Huge Johnz 2: Justice shall be served April 28th Portage IN venue confirmed

[Jazzness]

I'm with Tapion on this one.

Emphasize the neutral stages.

 

[Tapion013]

Going 2-1 against someone DOES matter. If you go 2-1 consistently, at worst, that means you have two chances to win one game, and that one game is all that matters. Since, as you have said, the good players only counterpick neutral stages, does it really matter if it is the first match?

I don't disagree with your logic that getting good at neutral stages is a good idea. But.... why does that suddenly mean banning stages you don't like? I don't get the connection. You're just spouting johns. Change the rules, you will still lose. Make more tournaments if you want to get better.

I picked out one cuz it was the only one I cared about...

And maybe you didn't read between the lines. For a couple midwest tournaments, big ones, we set all the stages the neutral. We get everyone better at those neutral stages. I'm not saying ban the others for every tournament, maybe just a couple they're obviously still on in east coast and west coast and south, just not seen often because of the skill they have on those stages, just EMPHASIZE the importance of being good on neutral stages. That first match can mean everything!!!

I also want to emphasize what you said here

If you go 2-1 consistently, at worst, that means you have two chances to win one game, and that one game is all that matters. Since, as you have said, the good players only counterpick neutral stages, does it really matter if it is the first match?

This is exactly what I'm saying. The bans of those stages won't be at all tournaments, but when we travel to tournaments that actually aren't like that, more of us will perform better if we're better at neutral stages. Hurray, you have one guaranteed win, that means nothing if you have two guaranteed losses since you can't hold your own on a neutral stage!!! Yes you have two chances, but the second chance will be on your opponents favorite, and probably most advantageous neutral stage.

Again, if you want to be an overall better player, and get farther in tournaments, your best bet is to learn the 6 neutral, not one guaranteed win...

Edit: <3 Jazzness

 

[Overswarm]

I picked out one cuz it was the only one I cared about...

And maybe you didn't read between the lines. For a couple midwest tournaments, big ones, we set all the stages the neutral. We get everyone better at those neutral stages. I'm not saying ban the others for every tournament, maybe just a couple they're obviously still on in east coast and west coast and south, just not seen often because of the skill they have on those stages, just EMPHASIZE the importance of being good on neutral stages. That first match can mean everything!!!

I also want to emphasize what you said here



This is exactly what I'm saying. The bans of those stages won't be at all tournaments, but when we travel to tournaments that actually aren't like that, more of us will perform better if we're better at neutral stages. Hurray, you have one guaranteed win, that means nothing if you have two guaranteed losses since you can't hold your own on a neutral stage!!! Yes you have two chances, but the second chance will be on your opponents favorite, and probably most advantageous neutral stage.

Again, if you want to be an overall better player, and get farther in tournaments, your best bet is to learn the 6 neutral, not one guaranteed win...

Edit: <3 Jazzness

For the last time, who said being good at counterpicks means you are bad at neutrals?

It isn't one or the other; you can be good at both. You're attempting to force people to be good at neutrals, but not at counterpicks.

 

[Undefined]

DEJA VU IM BACK!!!
this post was just too hilariously stupid for me to NOT return.

For the last time, who said being good at counterpicks means you are bad at neutrals?

It isn't one or the other; you can be good at both. You're attempting to force people to be good at neutrals, but not at counterpicks.

if you rely on camping stage counterpicks, that MEANS you can't fight on neutral stages. if you were good on neutral stages and better at fighting, then you wouldn't go to camping stages.

next, who CARES if they are good at counterpicks. THATS THE WHOLE POINT. if you are better at neutrals, it's a 2-1 EVERY, SINGLE, TIME.

TEAM ROCKET, PREPARE TO FIGHT

 

[AOB]

This whole "making the midwest better" crusade is laughable. Would you guys please just admit that you don't like camping and get off your high horses?

If there are people who like to camp on funky levels, going to a few tourneys where they're not able to do so won't change that. And IF this is the wrong way to play, they are hurting only themselves, and the rest of the midwest can move on and learn the "right" way to play. You can't seriously believe that a few people camping is holding the whole region back.

This is dumb.

 

[Tapion013]

For the last time, who said being good at counterpicks means you are bad at neutrals?

It isn't one or the other; you can be good at both. You're attempting to force people to be good at neutrals, but not at counterpicks.

I never said that. again you didn't read between the lines. Look overswarm. Let's see if I can get this across to you.

You (not necessarily you OS, you as in people) play against good players, you go 2-1 every time. that's great. But you get ***** all the other times.

Now let's look at case study B. You're great at the neutral stages, a.k.a. a good fighter like 5150 has been saying. You win the first match. YES! You get counterpicked, barely lose, but still had a shot, ****. LOOK WHAT HAPPENS YOU HAVE A GUARANTEED THIRD WIN FOR THE SET!

