads as kids, downs syndrome, and alzheimers. They support superconservative stagelists. They support arbitrary nerfs. They support GROUND TIME LIMITS.
Stop acting like you're something better just because you have more experience, eh? I may be new to the tournament scene, but I'm just as, if not more qualified than you for the purposes of this discussion.
Why I'm trying to change brawl? Well, let's see here... The typical german ruleset is RETARDEDLY restrictive, forces me into one of my 2 worst stages game 1 for almost every matchup, and in general, people are wrong about the game a lot. Oh and because I, as a tournament player, have a personal stake in it.
Budget Player Cadet_
Smash Hero
...
I'm never gonna get rid of this "casual Brawl- wifi player" image, am I? I mean, I could win every MLG event next year (or, slightly more realistically, MSNeuss, one of the biggest upcoming german tournaments) and I'd still be "that casual Brawl- wifi player who never goes to tournaments".
I'm never gonna get rid of this "casual Brawl- wifi player" image, am I? I mean, I could win every MLG event next year (or, slightly more realistically, MSNeuss, one of the biggest upcoming german tournaments) and I'd still be "that casual Brawl- wifi player who never goes to tournaments".
the problem is your kind of argumentation.
"A Starter-Stage should be a stage that is as neutral as possible for every match-up, it doesn't matter what the stage layout is as long as the stage doesn't support one overcentralizing way to win"
That means in your point it would be possible to start on a stage like Yoshis Island (Melee) or Norfair as long as the match-ups are ok. (examples)
don't you get whats "wrong" at this point? The first stage should (imo) be a stage a fair play Stage for both players and shouldn't hinder the players to play normally. Starting on a stage that completly restricts the normal flaw of game is simply not good as a starter stage.
Thats an opinion, like your opinion that the game should be include as much stuff as possible.
I'm not going to say your opinion is wrong, I just want to say that you should stop to obtrude other people your point of view and bless your point of you as a god sent view. Thats how you act.
Because a lot of people don't accept to play on ******** stages.
We, in germany, like our stage system, we've never got a problem with it and we enjoy brawl in this way and you spam the german smash board with your stage propaganda and insult us "You're all scrubs because you don't share my opinion!! You're like turkeys who refuse to eat pork because they religion prohibits it"
don't you think it's enough already? srsly you piss me off.
"A Starter-Stage should be a stage that is as neutral as possible for every match-up, it doesn't matter what the stage layout is as long as the stage doesn't support one overcentralizing way to win"
That means in your point it would be possible to start on a stage like Yoshis Island (Melee) or Norfair as long as the match-ups are ok. (examples)
don't you get whats "wrong" at this point? The first stage should (imo) be a stage a fair play Stage for both players and shouldn't hinder the players to play normally. Starting on a stage that completly restricts the normal flaw of game is simply not good as a starter stage.
Thats an opinion, like your opinion that the game should be include as much stuff as possible.
I'm not going to say your opinion is wrong, I just want to say that you should stop to obtrude other people your point of view and bless your point of you as a god sent view. Thats how you act.
Because a lot of people don't accept to play on ******** stages.
We, in germany, like our stage system, we've never got a problem with it and we enjoy brawl in this way and you spam the german smash board with your stage propaganda and insult us "You're all scrubs because you don't share my opinion!! You're like turkeys who refuse to eat pork because they religion prohibits it"
don't you think it's enough already? srsly you piss me off.
Juushichi
sugoi ~ sugoi ~
So basically, Yukarur is just butthurt that you are crawling in his skin with wounds that will not heal.
Also, I've really loved the discussion in this thread from all parties (and furthered my respect of ADHD as a person/debater -- already thought he was an amazing player). It's given me a lot of things to think about.
Also, I've really loved the discussion in this thread from all parties (and furthered my respect of ADHD as a person/debater -- already thought he was an amazing player). It's given me a lot of things to think about.
SuSa
Banned via Administration
Except "the normal flaw of the game" is something we created. We created the stage list, and I see a point for some stages (Temple, Wario Ware) to be banned.
Currently, the first stage already hinders players. They may get to "play normally", but that doesn't stop the stage from already putting them at a disadvantage.
Having the first stage be the best stage so long as the "matchup is fair" is far more fair (and competitive, seeing as players would.. you know.. have to study in depth each legal stage unless they plan to 100% strike it 24/7)
So learning more about the games' stages and how your character plays on them = uncompetitive?
Learning which characters do good on what stages, and which characters do bad on what stages = uncompetitive?
Is that the argument you're trying to make?
