I have a huge problem with the current stage ruleset.

[Gea]

Man i hope that RC and KJ64 get made into counterpicks again so i can get free wins with fox by running away =D

You sure did win a lot of tournaments when they were legal. A shame the ruleset was changed to stop your reign of terror.

 

[Zodiac]

Rainbow cruise and dk64 should come back.

 

[Jolteon]

So, about Mushroom Kingdom II.

 

[Jockmaster]

What strawman are you referring to, Mr. Simple Logic?

The point I made was that the arguments being put forward by players in favor of the current ruleset, with the exception of the sort of "this stage is stupid and janky and **** you for liking it" arguments, are nothing but sophistry. They are just bull ****. Those who posit these arguments are being disingenuous; they are nonsense arguments and are only being put forward to hide the fact that, in reality, they just want these stages gone because they dislike them.

Not really sure what "Smashier than thou" comment I made, but I'm glad it comes off as kind of arbitrary.

You took one sentence out of the multiple posts I have made and basically discounted every argument I had made by saying that that one sentence was dumb. I never said "this stage is stupid and janky and **** you for liking it", in fact there are many stages I absolutely love but that I believe have no place in any self-respecting competitive setting. I love Brinstar, I love Mute City, I love Corneria, but in all honesty they are stupid ****ing stages. Period. They add nothing to competition besides MUH VARIETY IM GETTING BORED WATCHING THE STREAM and jankness. You have yet to address a single thing I have said and just said "no u r stupid bull****bull****bull****"

And the comment was the one I quoted. You are basically coming across as someone who has apparently figured it all out and **** anyone who even makes an attempt at trying to logically discuss it because they are worse than idiots who make idiot rage posts.

You sure did win a lot of tournaments when they were legal. A shame the ruleset was changed to stop your reign of terror.

I laughed

 

[Pengie]

You sure did win a lot of tournaments when they were legal. A shame the ruleset was changed to stop your reign of terror.

Yeah it's not like people can improve or anything. That also doesn't address the main point that both of those stages allow fox to invalidate a majority of the cast. But go ahead and focus on the joke rather than a valid point that's cool too.

 

[Gea]

Yeah it's not like people can improve or anything. That also doesn't address the main point that both of those stages allow fox to invalidate a majority of the cast. But go ahead and focus on the joke rather than a valid point that's cool too.

Care to point to the successful Fox player that counterpicked those two stages successfully over something like Stadium because of the free wins? I'm still waiting on someone to show me footage of someone stalling, not camping, on KJ64 in a tournament set.

 

[Ripple]

I'm willing to test something out at SMYM in March. but not entirely sure what to test out

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

^no player bans

If you're talking about a change that has a ton of top player and TO backing, like Cactuar suggested, thats the one to make.

Or reverting to the old DSR, but we've done that plenty of times.

 

[Jockmaster]

I agree, try no player bans. That would make things interesting

 

[thespymachine]

Now just imagine when we have LITERALLY 100,000+ people watching our game from around the world at EVO, with no knowledge of the competitive nature of the game whatsoever, watching the same 2 or 3 stages being played back to back.....

I'm sure you're aware that most matches played on stage in UMvC & SF (and probably all in top 8) are on their 'neutral' stage - Danger Room and Training Stage, respectively.
These stages are exactly the same as all the other stages they could play on, other than different backgrounds - meaning, even when they don't need to add/remove stages to make/keep their game competitive, they still go to their stages that provide more focus on the players/characters and less on the stage.

I doubt spectators will care about our low amount of stages (relative to our past stage lists), and if they do they might be sufferring from ill logic or are accidently/purposefully being hypocritical and putting us in a double standard.


Along with current stream of posts: No players bans! Agreed!

 

[Kal]

..........

 

[Jockmaster]

This entire discussion between the two of us falls down to a reading comprehension failure on your part. I'm not claiming to have addressed any of your points, and I don't care to.