That's all I'm saying! If you're better at the neutral stages, you have a much better shot. Yes there are people who can be good at both, no ****. But the people who are good at both are more than likely just all around better players, a.k.a. people who are good on the neutral stages..

 

[kirkq]

lol i just got blocked by mister undefined on aim

anyway

new thought,

just go all neutrals for this tourney

instead of "select 4 counterpicks that we find to be the most fair"

i think counterpicks are a strategy though, why dont we just hold a tournament and say "sorry no ice climbers this tournament, they are too one dimensional, and wobbling and chain throwing takes no skill"

i guess my conclusion is either make a wide range of counterpicks, or none at all


Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself.

Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place. Of course, it is not a fallacy to state the truth again and again; what is fallacious is to expect the repitition alone to substitute for real arguments.

this is why 3 or more people on this forum suck at having a logical argument, argue against the issue at hand not the people who support it, instead of throwing out your overwhelming internet ego

<3 tapion

and not that its demonstrated, but i find humor in this

Complex question. A complex question is a question that implicitly assumes something to be true by its construction, such as "Have you stopped beating your wife?" A question like this is fallacious only if the thing presumed true (in this case, that you beat your wife) has not been established.

i think 5150 sucks at debate honestly

Have YOU stopped beating your wife?

but i do see this emphasizing the neutrals, but i say all or none really

 

[Undefined]

This whole "making the midwest better" crusade is laughable. Would you guys please just admit that you don't like camping and get off your high horses?

If there are people who like to camp on funky levels, going to a few tourneys where they're not able to do so won't change that. And IF this is the wrong way to play, they are hurting only themselves, and the rest of the midwest can move on and learn the "right" way to play. You can't seriously believe that a few people camping is holding the whole region back.

This is dumb.

1. first present a problem with our logic, then talk
2. ive said it many times. there is only one thign that makes the mw different, camping/counterpicking. if we are the 2nd worst region, then we have to look at what we are doing wrong. if the only thing unique about uys is that, THEN THAT MUSTBE WHAT WE ARE DOING WRONG.
3. EVERY. SINGLE. PLAYER. MATTERS. IN THE LONG RUN. why? if each player is better, even if they all aren't tinkerbell level, then that means MORE COMPETITION for our good players. that's exactly what ec is. EVERY player is pretty **** good. this gives their super-stars tons of good practice. we dont have that.

i dont know why you keep posting in here aob, you dont play the game, dont care about getting better, and dont care aboutthe mw as a whole so as they say in 4chan:

**** OR GTFO

 

[Undefined]

lol i just got blocked by mister undefined on aim

anyway

new thought,

just go all neutrals for this tourney

instead of "select 4 counterpicks that we find to be the most fair"

i think counterpicks are a strategy though, why dont we just hold a tournament and say "sorry no ice climbers this tournament, they are too one dimensional, and wobbling and chain throwing takes no skill"

i guess my conclusion is either make a wide range of counterpicks, or none at all

amen. Tiers Don't Exist 1: Quad Nair, coming june 2nd.

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself.

so, exactly what aob is doing? lol, thx for the help kirkq!

Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place. Of course, it is not a fallacy to state the truth again and again; what is fallacious is to expect the repitition alone to substitute for real arguments.

there is nothign wrong with RESPONSE. we post something. then ******* come in and try to disprove it. unfortunately their arguements can be countered by copy pastaing our old ****, because they cant read.

Complex question. A complex question is a question that implicitly assumes something to be true by its construction, such as "Have you stopped beating your wife?" A question like this is fallacious only if the thing presumed true (in this case, that you beat your wife) has not been established.

i think 5150 sucks at debate honestly

Have YOU stopped beating your wife?

lol, so what have i said that assumes somethign? you have to quote first before throwing out random ****.

 

[Overswarm]

I never said that. again you didn't read between the lines. Look overswarm. Let's see if I can get this across to you.

You (not necessarily you OS, you as in people) play against good players, you go 2-1 every time. that's great. But you get ***** all the other times.

Now let's look at case study B. You're great at the neutral stages, a.k.a. a good fighter like 5150 has been saying. You win the first match. YES! You get counterpicked, barely lose, but still had a shot, ****. LOOK WHAT HAPPENS YOU HAVE A GUARANTEED THIRD WIN FOR THE SET!

That's all I'm saying! If you're better at the neutral stages, you have a much better shot. Yes there are people who can be good at both, no ****. But the people who are good at both are more than likely just all around better players, a.k.a. people who are good on the neutral stages..

Then why not say "get better at neutral stages" instead of "ban stages where people can camp"?

