I have a huge problem with the current stage ruleset.

[Bones0]

Bro, we should put jokers back in the poker deck, thats how the deck comes.

Deepest. Metaphor. Evar.

I disagree with that. The characters are the lens through which all player interactions occur. The stages are literally the table that the game is played on. Let's put fans all over our table that blow our cards around. This adds to the competitive element of the game. Hold on to your cards, bro.

LOL

 

[Cactuar]

I do it for the user titles.

 

[Omni]

Is this discussion actually occurring?

Conservative stage list > liberal stage list, IMO. It's already the niche, and it's not necessary to adjust the niche if it works perfectly fine. Best players are winning. All is good in the world.

 

[Mahie]

And this exactly proves my point. You say that most stages are banned because of Fox so by increasing the number of legal stages you skew the balance of the game. Well, if Fox is NOT a character picked...then why can't Yoshi's island be played? All of your reasons against Yoshi's being legal is moot since Fox is no longer in the picture.

And I am sooo glad you brought up the point that it's small boundaries is further reason to ban it. If the MU is against two weak characters like M2 vs Pika as an example, why can't Yoshi's be legal since neither character can exploit the boundaries since they are both weak??

This is what I'm talking about when I say that we have been limiting our stages based on blanketed conditions.

Are you suggesting a matchup specific stagelist? Not to mention unless it's always gonna be CP maps and as such, the winning player gets to pick his character and everyone has a pocket Fox, really.

Might as well add temple, corneria, peach castle and so on if Fox isn't involved. Most of the stagelist was tailored with him in mind.

 

[Ripple]

Might as well add temple, corneria, peach castle and so on if Fox isn't involved. Most of the stagelist was tailored with him in mind.

Temple was banned because it has circle camping and the cave of life. It doesn't matter who is on the stage as long as someone is faster than another.

Corneria can be banned for degenerative fin camping.

And peachs castle can be banned because of either bullet bill or the fact that if you are separated, the stage layout forces someone to jump OVER an obstacle to reach someone. Which is always bad

 

[thespymachine]

Sorry, this distinction doesn't make any sense to me. What's the difference between me deciding to call in early position with K3o, getting ****ed for it, and me deciding to use Falco on Battlefield, getting combo'd into the ccid, and getting ****ed for it?

Randomness is randomness. I don't think there's any sort of special distinction that makes sense here.

I maybe being dumb, but what's 'ccid'?
Without knowing what that is, I'll try to reply.

I suppose the largest distinction is that in poker, you getting eff'd is (partially) random, which is inherent in the game from the start; in Melee, those variances are situational, and not inherent.

Because of the large initial variance in poker, every player has the same exact opportunity to get lucky/eff'd - thus, the gameplay focuses on the psychological part.
In Melee, since you can choose whatever character you want, there is equal opportunity to have intial MU advantage - the randomness comes with the stages, which affects gameplay depending on the situation not throughout the competitive process.

Overall, I dislike poker and pretty much any other card game because of the randomness. I take a no randomness approach to anything that I would compete in - I don't see any value in variance that can determine a winner/loser withany sort of randomness.

 

[Bones0]

Is this discussion actually occurring?

Conservative stage list > liberal stage list, IMO. It's already the niche, and it's not necessary to adjust the niche if it works perfectly fine. Best players are winning. All is good in the world.

The current stage list is liberal though.

Shoutouts to Kal. ;D

 

[Laijin]

We should all just play on Battlefield every game

 

[Rockenos]

It's so sad how violently some people will argue about this
Like... why do the people who oppose the stage list changing oppose it so forcefully instead of giving heed to their adversaries and respecting one another

We saw the same thing when Meta Knight's banning was a problem... Only it was the people who wanted him banned who were overly aggressive.
WHY CAN'T WE BE FRIENDS
WHY CAN'T WEEEEE BE FRIENDS
WHY CAN'T WE BE FRIENDS
WHY CAN'T WE BE FRIENDS

 

[LLDL]

wtf is this thread

 

[kupo15]

Are you suggesting a matchup specific stagelist?

Yes I am suggesting a matchup specific stagelist. Since the stage layout drastically effects the match and characters play better in different layouts than each other compared to traditional fighters, I think this makes sense. In the IC vs Fox MU like I stated before, the difference between FD and BF is HUGE where FD acts more like a CP stage against them than it does a Neutral stage for the 1st match. The difference between FD and BF for say Falco and Fox is not nearly as big so if there is a Falco Fox MU FD would be a possible Starter stage but for the IC Fox MU it should not be on the list as a Starter stage.