And in my opinion it's a lack of knowing how to discuss things in a forum setting (eg. quoting someone then making comments about the type of person that would say that, but claiming you weren't talking about the points that person was making).

Agree to disagree I guess m8

 

[Kal]

..........

 

[Jockmaster]

I obviously wasn't addressing any of the points you were making, Mr. Simple Logic, or else I would have actually addressed some of them. Notice that I didn't, as I was merely making an observation on what sort of argument we get from those who want to ban all but six stages. You're more than welcome to correctly observe that this doesn't address any of the points you've made. It wasn't intended to.

Why are you calling me Mr. Simple Logic?

That isn't my name

 

[♡ⓛⓞⓥⓔ♡]

Those stages are banned because they are bull**** (<- my argumentation skillz)

Get used to it Laijin, things change

 

[Laijin]

Those stages are banned because they are bull**** (<- my argumentation skillz)

Get used to it Laijin, things change

No wai. But I argue they are not bull**** and are 100% fair.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Let me try a different angle.

If you had control over the stage design, what would you create? Would you even try to incorporate interesting mechanics? Or would you just build the optimum flat stage with a couple platforms?

 

[Vixen]

MK2 should be the only legal stage.

Done.

 

[Deleted member]

I'm going in.

I've said everything I care to say on the topic. I still see no support coming from any high or top level players, and I can't justify spending time on this without that evidence of change being wanted.

I don't disagree with the rest of this post, just this part specifically. Again, why does player ability add weight to their vote? Isn't the debate in this topic evidence enough that change is wanted? How much community support do you need before it's worth your time? Why is it more worthy of your time to discard legitimate arguments with a post?

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.

How are using character movement on a stage and positioning on the stage not the exact same thing? Why is using the side platform on Battlefield different than using Porygon on Poke Floats? I don't think PF should be legal either, but you are certainly missing some consistency in your stance.

2) The "what skills are important in melee" problem.
This question is hard to provide a solid answer to, as there are heavily conflicting opinions between different groups of players. I am of the party that appreciates the fighting game elements of the game over the platformer elements. This isn't to say that I don't like the platformer elements, but simply that I prioritize the former over the latter. Others weight them equally, some weigh the ability to move on the stages over the ability to interact with the opponent. It's w/e. When it comes down to it, because this is a matter of player preference, the majority rules. This is the topic you need to have a group to represent, and if you want change, you'll need to provide evidence through action, which is by hosting tournaments, and having players outside of your group experience and appreciate the difference, enough that the idea spreads and is more commonly used.

This brings up
3) The problem of majority rule.
Does the value of the opinion of a high to top level player carry more weight than the opinion of a beginner.

4) The problem of competitive standard
Does the fact that a more expansive stage list was used in years long past prove that those stages are fair or competitively viable?

2. You and I both know that the best approach to winning is to exploit both for their full depth. Therefore, this is only a matter of preference to some extent. However, to say that "the majority rules" in this instance is a trick because "the majority" was never consulted on the recommended rule set. No transparency was made with the community at that time, and to say that X hundred people need to organize intentional change over a set time period to combat 20 posts in the MBR is ridiculous. The group we're supposed to be representing is the community. Are we doing that? We don't even know.

3. Of a beginner? I would say yes, out of experience. Over someone who's been playing at a low level for a year? I would say no. By then they've had enough time to evaluate the stages as they are. I think we can disregard "beginners" though because we currently have so few of them.

4. Yes, it does- so far. As soon as it is proven otherwise, we can get rid of them immediately.

I'll show you a healthy debate.

...

Not sure what I even mean by that.

Hopefully you mean you'll acknowledge that this is a legitimate debate and you'll resolve it mindfully.

Sorry, I really mean to imply that, in addition to talking about it, you should get people whose opinions have heavy weight to join in on the conversation here, not to stop all discussion.

I'm mostly going in on you personally because I know how you think and I respect your opinions both as a peer and a friend. I think you're giving this issue the sweep-it-under-a-carpet treatment.