I don't rely on camping or odd stages. I'm just very, very good at it. I don't go 1-2 every time (I'm assuming that is what you meant. A lot of the times I go 2-1. Ask anyone who has played me before (except Dope because he's too amazing) and they'll tell you "yeah, OS doesn't suck on the neutral stages. He's not as good as (player X), but he's not bad at neutrals. He just is good at counterpicks".

If you want people to get better at neutrals, play more. Forcing everyone to play one more neutral in a set than normal isn't going to magically make anyone better.

1. first present a problem with our logic, then talk

He did...

2. ive said it many times. there is only one thign that makes the mw different, camping/counterpicking. if we are the 2nd worst region, then we have to look at what we are doing wrong. if the only thing unique about uys is that, THEN THAT MUSTBE WHAT WE ARE DOING WRONG.

Why? Couldn't it be that we have a lower number of competitive players, a lower number of tournaments, and repeatedly small turnouts at every event other than the major ones?

3. EVERY. SINGLE. PLAYER. MATTERS. IN THE LONG RUN. why? if each player is better, even if they all aren't tinkerbell level, then that means MORE COMPETITION for our good players. that's exactly what ec is. EVERY player is pretty **** good. this gives their super-stars tons of good practice. we dont have that.

....we have a lower number of competitive players, a lower number of tournaments, and repeatedly small turnouts at every event other than the major ones. We should fix that, not ban counterpicks.

i dont know why you keep posting in here aob, you dont play the game, dont care about getting better, and dont care aboutthe mw as a whole so as they say in 4chan:

**** OR GTFO

Your a regular philosopher. Maybe he cares about the community? He just ran a wonderfully successful tournament, held a bunch of smashers in his bird-filled house, and took on a lot of stress for the sake of the community. Maybe say "thanks, buddy"?

 

[Mars-]

I was going to try to reply, but all of this pokemon music makes me not want to stay on one page too long.

I'll get it tomorrow or something.

 

[Tapion013]

Then why not say "get better at neutral stages" instead of "ban stages where people can camp"?

Because saying doesn't mean doing. If they want to even win one game, they'll be forced to at a tournament with only neutral stages.

Before I go on, I just want to you to keep in mind I am for counterpicking. It's a good idea, and it's great security against high level players. Now moving on.

I don't rely on camping or odd stages. I'm just very blah blah blah

I cut out the rest because you're still not getting it. This is not about you. This is not about me. This is not about 5150. This is about all the players (chad, apparently zec? kirkq, viperboy, corneria campers) who can't do anything but win on those counterpicked stages. They have such great potential, but because of their style and overcamping styles, they can't win. Playing defensive and camping is different. Sometimes I think playing defensive can be misinterpreted as camping, but it definitely is not.

If you want people to get better at neutrals, play more. Forcing everyone to play one more neutral in a set than normal isn't going to magically make anyone better.

No, but it will do one of the following

1.) Get them to not come and fall out of the smash community, which means they wouldn't have tried to get better anyway.

2.) Get them to really practice their matchups on those neutral stages, making them much more competitive and dangerous in a set than they would have normally.

 

[Mars-]

Because saying doesn't mean doing. If they want to even win one game, they'll be forced to at a tournament with only neutral stages.

Before I go on, I just want to you to keep in mind I am for counterpicking. It's a good idea, and it's great security against high level players. Now moving on.



I cut out the rest because you're still not getting it. This is not about you. This is not about me. This is not about 5150. This is about all the players (chad, apparently zec? kirkq, viperboy, corneria campers) who can't do anything but win on those counterpicked stages. They have such great potential, but because of their style and overcamping styles, they can't win. Playing defensive and camping is different. Sometimes I think playing defensive can be misinterpreted as camping, but it definitely is not.



No, but it will do one of the following

1.) Get them to not come and fall out of the smash community, which means they wouldn't have tried to get better anyway.

2.) Get them to really practice their matchups on those neutral stages, making them much more competitive and dangerous in a set than they would have normally.

I would like to say, I am for people learning random stages, but banning counter picks to do this is taking it to the extreme. What about those people that already can play neutrals, then they can't counterpick because of a rule put in place for people who can only play on counterpicks.

Also I don't know where you get Zec as a camper?! I have played him a lot and he is very aggressive, I could never see him camping.

 

[Overswarm]

Because saying doesn't mean doing. If they want to even win one game, they'll be forced to at a tournament with only neutral stages.

Why force them to win a game? Why not force them to win on a neutral, or their opponents counterpick, to win a set? Ya know, like normal?

Before I go on, I just want to you to keep in mind I am for counterpicking. It's a good idea, and it's great security against high level players. Now moving on.

Then why would you get rid of that security?