Not to mention unless it's always gonna be CP maps and as such, the winning player gets to pick his character and everyone has a pocket Fox, really.

True however I'm trying to make a distinct difference between the Starter match and the CP matches. In the IC vs Fox MU, Final Destination should NOT be a Starting Stage but will be a possible CP stage.

Might as well add temple, corneria, peach castle and so on if Fox isn't involved. Most of the stagelist was tailored with him in mind.

Sounds a little facetious but that is being short sighted. While its true that Fox is the main reason for stages being banned it isn't the only reason. Just because Fox isn't involved in a particular match doesn't mean Temple should be unbanned because it has other problems like the cave of life and excessive camping...things that ALL characters can exploit.
A better example would be Mute City. I'm pretty sure it wasn't banned because of the cars but moreso with no ledges and it taking off and being very lopsided in Peach's Favor since she floats. Well, if ppl feel like its ban worthy because of that then it shouldn't be banned in the Peach Puff MU or the Peach/Puff Ditto because that lopsidedness isn't really a factor.

Just because Fox is the main reason stages were banned doesn't mean there aren't other reasons to consider keeping a stage banned and just because 1 or 2 characters can exploit a stage more than everyone else doesn't mean that stage should be banned if that character isn't in the MU to exploit it.

 

[Kal]

..........

 

[Wobbly Headed Bob]

If that's your argument, then we're not in disagreement. You admit to changing the norms of the game for your own pleasure. Again, nothing wrong with that! But it certainly isn't "making the game better" or "advancing it." It's shifting/changing it. And it CAN be a regression in the first sense if it lowers the overall depth/variety of options in the game.

I'm fine with people doing what they want, but people doing what they want and then telling everyone else they're wrong when they're the ones altering the base composition of the game is just silly.

Yeah, that was kind of the point.

It is only regression or advancement relative to an individual or community's values. Presumably, however, we all share the same values when it comes to competitive games. So you have to be specific upon what values your arguments follow from.

 

[Varist]

why is this thread still alive wtf
why 11 pages in 2 days wtf
that's hundreds of posts pls guys
battlefield only, fd counterpick
tell DSR and its ****** modified brister to gtfo
good god
if i want to play kongo i'll play it at home
if i want to win a god damned tournament i'll tell kongo to go **** itself

 

[Deleted member]

your stupid

 

[SonuvaBeach]

you're*

10stupids

 

[N64]

your stupid

nuh uh
ur stupid

 

[The Business]

hey i didn't read the recent pages but i'll put up a stagelist ruleset w/e that someone said a while ago

neutrals: Dreamland, battlefield, yoshis
counterpicks: FD, PS, FoD

1 ban per player in bo5, no DSR

 

[The Business]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Big Blue only.

 

[Varist]

anyone advocating something that's not FD or BF is a little nintendo kiddie. This is an adult game for men. Captain Falcon is the only character who can be played and series-neutral, no-nonsense stages like BF and FD.

Playing Yoshi's Story at EVO would be a disgrace to men everywhere. That game was for little god damn kids. You can disagree with this as much as you like nerd virgins but men will understand this compelling argument. I want gloots for the sloots and only sitting down and playing a manly game of SSBM is going to attract the sloots so they can even see my plush gloots in the first place.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

I'm not a virgin, and I support Brinstar.

 

[Varist]

confirmed for lying on the internet. Real men unite.

 

[Vudujin]

Oh my sloots that was the best post ever.

So we just gonna keep beating a dead horse or make a decision here?

How are we gonna decide as a community to democratically choose what stages should be counter-picks and which would be starters?

I want answers on my desk by Monday.

 

[Vudujin]

nvvvmmm....

 

[Laijin]

The voting method is still the best method

 

[Xelyst]

The ability to interact with the opponent is valued over the ability to interact with the stage. Many of the stage interactions on the stages that are banned are frowned upon because they interfere with our ability to interact with the opponent or encourage a playstyle that is intentionally non-interactive (stall tactics).

You are entitled to your opinion, and I disagree with it. I don't care about how well the person I'm playing against can move around on Poke Floats or how effectively they can use the magic carpets on RC to defend their position. I care about how well they can use their character's movement and tools to fight with me.

Stall tactics is an example of a non-interactive strategy, not the entirety of the concept.

the current stage list emphasizes fundamentals, which is in line with what i value. i don't think brinstar / cruise / kj64 help push the meta, and i think it's fairly easy to demonstrate that.

close this ****ing thread now ...

 

[Deleted member]

So we just gonna keep beating a dead horse or make a decision here?

How are we gonna decide as a community to democratically choose what stages should be counter-picks and which would be starters?