The only thing I'm talking about is that when people don't care to ban a stage, it's a good thing. Sitting there and stressing about what stage you can and can't win on is lame to me. Just random it up and play the game.

Forfeiting a strict tactical advantage is not a good thing, it's mind-blowing stupidity. This game is competitive, it's supposed to be stressful because you want to win and you have the duress of defeating your opponent within the bounds of the game. That we have tournaments and encourage people to travel hundreds of miles to throw matches away is incredible.

Yeah, they will be really excited when we get Peach vs Puff in Kongo Jungle 64 in grand finals again.

I'd want to watch this match before I'd watch Falco #3253 vs Fox #4567 on Battlefield.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Let's just cut to the chase. Final Destination only. I'm not trolling. This is obviously what the "skilled people want". It's just not quite there. Why allow what little variety there is right now? Apparently, it is OK to pick Dream Land for its stupid high ceiling but not OK to pick Brinstar for the lava. Color me confused.

You are free to substitute Final Destination with Battlefield or whatever other "perfect" stage you feel is right. My point stands.

 

[♡ⓛⓞⓥⓔ♡]

But I argue they are not bull**** and are 100% fair.

Dang man, what do I do now

*runs*

E: To be honest more stages make for more variety and interesting games, but Kongo and RC allow too much camping, especially for Fox. Brinstar on the other hand is just stupid with the stupid lava thing

 

[Deleted member]

Let's just cut to the chase. Final Destination only. I'm not trolling. This is obviously what the "skilled people want". It's just not quite there. Why allow what little variety there is right now? Apparently, it is OK to pick Dream Land for its stupid high ceiling but not OK to pick Brinstar for the lava. Color me confused.

You are free to substitute Final Destination with Battlefield or whatever other "perfect" stage you feel is right. My point stands.

You're too old for the slippery slope. You know better.

 

[Gea]

Brinstar has acid, not lava. Problem solved.

 

[Pengie]

Care to point to the successful Fox player that counterpicked those two stages successfully over something like Stadium because of the free wins? I'm still waiting on someone to show me footage of someone stalling, not camping, on KJ64 in a tournament set.

I feel that has less to do with KJ64/RC not being dumb for Fox and more to do with the fact that Stadium doesn't force Fox players to greatly alter their playstyle in order to take full advantage of the stage. Additionally, there's a huge stigma associated with running away to run the clock out so most players aren't going to do it so people aren't going to do it in the first place which accounts for why it was never a popular CP for Fox when it was legal.

As far as footage goes, I don't see why exactly it's necessary; I'd say it's pretty well known that Fox can run away from slow/floaty characters extremely well on DL64 and KJ64 allows Fox to do the same thing more effectively than DL64 because the platform layout emphasizes vertical movement even more so than DL64. I could try to MM people with KJ64 or RC legal and record those but I don't think there'd be many takers for that offer >.>

 

[Ripple]

a little off current topic but would this solve our DSR problem?


"you cannot choose a stage that you have already picked yourself and won on in a b05 set"

this leads to the agreed upon neutral stage being able to be picked again by either player and doesn't allow a player to pick their best CP 2x in a set if their opponent loses on their CP the first time AND also allows a player who wins on his/her opponents CP to actually CP there themselves"

 

[Revven]

Now just imagine when we have LITERALLY 100,000+ people watching our game from around the world at EVO, with no knowledge of the competitive nature of the game whatsoever, watching the same 2 or 3 stages being played back to back.....

I wouldn't, personally, advise changing the stage list (which has been the same couple of stages for the last couple of years) for the most important and biggest tournament of the year. Something as big as allowing some stages that haven't been around as legal for years could really be detrimental to what's shown at Evo; I do not want to risk the chance of our game being represented negatively, or for something to go horribly wrong. All the tournaments leading up to Evo have the same stage list, why suddenly change it on the players? Just for different flavor? That would be a big blunder, you're nuts for suggesting this to be something we include in possibly the biggest tournament and biggest stage for our game to get exposure this year.