I cut out the rest because you're still not getting it. This is not about you. This is not about me. This is not about 5150. This is about all the players (chad, apparently zec? kirkq, viperboy, corneria campers) who can't do anything but win on those counterpicked stages. They have such great potential, but because of their style and overcamping styles, they can't win. Playing defensive and camping is different. Sometimes I think playing defensive can be misinterpreted as camping, but it definitely is not.

It is an example. You, and those going along with your arguments, are speaking as if knowing to camp automatically makes you worse. It doesn't. I don't lose every match against good players because I CAN play neutral stages. Just because I'm smart enough to know my strengths and use them doesn't mean I can't win without it.

What you are doing is the equivalent to banning chain throws so people can "get better and not rely on chain throwing anymore".

1.) Get them to not come and fall out of the smash community, which means they wouldn't have tried to get better anyway.

You want to LOWER the number of midwest players? Why? Who cares if not everyone wants to be #1? I'm pretty sure the players that actually place consistent top 3 would very much like the extra money in their wallet.

2.) Get them to really practice their matchups on those neutral stages, making them much more competitive and dangerous in a set than they would have normally.

It gives them one game. ONE game. One extra game. That's it. That's all it does.

In return, it completely changes the tournament scene and effectively starts a polorazation of smashers.

What you're pushing for is nonsencial and pointless. No other coast has ever had to do this to get better; they just held more tournaments. Why can't you just do the same?

Let's hold a tournament where it is only space animals. This will make us better, since there are a lot of space animals out there.

Let's hold a tournament where we ban chain throwing. People rely on that too much.

Same logic, same stupid result.

 

[Tapion013]

Also I don't know where you get Zec as a camper?! I have played him a lot and he is very aggressive, I could never see him camping.

That's why I put a ? mark after him, I didn't know. Thanks for clearing that up

OS: I give up.. you keep bringing up yourself as an example when you're not even someone who falls into the category as evidence as to why we shouldn't do it. For onett, I personally go as fox. I've only lost their once and it was this weekend. I know how to handle them, I know how to handle campers. Ask kirkq and viper boy who got 3 stocked there by me. THIS IS NOT ABOUT ME, THIS IS NOT ABOUT YOU. I GIVE UP! GG YOU WIN I CAN'T EVEN BRING MYSELF FOR A RE!

 

[Mars-]

OS: I give up.. you keep bringing up yourself as an example when you're not even someone who falls into the category as evidence as to why we shouldn't do it. For onett, I personally go as fox. I've only lost their once and it was this weekend. I know how to handle them, I know how to handle campers. Ask kirkq and viper boy who got 3 stocked there by me. THIS IS NOT ABOUT ME, THIS IS NOT ABOUT YOU. I GIVE UP! GG YOU WIN I CAN'T EVEN BRING MYSELF FOR A RE!

It's this pokemon music. Try tomorrow.

Also, Eddie I know you are looking at this, please give us your imput. We need soem Pro imput.

 

[Overswarm]

That's why I put a ? mark after him, I didn't know. Thanks for clearing that up

OS: I give up.. you keep bringing up yourself as an example when you're not even someone who falls into the category as evidence as to why we shouldn't do it. For onett, I personally go as fox. I've only lost their once and it was this weekend. I know how to handle them, I know how to handle campers. Ask kirkq and viper boy who got 3 stocked there by me. THIS IS NOT ABOUT ME, THIS IS NOT ABOUT YOU. I GIVE UP! GG YOU WIN I CAN'T EVEN BRING MYSELF FOR A RE!

It is about me, because it is affecting me.

You want to improve the bad kid smashers? Make training videos. It's what I do. Host tournaments. It's what the Kishes do. Write a guide. A lot of smashers do that.


As far as I can see (especially after watching some people play at SMYM7) is that some people just plain old don't like camping because they don't understand it, nor how to get around it.

http://smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=94174

If you're just confused about camping, there's my shot at attempting to explain it.

 

[kirkq]

this was a while back

i had a stock for stock match with tapion on FoD falco vs falcon, he combo'd into a mid percent forward smash by the edge for the win

so he bests me there

i take him to onett strategically because thats where i considered myself quite good at the time, i figured i would be back on a neutral stage for the 3rd match anyway

instead he proceeds to kick the **** out of me, and i congratulated him for beating the **** out of me on my own counter

lol, as tapion said, i suck because im stuck to my ways of relying on counterpicks i suppose

maybe its hurting me, but i think a variety of counterpicking is a unique dimension to this game that needs to stay

im ok with getting rid of them for a tournament, im really not ok with weeding them all out one by one in order of preference, i think poke floats is equally as lame as rainbow cruise and corneria

overswarm doesnt seem to see what we are actually arguing about here

EDIT: It's this pokemon music. - turn off your volume and stop being an idiot

i pick up this game like once a month >XD

but really i think the most skill comes from the friendlies, so i don't see why tournaments should have stipulations to "make us better"

friendlies are the practice, tournaments are the test...you're probably not going to ace the test if you don't do the homework

FACT: if i played more i would be better
FACT: if anyone within 20 miles of me played smash, i would practice with them often
FACT: no one within 20 miles of me plays smash
FACT: i suck

 

[that 1 guy]

People need to stop assuming that the opposing side would agree with them if they understood where they are coming from. Cases aren't evolving because people keep repeating themselves. We hear what you say. If someone disagrees telling them the same thing over again won't change their mind.