I say we ban everything but MK vs MK matches for Round1. That way people only have to learn the ditto and don't have to learn obscure
I mean...I don't think it's fair that I have a chance of playing against such an obscure character. I'd like... have to adapt my entire playstyle to the
(Yea, I just compared obscure/rare characters to obscure/rare stages. If you don't see the connection, I might have to hit you with a brick)
:leek:
Budget Player Cadet_
Smash Hero
Ooooh, this word again. NORMALLY. It just FEELS dirty. Why would you ever call anything "normal" in this game? What is normal? How are you backing that up? Because Brinstar is way more normal than FD. And yes, feel free to ask me to back that up, I gladly will.
And what's more, with this method, the first stage is a fair play stage for both players. It's THE most fair, because you've literally taken the exact median of the entire stagelist. Either that, or one player really hates more than half the reasonably legalizable stages in the game, in which case he should reconsider his choice in games and/or character (ICs ring a bell?).
You hate Norfair? Strike it. You have 10 strikes, after all. You hate Yoshi's Island (melee)? Strike it, you still have 9 strikes. You hate Brinstar, RC, Norfair, YI, PTAD, LM, Distant Planet, Pictochat, Frigate, PS2, and pretty much every other stage that isn't BF, SV, or FD? You're probably PLAYING THE WRONG GAME, because you obviously hate almost every stage in smash, and therefore a fairly gigantic part of the game.
Normal again. God dammit, stop saying that.
All right. Now back yours up with reasoning as to why yours is more valid than mine. Believe it or not, all opinions are not created equal. I have:
-Natural matchup fairness without applicable stage biases
-Not severely benefitting any member of the cast
-forcing players to know more about the game and therefore raising the competitive bar
What do you have, other than "a bunch of scrubs agree with me" and "it's my opinion"? Can you legitimately say that you think smash is better off with the way you want, or is "I'm better off with the way I want" a more accurate statement? Because I can say, with complete trust in myself, that I believe smash is simply a better game with a much larger starter list.
Again, not all opinions are equal. To make this clear: in my opinion, MK is so bad that we should buff him to make him able to compete (no, I don't really think that-because some people fail to see the obvious around here). Your opinion is that MK is a top tier character with no need for any buffs. Which one of our opinions is better, yours or mine?
You, in Germany, neglect the overall competitive depth of the game in favor of a stagelist which severely limits the competitive knowledge a player requires to compete at the highest level. And I'm just *****ing and being an annoying ****** when I point that out and make the claim that if you don't agree that more stages that are obviously not broken should be allowed for this reason exactly, then you probably shouldn't call yourselves the competitive community?
You think the feeling isn't mutual? On GSB, it's like arguing with a ****ing wall. I bring very solid reasoning as to why:
-FD is a bad starter stage
-More starter stages is better than less starter stages
-RC should be legal
-PS2 should be legal
And I get, again and again, "yeah, that's like, your opinion man; we work like this here and if you don't like it, oh well."
Sure, my thoughts may be based on an opinion. But the results of this opinion lead to a game which has far more competitive depth, character balance, and overall equality than your opinion. And that's where you either agree, or you stop being the competitive brawl community and start being ****ing scrubs. I mean, for ****s sake, you were trying to claim to me that RC was broken. Despite, you know, the fact that EVERY AMERICAN TOURNAMENT WORTH MENTIONING SINCE 2008 HAS HAD IT LEGAL WITH NO PROBLEMS WHATSOEVER.
You think I'm not getting irritated at the overall hardheadedness I'm encountering? Probably the only person who didn't either already agree with me or ignored my points completely was Tham. He came at it with an open mind, and I was able to convince him with good reasoning. Just about everyone else? No dice.
Tl;dr:
-Just because it's an opinion doesn't mean your opinion is just as good
-Arguing that a stage is "normal" or that a stage is bad because it is "abnormal" is a fallacy that comes up so often I should probably create a god**** wikipedia article on it just to make it clear
-99% of the entire german community is stubborn as **** and refuses to listen to solid reasoning if they disagree with it.
-You really have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
EDIT: Oh yeah and SuSa is awesome.
SuSa
Banned via Administration
Take out the racism BPC:
Oh, and RC is broken!...... for Snake
:leek:
That's a no-no point. It's just racist. If you want a personal attack, least switch it to his username.
:leek:
Budget Player Cadet_
Smash Hero
Fixed. 10****germanstagelists
SuSa
Banned via Administration
I'd also like to point out something I reeeaalllly want to quote for as the definition of a scrub:
I can't wait for the answer. :D
:leek:
Define "******** stages" in a way that does not involve one of the following reasons:
- It moves
- It causes me to have to adapt
- It has more than 3 platforms
- It's not as flat as FD
- It has hazards that can be avoided to a reasonable level but I can't avoid them.
- It has a walkoff
I can't wait for the answer. :D
:leek:
Budget Player Cadet_
Smash Hero
5 e-peen inches on "it's cheap" or a variant of it.