Stick to what has been working, don't take risks when they're not worth it.

I don't think having only the current 5 stages is going to make people who watch the stream bat an eye. The people who will complain will be the same people who complain about us turning items off and those people are to be ignored; they aren't worth our time catering to.

We should be catering to our players first, the spectators second. If you prefer those stages to be legal, host tournaments with them and show there's people who want them back. If there isn't a great turnout for them, then you could extrapolate from that, that a lot of players aren't interested in having to worry about KJ64 or Rainbow Jank as counterpicks. Or if something goes well, then you have some actual statistics or data about them, while now you have zero.

I don't see this thread swaying anyone's opinions. We'll keep going in a circle until there's proof or evidence of KJ64 and RC or Mute City and Brinstar bringing about "better" competitiveness to our game.

 

[Gea]

I feel that has less to do with KJ64/RC not being dumb for Fox and more to do with the fact that Stadium doesn't force Fox players to greatly alter their playstyle in order to take full advantage of the stage. Additionally, there's a huge stigma associated with running away to run the clock out so most players aren't going to do it so people aren't going to do it in the first place which accounts for why it was never a popular CP for Fox when it was legal.

As far as footage goes, I don't see why exactly it's necessary; I'd say it's pretty well known that Fox can run away from slow/floaty characters extremely well on DL64 and KJ64 allows Fox to do the same thing more effectively than DL64 because the platform layout emphasizes vertical movement even more so than DL64. I could try to MM people with KJ64 or RC legal and record those but I don't think there'd be many takers for that offer >.>

But what you're saying now is that camping isn't a legitimate strategy and basically DL64 encourages the same thing to a lesser extent, not that Fox gets free wins by doing so or that it was a prevalent strategy. What I'm saying is you're encouraging the bans off of the theory that someone could dominate there, not that someone does and continues to dominate there.

I'm not saying you couldn't "play lame" there and maybe win some MMs against people, but I am saying that you couldn't suddenly start winning sets against Peach players that were consistently beating you before because the stage gave you an "automatic win."

And I agree with Revven that even if you want the stage list expanded, EVO is not the tournament to campaign a reformat.

 

[telemaster]

has any TO considered dry running their own rule set? meaning test it out with real players in a real setting, collect data, then analyze evaluate tweak and repeat?

 

[Laijin]

I wouldn't, personally, advise changing the stage list (which has been the same couple of stages for the last couple of years) for the most important and biggest tournament of the year. Something as big as allowing some stages that haven't been around as legal for years could really be detrimental to what's shown at Evo; I do not want to risk the chance of our game being represented negatively, or for something to go horribly wrong. All the tournaments leading up to Evo have the same stage list, why suddenly change it on the players? Just for different flavor? That would be a big blunder, you're nuts for suggesting this to be something we include in possibly the biggest tournament and biggest stage for our game to get exposure this year.

Stick to what has been working, don't take risks when they're not worth it.

I don't think having only the current 5 stages is going to make people who watch the stream bat an eye. The people who will complain will be the same people who complain about us turning items off and those people are to be ignored; they aren't worth our time catering to.

We should be catering to our players first, the spectators second. If you prefer those stages to be legal, host tournaments with them and show there's people who want them back. If there isn't a great turnout for them, then you could extrapolate from that, that a lot of players aren't interested in having to worry about KJ64 or Rainbow Jank as counterpicks. Or if something goes well, then you have some actual statistics or data about them, while now you have zero.

I don't see this thread swaying anyone's opinions. We'll keep going in a circle until there's proof or evidence of KJ64 and RC or Mute City and Brinstar bringing about "better" competitiveness to our game.

I don't see what the problem with changing the ruleset for EVO. If the player is truly better at the game, then they should be fine with playing on a KJ64 or Rainbow Cruise without any issues.