Also expecting to get every smasher to stop camping and get better at nuetral stages is just rediculous. I understand wanting to help the smash community, but helping everyone can't be done. If people still expect to get better by doing the same thing over and over (camping) then they are lost anyway. Sure you can probably force them to get marginally better, but as a whole they don't have the right mindset to really even be meteocre.

I say ignore the campers and quit worrying about them. If everyone else gets better hopefully they will jump on the band wagon and join in once they realize they aren't going anywhere. In my experience that is what works best. Surround a bad player with a lot of good players and they will probably get better. The solution is to hold more and more tournaments. Changing the rules for couple is a bad idea. It won't really accomplish anything. Just because they can't counter pick at this one doesn't mean they won't go back to doing the exact same thing they were doing before as soon as they are given the opportunity. They have to be shown that it is limiting their potential to completely rely on such things.

I'm sorry but I probably said some things more than once, and hopefully that wasn't confusing to read. If it was please let me know and I will try to clarify it.

edit: also I guess learning how to play on the counter pick stages isn't as easy as people have been saying since nobody argued with my previous point.

 

[Tapion013]

People need to stop assuming that the opposing side would agree with them if they understood where they are coming from. Cases aren't evolving because people keep repeating themselves. We hear what you say. If someone disagrees telling them the same thing over again won't change their mind.

It's different when you say something, and they argue your statement with something that's not even related. This is why it's repeated, so hopefully they really understand what was said, but then they don't again, which is why I have given up.

Also expecting to get every smasher to stop camping and get better at nuetral stages is just rediculous. I understand wanting to help the smash community, but helping everyone can't be done.

I think i can speak for both 5150 and I and the others who agree with us when I say we're aware of this. Which is why i said for those who want to place well at these tournaments, they will learn the stages, but if they really only will play if they can pick their counterpick stages, then they can stay where they are and not come to these tournaments.

If people still expect to get better by doing the same thing over and over (camping) then they are lost anyway. Sure you can probably force them to get marginally better, but as a whole they don't have the right mindset to really even be meteocre.

They don't have the right mindset because they believe that beating someone better than them on a completely imbalanced stage once in a set makes them good players. As soon as they realize that this will never win them the set, they can start to be better players.

It won't really accomplish anything. Just because they can't counter pick at this one doesn't mean they won't go back to doing the exact same thing they were doing before as soon as they are given the opportunity. They have to be shown that it is limiting their potential to completely rely on such things.

I don't know about 5150 or the others, but I know I personally would like people to still be able to have those counterpicks mastered. It makes us as a region a lot more dangerous having those "gay" (this word seriously needs to stop being used) counterpick stages. But if we can improve our already good players that do this on the neutral stages, we'd be a lot more dangerous as a region.

 

[saZmus]

I don't think this is about the region, I think this is an individual problem.

 

[BigGman]

i personally like just the neutral stages for counterpicks. there are some non-neutral stages that i don't mind for counterpicks, but some are just too crazy. pokefloats and onett are just too good for fox. for someone who doesn't play a secondary character puts them at a severe disadvantage. ideally, a counterpick should give the loser a slight advantage, but alot of stages do alot more than that. as for getting better, neutral stages are the way to go. that's where you play the most, so you should want to be good at them. also, if your practicing on pokefloats alot, that's going to change your style of play. your not just fighting your opponent, your jumping around avoiding stage hazards. to be good at this game, you have to be good at fighting. to get good at fighting, you have to fight. picking camping stages to me is an easy way out. it can get you a win, but it's not helping you get better.

 

[Kel]

There are soooo many stages in this game. It's just so sad that only 6 are going to be playable because of Johns.

I think the ranked players should have the power here. They're the ones that win all the time in the Midwest, they know what they're doing. I don't see any of them complaining about the current stages used.

 

[Tapion013]

There are soooo many stages in this game. It's just so sad that only 6 are going to be playable because of Johns.

I think the ranked players should have the power here. They're the ones that win all the time in the Midwest, they know what they're doing. I don't see any of them complaining about the current stages used.

BigGman, a.k.a. eddie, just basically agreed with us, saying putting emphasis on the neutral stages is a good idea, and that no stage should put you at such a disadvantage it's almost a guaranteed loss. Is he not good enough for you?