The main problem is that we have a split in the philosophy of what types of skills we want to reward in a tournament setting. Without an informed direction, we can't really execute anything without it being an act of ignorance.

Some people want to reward only the fighting aspects of the game, and I'm guessing you're one of them. That's fine, but to people like me it's a really boring and narrow approach. And I'm not much more expansive- I liked my stage list with 5 starters and 4 CPs the best. I think that smash is partially about fighting and partially about strategy and would like to reward both approaches to the game in the name of depth. But i would not want to reward it to the same extent that Tim Kish does with the FC rule set, to me that is too far in the opposite direction. But I would still use the FC rule set over "Battlefield only". If you want, we can hold a mini-discussion with the entire Pittsburgh crew and that could be a very positive experience for you guys.

I think this thread has run its course. The main point is that the current stage list is not universally supported by the community. We're not sure to what extent, as some amount of deviation will probably always exist. I'd like to recommend that this thread be closed and to be replaced with a public poll for stages.

The MBR traditional voting method is to make a thread for a stage, with a poll with 3 options: starter, counterpick, or banned. We make a thread like this for every stage that's still up for consideration, although those that are banned typically stay banned. This method is fine for the MBR but could be obnoxious in a public forum with a variety of posters such as this one. I think I have a solution for that, I'll talk to people that matter about it in the near future.

 

[Prefecture]

IIT random, under average players complain about the stagelist and demand answers instead of looking through the millions of topics on the same subject

if you have an iq point or two you can imagine what would happen with peach/ics/ganon/doc vs fox/falcon/falco on that stage lol.

You can complain at me "not knowing" you or whatever, but you have no idea if I actually know how hilariously average you are (protip: youtube)


Face it, you're not smart enough and you don't have enough influence to convince ANYONE with complicated principles or your discussion skills over smashboards. This subject has already been dealt with a million times, and its your responsibility to convince top players, host tournaments and come up with tournament footage that shows that stalling/degenerate types of play CAN'T happen.
I'm not fond of someone belittling someone else's accomplishments or attempting to demean them.
(Especially when that person continuously creates a series of rudimentary grammatical errors)

maybe that's unfair but that is the way it is, and you need to accept it if you wanna achieve anything.
Someone add this as a signature before I do.

That wasnt in response to you, you sensitive little random.

It astounds me that you are somehow able to manage breathing properly, and being a complete imbecile at the same time.

The amount of illogical fallacies you create on a day-to-day basis is just... I am at a lost for any words.
If there is any hope for mankind... you will one day evolve and refrain from 'thugging' around life(and this forum) like a neanderthal.

 

[Vudujin]

I wasn't trolling. I was on the first page defending CP's

I'm pretty much on the same page as far as 5 starters and 4CPs go.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

I'm still waiting for an explanation of why we don't just reduce it to one stage.

 

[Cactuar]

Because this is a platform fighter, and there is value to having some variation in how the players must interact with the stage. The point of this thread is that there are some people who would like that variation to be greater than others. It is a discussion that gets recycled regularly.

 

[Laijin]

The main problem is that we have a split in the philosophy of what types of skills we want to reward in a tournament setting. Without an informed direction, we can't really execute anything without it being an act of ignorance.

Some people want to reward only the fighting aspects of the game, and I'm guessing you're one of them. That's fine, but to people like me it's a really boring and narrow approach. And I'm not much more expansive- I liked my stage list with 5 starters and 4 CPs the best. I think that smash is partially about fighting and partially about strategy and would like to reward both approaches to the game in the name of depth. But i would not want to reward it to the same extent that Tim Kish does with the FC rule set, to me that is too far in the opposite direction. But I would still use the FC rule set over "Battlefield only". If you want, we can hold a mini-discussion with the entire Pittsburgh crew and that could be a very positive experience for you guys.

I think this thread has run its course. The main point is that the current stage list is not universally supported by the community. We're not sure to what extent, as some amount of deviation will probably always exist. I'd like to recommend that this thread be closed and to be replaced with a public poll for stages.

The MBR traditional voting method is to make a thread for a stage, with a poll with 3 options: starter, counterpick, or banned. We make a thread like this for every stage that's still up for consideration, although those that are banned typically stay banned. This method is fine for the MBR but could be obnoxious in a public forum with a variety of posters such as this one. I think I have a solution for that, I'll talk to people that matter about it in the near future.

I'm VERY interested in what your solution is. I also think we should do something similar for the EVO ruleset(which is not written in stone yet. its not even on the website yet) since it will probably be the largest melee tournament of all time and the rules should be set by the majority opinion of the community(whichever opinion that may be).