Sorry if you got the wrong impression, but I'm not suggesting 100% catering to the public. Having more stage variety WILL be way more entertaining to watch, but also will benefit the community since its apparently obvious that no where near majority likes the new rules. So most importantly, we should cater to the community as a whole, then the spectators. Catering to a select handful of "top players" is pretty unfair. At this point and time, new players are a minority in this community and most players have a ton of experience, enough to be able to voice valid opinions about the game.

I'm not sure where you're getting the KJ64 and RC have "jank" in them, but those stages are perfectly fine. I can easily say "oh hey PS has random transformations, lets ban that" or "Dreamland's wind is really janky and the stage boundaries are massive lets ban that". The stages you call "janky" is entirely your opinion and is not shared with majority of the community, as demonstrated by this thread.

We should absolutely move forward and change the rules for EVO. Like you said, its the largest stage. We're sticking to what we know works since we've been playing on these stages for many many years without literally any issues. If anything, the new ruleset is the newcommer here and I can argue we shouldn't use new rulesets for such a large tournament but rather we should stick to whats been proven to work well.

 

[Cactuar]

The debate/thread itself is proof that there is a niche group of players who want change. What I need is proof that there is at least a handful of noteworthy players who are willing to back the idea and take it to their local TOs. I'm not the person that needs to be convinced of anything. My objective is, as always, to figure out what the community as a whole wants and put my support as an individual behind that.

The difference between pokefloats and battlefield is the forced interaction. On battlefield, time forces the losing player to approach the winning player. On pokefloats, the losing player can take advantage simply by standing between incoming stage and the winning player. The value of this is a matter of opinion, but it isn't something I consider positive, as a player with advantage should not be forced to approach. These stages change what holds value as an advantage. Some may call this variety, but I consider it unnecessary inconsistency, negative to a competitive environment. Again, opinion.

When I say majority rules, I say that looking at the tournaments that have been recently hosted and based on conversations I have had with other players. The ruleset hasn't really changed in the last few years, we have simply added optional additional rules to potentially provide more "fairness" that don't get used in most play. The reason I say that x number of relevant players need to support this thread (I'm not asking for hundreds, I'm asking for a handful), is because this is specifically for the stage list, which (aside from me being a... funny guy... with japes in teams) was made by looking at those tournaments that have been hosted to see what direction the TOs have gone. The logic in that, is that by looking at what TOs have done, we assume that their decisions are based on what their local community wants. What we derive from this is that the "no jank" ruleset has the majority of the community's support, as it is used in the majority of the community's tournaments. The MBR had no major impact on the stage list.

So, yes, I am asking that there be a significant gathering of players organizing intentional change, but it is not to combat 20 posts in the MBR. It is to combat 2 years of tournament evidence that speaks contrary to what this thread is asking for.

I am not sweeping this under a carpet. I have stated, and repeated several times, my position on the issue. There needs to be more significant player support for the change than exists in the thread currently.

 

[Habefiet]

You're too old for the slippery slope. You know better.

I disagree with the implication of this post. The slippery slope is already happening, Umbreon. Two or three years ago we had nine stages and the idea of "Battlefield only" was unthinkable. A year ago we got down to six and Hax, in particular, started purporting this idea of Battlefield only. Nowadays he's not the sole person arguing that we should at least test that in a tournament, and plenty of people seem to want to axe Stadium and just have the five neutrals.

I could try to MM people with KJ64 or RC legal and record those but I don't think there'd be many takers for that offer >.>

Entry level Marth/Puff offering a $10 Bo5 MM exclusively on KJ64 on the condition that we have a judge that determines I don't have to pay you jack, even if you win, unless you stall so severely that it is clear to an impartial observer that you are winning wholly as a consequence of the stage and not merely because you're better than me.