 

[Kel]

he stated 2 (one of which is already banned) stages that should be banned. The reasoning behind this is simply "fox"....why don't we just freaking ban fox and marth and get it overwith.

Are you guys just ignoring Trail's posts when he's saying that the Midwesterners just suck in general and that even the mediocre players on the EC can take a game off him? He put it very nicely that the Midwest's average players suck...so GET BETTER and stop Johnning. Trail plays ICeys and hasn't resorted to whinning.

and for the record there has been much debate over what kind of game smash is. It's not exactly a figther and you could go to any 2D fighter forum and try posting that smash is and get flammed instantly. Smash is regarded as a fighter because there's no better category for it. Smash tournaments are about winning. If fox is running away and shooting at you he is still hitting you non the less. Either you need to pick a better character or that fox needs to be resricted. AOB is a smart man and there is no "right way to play" just win. You guys are like the advanced version of the noobs that make fun of drephen's play style.

 

[Overswarm]

BigGman, a.k.a. eddie, just basically agreed with us, saying putting emphasis on the neutral stages is a good idea, and that no stage should put you at such a disadvantage it's almost a guaranteed loss. Is he not good enough for you?

Mind explaining why each of the stages banned put you at a disadvantage when you are counterpicked?


Why aren't we banning Brinstar and Mute City then? I'm quite confident that a Sheik player is going to be a little irritated against a Peach there, and Jiggs is going to have a field day against those space animals.



This is lunacy. It's nothing but people that wish they were good attempting to warp the game to their standards.

Emphasis on neutrals in personal training is good. That's why I, along with most others, play almost entirely neutrals during smashfests.

Tournaments are quite a bit different. They are the test, and you don't take out a crucial element of smash (counterpicking) that the smash game is BASED off of just because you don't like it.

Banning all the stages except for the ones YOU personally enjoy and understand isn't going to suddenly make you good. You still aren't going to be the best of the best.


This is ridiculous.

Tapion - Falcon = neutral stages are his counterpicks anyway
Big C - Peach = Mute City and Brinstar not banned

Seriously now. If you're going to make this a minimalist tournament, do it right. All stages banned but Dreamland 64, Pokemon Stadium, and Final Destination. Give each player one ban. 2 out of 3 on whatever stage is left.

i personally like just the neutral stages for counterpicks. there are some non-neutral stages that i don't mind for counterpicks, but some are just too crazy.

That's something shared by most people. Some stages are too crazy, and need to be banned. That's why there aren't very many people shouting for Flatzone.

pokefloats and onett are just too good for fox. for someone who doesn't play a secondary character puts them at a severe disadvantage.

GOOD. Let that smasher fall from the rafters and break every bone on his body as he hits the mud pile with all the other groundlings that don't learn how to adapt.

Darkrain, the Falcon player who played Falcon and only Falcon no matter what, now plays Fox on stages like Kongo Jungle and Jungle Japes. He has adapted, and is going to continue to work on those things.

Why does it matter if someone who refuses to pick up a secondary can't play a certain stage?

ideally, a counterpick should give the loser a slight advantage, but alot of stages do alot more than that.

Agreed, but which ones?

Some, like Onett, are ridiculous for certain characters (Fox and Samus FTW).

Others are really good for certain matchups, and naturally give certain characters advantages, but aren't a win-all stage. Pokefloats is good for Fox, but it is also great for many other characters as well.

as for getting better, neutral stages are the way to go. that's where you play the most, so you should want to be good at them. also, if your practicing on pokefloats alot, that's going to change your style of play. your not just fighting your opponent, your jumping around avoiding stage hazards. to be good at this game, you have to be good at fighting. to get good at fighting, you have to fight.

But why should we ban all stages save for ones that are good for peach players and those that are considered neutral, i.e., Marth and Falcon stages?

Isn't counterpicking a REALLY important idea in smash? Why shouldn't we practice that? We already play one neutral stage no matter what; we don't even have a constant "practice this counterpick stage" in our sets. It is totally up to the opposing player.

picking camping stages to me is an easy way out. it can get you a win, but it's not helping you get better.

And banning those stages in tournament play is?

If you really want the MW to get better, advocate for more tournaments, not asanine rules.



Here's a question for everyone.

WHO are you trying to help?

I've been told that this isn't about me. I'm good enough on neutrals to where I'm exempt, apparently.

But who BELOW me in skill level are you trying to help? Who is it in tournaments that consistently picks counterpick stages and uses them as a crutch, yet it never helps them win? Who are these prodigious children that you are trying to inspire?