It astounds me that you are somehow able to manage breathing properly, and being a complete imbecile at the same time.

The amount of illogical fallacies you create on a day-to-day basis is just... I am at a lost for any words.
If there is any hope for mankind... you will one day evolve and refrain from 'thugging' around life(and this forum) like a neanderthal.

See why I put him on my ignore list? He is like this in literally every thread I've seen him in. In the 9 years I have been on the Smash World Forums, Leffen is officially the second person I've ever added to my ignore list(So Fatal being the other guy).

I'm still waiting for an explanation of why we don't just reduce it to one stage.

Battlefield only.

 

[Zhea]

I always thought the main reason most of the stage list was banned wasn't due to hazards, but how big an advantage it gave some characters. As an example, Rainbow Cruise favored high mobility character to the point of it shifting match ups to the 70-30 or higher mark. Mute City, Kongo and Brinstar had similar properties. If the stage list was being banned by hazards only, then a lot of high level players would be glad to see Yoshi Story and it's Flyguys go.

The whole first match banning between 5 neutrals was just a way for players to agree upon a neutral stage that fits their play styles(I.E. the most neutral stage for those 2 players). This fluctuates a lot even at high level play(No one is going to give Hax or M2K FD even if the match up is technically in their favor).

That being said I believe there is talk of FD or Yoshi's being moved to the counter pick list by the Cactus man himself, since that's the role they seem to fill.

 

[Gea]

Battlefield only.

I don't get why you keep posting this, as several players want it already and are willing to discuss the topic like adults. All this does is make people less likely to respond to you in any sort of serious manner, which most people seem to have already given up on.

Running around with the chicken little attitude when these changes are not new are not doing you favors.

 

[leffen]

It astounds me that you are somehow able to manage breathing properly, and being a complete imbecile at the same time.

The amount of illogical fallacies you create on a day-to-day basis is just... I am at a lost for any words.
If there is any hope for mankind... you will one day evolve and refrain from 'thugging' around life(and this forum) like a neanderthal.

Oooh, you sir sure are a bad ***.

Dec 2012 join date, I'm sure you must know exactly what I'm talking about.
Pointing out that in your opinion I make tons of "illogical fallacies" does not them illogical, and you did nothing to show anyone why they were illogical. Perhaps its just out of reach for your level of intelligence?



My post still stands. This debate has led nowhere, and it will continue to be fruitless until the ones who are against the status quo start doing something instead of just pointing out "hypocrites" and "fallacies"

You may argue against me or anyone else, but the fact that NOTHING will come from this will still be true.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Because this is a platform fighter, and there is value to having some variation in how the players must interact with the stage. The point of this thread is that there are some people who would like that variation to be greater than others. It is a discussion that gets recycled regularly.

I am genuinely interested in this line of thinking. Why is the 3-platform layout the only viable, reused setup? Why not just simplify things and lock everything to Battlefield only or Dream Land only? Why is the stage beautiful only up until it makes players uncomfortable (Brinstar, Rainbow Cruise)? I'll be the first to admit I abhor fighting on Rainbow Cruise, but it is purely emotional and not based on my ability or inability to win there. I think Mute City is a fantastic stage, and I loved seeing Darkrain fight there in the FC vids recently posted in this thread. If we want to hone in on the "competitive element", I find the current set of 5 stages arbitrary. Just pick one and be done. Leaving the 5 admits to there being interest in stage variation.

 

[Revven]

You can't leave it to only one stage of similar structure vs the others because there is no one neutral stage in the game. There's a reason players tend to avoid using the term "neutral" these days; the only reason it's used is because there's no other term to define them by. FD nor BF are completely neutral for every character or MU.

The other non-legal CPs happen to skew MUs a lot more, mostly in favor of the top 10 characters vs the bottom 10. The only reason people have any substance of argument for the bottom 10 or so is because certain characters below the top 10 can take advantage of the gimmicks the non-legal stages offer, which may or not give them the chance to win that one match in a set. From there it's all about the whole player vs stage element in said MU on said stage.

I had a really long post written out earlier but smashboards stopped loading for me as soon as I was posting it so...... I tried to sum it up here.

 

[Laijin]

I don't get why you keep posting this, as several players want it already and are willing to discuss the topic like adults. All this does is make people less likely to respond to you in any sort of serious manner, which most people seem to have already given up on.

Running around with the chicken little attitude when these changes are not new are not doing you favors.

You totally took my obviously sarcastic comment a little bit too seriously there...

 

[Gea]

You totally took my obviously sarcastic comment a little bit too seriously there...

I realized you were being sarcastic, which is why I made the post I did.