Because if it isn't me, and it isn't anyone above me, it has to be someone below. I know you don't have any names listed, you don't have any numbers, you don't even have casual observations of tournament play. You can all list off the people that are good at camping, the ones that people are always pissed at (me, camper bob, Iggy, vidjo, mathos, etc., etc.), but you can't name the ones that "need help".

This is nothing more than a personal vendetta.

Sounds like someone got upset because he didn't know green greens well enough to stay away from the two places where bombs fall. That's like getting hit by a car because you ran in the highway and didn't expect a car to come.

 

[that 1 guy]

I agree that emphasis should be put on getting better at nuetral stages. After all that is where most of your matches are going to be played. I just don't think this is the correct way to go about it. As far as ranked players are concerned there are people on both sides of the debate as far as I know. Plus people need to know how to get around camping. Yes it is annoying, but people should learn how to beat it. There are stages that are just way too good for camping, but I think camping on the newly proposed banned stages is beatable, except maybe for princess peach's castle.

edit: usually the problem I see with people getting counterpicked and losing is because on most of the nuetrals you can pretty much play the same way and do pretty well, but on most of the counter pick stages you can't do that and expect to win. One of my friends took tink to jungle japes and really gave him a run for his money. I believe for a time tink wanted that stage banned, but later he got better at it and now he is way better at it. I seriously think banning more stages will hurt us more than help us. Also I'm not naming names, but I seriously think some people are working under the guise of trying to help the smash community while actually working towards their own ends.

also woohoo tapion, even though we may not agree in the end I respect you. You seem to be a level headed person with enough intellect to come to a decision after looking at the problem from different angles. Most people seemt to have this I'm right you're wrong mentality which leads to missinterpretations.

 

[kirkq]

mute is lame.

as far as brinstar, it inhibits character that are hard to maneuver when peach is around (falcon) , but space animals and marth etc. do just fine

 

[Overswarm]

mute is lame.

as far as brinstar, it inhibits character that are hard to maneuver when peach is around (falcon) , but space animals and marth etc. do just fine

You're saying that Marth does fine on Brinstar.

 

[that 1 guy]

falcon does fine on brinstar. Maybe it is really bad against peach but for the most part it is a really good stage for him.

edit: also don't mistake big c's intentions. He wants to ban princess peach's castle which happens to be a stage he counter picks trail to and wins. If anything he isn't doing this for his own personal gain

 

[Jiano]

How about if you hate these banned stages, just don't go? If it is that big of a deal to you, then you definitely rely on counter picks, which won't win you any sets.

Personally, I don't care if they're banned or not. The only thing that bothers me is when ridiculous stages get put on random(FoB). I know that a lot of people(myself included) won't attend one of those again.

We should just be glad that(in this case) Big C is hosting a tournament, because there has seriously been a lack of those lately.

Just want to add that Corneria is a very broken stage. Just as broken, if not more, than Japes or Green Greens.

 

[DaBearX]

I think the ranked players should have the power here. They're the ones that win all the time in the Midwest, they know what they're doing. I don't see any of them complaining about the current stages used.

At the end of the day, I truly believe it is (and should be) up to the tourney host what the rules are. Fortunately for all of us the rules are pretty well advertised in advance so if you don't like the tourneys rules you dont have to show up. Of course it is often the objective of the host to have a lot of people show up to the tournament so he might be inclined to appease the masses (which is why this discussion is being had at all I imagine, right BigC?). But the host should and in reality will have final veto power, not the top w/e players in the world. For instance, I imagine not much less than a threat on 5150's life will change the stage list of Quad-Nair.

Now for my (obviously valued ) opinion (most of which has probably been put on the table). From a pure cold logic POV, in any tournament composed of best of 2n-1 sets, if you can only confidently win any character matchup on the designated random stages you will win the set... sounds appealing to me . If you can only confidently win any character matchup on any number of legal stages that are not designated random stages, you will lose the set .

It is important to note that this message is targeted ONLY at those who ONLY win on counterpicks (if such people even exist). For those of us who are not so binary in our performance on random and non-random stages this message only applies relatively. However the upshot is still of significance I believe. If you can perform very well on the stages that you will CERTAINLY have to play atleast once at, you are better off than being able to perform better on stages that you only get to play at after you lose.

As a side note, before I came (back) to the MW, it had not even occured to me that peach might counterpick mute city/brainstar, thinking that DL64 was as good as it got. Maybe this is because im slow to an extent (as those who have played me can attest to). But I didnt get a lot of tourney experience on the EC so it might have been more obvious if I had.

I'd love if it were only neutral stages in all tournaments and if it were within my ability I would attend any such tournament, but I understand (to an extent anyway) why other people might not want this, and it might not be the best course of action to solidify the MW's ability. While it might be the case that the MW will improve when they perform better on neutral stages, the fact of the matter is that the smash talent density in the MW is lower than the coasts.

The MW community being smaller coupled with the fact that (atleast from what i've gathered from this thread so far) a (large?) portion (of the lower end?) of the community playing with a style that can be seen as detrimental to their talent, what really needs to be done is to change this mindset of this portion of the community. Im sure the advocates of the limiting of counterpick stages understands this fact. But I dont think that forcing them to play in this fashion will change thier mindset, only make the disgruntled and maybe leave the community leaving our numbers slimmer than before.

The real question is how do you change the mindset of these players without turning them off of smash. It might be the case that this is not possible, maybe the players here simply dont want to play in a different fashion. This is sort of how regional competetive play goes, for whatever reason, one region might just be better suited for competetive play than another (population density on the coasts--general population, not just smash population-- is higher so they may just be better suited to have more good players).

If it were possible to change players mindsets in a less cohersive way, ideas that come to mind include:

-Learning the counterpick stages well enough to beat the portion of the community with which you hold issue

-A good old boycott. If you are really confident that you can win on the neutral stages, when it comes time for your opponent to counterpick, if they choose a "lame" stage, proceed to SD 4 times. This more psychological method would take the sense of victory from those who you think hold the ideal that a win is better than playing in a manner more conducive to improvement. A less drastic measure would be to pick your favorite low-tier or otherwise non-main character to fight on the counterpick. (this might be seen as poor sportsmanship but then, so might camping, who cares in the play to win world)

-play friendlies a lot of friendlies with these players on the neutral stages, own them, be-friend them, and help them improve, all the while submissively getting them to abandon their counterpick ways.

There are others certainly, I find the boycott idea most interesting if not "***hole-ish". I myself probably wouldnt do it though cause I think it is important to learn how to beat camping, even if winning on neutral stages is enough to ensure victory.

I am beginning to think that issues concerning the midwest ability as a whole probably deserve a unique thread, this is probably getting outside of what BigC had intended in terms of debate.

In short, kirkq's big words hurt my low tier brain.

 

[Undefined]

-A good old boycott. If you are really confident that you can win on the neutral stages, when it comes time for your opponent to counterpick, if they choose a "lame" stage, proceed to SD 4 times. This more psychological method would take the sense of victory from those who you think hold the ideal that a win is better than playing in a manner more conducive to improvement.

i already am doing this. stop stealing my ideas, rofl.

 

[AS Money]

There are soooo many stages in this game. It's just so sad that only 6 are going to be playable because of Johns.

I think the ranked players should have the power here. They're the ones that win all the time in the Midwest, they know what they're doing. I don't see any of them complaining about the current stages used.

Kel i dont think you want Dope and Tink making the stages we will have only

rainbow cruise and corneria playable

 

[KishSquared]

I dunno why there's even a debate. Let the tournament host pick his stages. If you don't like it, then don't go.

On subject, has a date been set yet?

 

[CaptainAwesome]

This is stupid.

Most of you guys already know me, and know that I'm not a top MW player, but I'm definitely good enough to compete. I usually place well around here, and I can take matches against our region's elite. And I do it all with Ganon.

See, the problem is that Ganon gets ***** by (insert counterpick here). This fact led to me not advancing at SMYM7, and I realize now that it was my fault. My placing had little to do with the tournament system or with my opponents' counterpicking; I paid the price for not switching characters.



The answer is simple:

If you're getting stage counterpicked too hard, change characters. You already know where they're taking you, and you can probably guess who they'll play based on that. You have enough information to improve the situation, and if you're not proficient enough with multiple characters, you might lose. You could have done something about it, but you got lazy.

 

[Undefined]

capt, but wouldn't you think that if a stage is so one-sided, that it forces you to change your character, that it is broken enough to warrant a ban? i personally believe so.

 

[Mars-]

capt, but wouldn't you think that if a stage is so one-sided, that it forces you to change your character, that it is broken enough to warrant a ban? i personally believe so.

It does force you to change your character, but not to one certain character. If that was the case then I would agree with you, but it isn't.

 

[KishSquared]

I obviously disagree. Wobbles or not, Fox gets chain-thrown to death by ICs on FD. I literally HAVE to change characters if I'm to stand a chance there. Should FD then be banned?

Of course not. I should man up and change characters. Why waste time whining?

 

[Jazzness]

Squared,

Which side are you arguing for? There's so many debates going on at once ...

Also, how are character matchups relevent to stage debates? Especially with chain-grabs?

Fox can chaingrab Fox, Sheik can chaingrab Sheik on FD.
Both matchups are EVEN.

Even with chaingrabbing, the stage itself is not broken and doesn't lend an auto-advantage or disadvantage to a particular character.

Of course, if you don't wanna get chain-grabbed by your own character, maybe then you should switch to a 2ndary