Alternately, let's get someone better than me to agree to this, lol

I summon Hungrybox to help prove whether this stage is broken or not

 

[kupo15]

Both sides appear to be in a deadlock so Idk if we will come to a solution about freeing some unbanned stages but I feel the thread brought up another point that we seem to be more in agreement on which is the role of the neutral stages in relation to removing bans. This quote got me to start thinking a little bit differently.

My beef with the counterpicks is that with stage bans, the list becomes incredibly limited.... If the starter stages are as neutral and as winnable as they are articulated, then you shouldn't be able to ban them.

A valid point. I want to extend this point into the relevance of neutral stages and question if such a thing actually exists in Smash. Through this analysis, maybe it will help both sides have a common ground so we start to resolve the "stage argument" regarding bringing back more stages:


It seems that while reading through this thread what defines the quality of a stage (neutral/counterpick/banned) has been mixed up and is not consistent which leads me to believe that there is no such thing as neutral stages. Atm competitive smash matches are based around this qualification of "neutral vs counterpick" stages since every set must begin with 1 of the chosen 5 "neutral" stages. This begs the question, "What factors determines what makes a stage neutral or counterpick?"

The obvious first answer is one where the stage itself is of neutrality where it doesn't directly influence the match by "fighting back" with the players so to speak aka the moving stages or hazards. If one were to go by this definition of a neutral stage then it is proven by comparing FD to Stadium but it is disproven by comparing FD to Yoshis. If direct stage influence puts FD and Stadium in 2 different categories, then why are FD and YI in the same category? This is one inconsistency and is a point against the idea of neutral stages existing.

The second possible answer would be that stage layout plays a big factor in determining a stages quality in relation to matchups and a character's innate ability to exploit it. Example would be that Stadium is a CP because Fox dominates on that stage or that Hyrule/Great bay is banned because characters can exploit it by playing keep away. Once again, if you apply this to the "Neutral stages" you will see an inconsistency.
*If you compare FD to BF you will find that while both are labeled as "neutral" they are completely opposite of each other on the neutral spectrum depending on the match up. Case in point: IC does way better with platforms vs flat stage so in their eyes, FD and BF do not give them the same odds even though they are in the same category
*Compare Dreamland to Yoshis: Both Tri-plat stage however the size makes a huge difference on the MU. Case in point is Falcon who excels more in bigger stages or Peach whose longevity is reduced in YI vs DL.

So is there really such thing as a "Neutral" stage or is every stage actually better qualified as a CP? It would seem that the latter is the case.

__________
TL;DR: This analysis further validates DoH's idea that we should remove bans and maybe it will make us think differently about the current state of a smash set. Some further ideas to think about are:

-Should there be a list of Neutral Stages at all?
-Should we limit the first match of a set to a handful of 5 arbitrary, predetermined stages instead of limiting the stage choices on a MU by MU basis?
-What new stages can be added based on the perspective of all stages being CP to varying degrees?
-If both characters can equally exploit a stage that currently banned, should it still banned or should it be legal on a case by case basis?

 

[Kal]

..........

 

[Scar]

subscribing and pre-emptively disagreeing with the OP. this is quite obviously not an objective question, it's highly subjective and really boils down to what the value set of the TO / players are.

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.

 

[Kal]

..........

 

[Laijin]

subscribing and pre-emptively disagreeing with the OP. this is quite obviously not an objective question, it's highly subjective and really boils down to what the value set of the TO / players are.

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.

Seriously? You throw a word like "fundamentals" out there yet we are talking about Super Smash Bros. Melee, a game that at its core has a focus on platforming as well as combat. Because For example, because Kongo Jungle 64 has slightly different platform heights and a predictable and non-random barrel below the stage, it suddenly no longer emphasizes the fundamentals of the game?

wat.
wat.
wat.

No disrespect or anything, but you need to elaborate.

 

[Habefiet]

I don't see what the problem with changing the ruleset for EVO. If the player is truly better at the game, then they should be fine with playing on a KJ64 or Rainbow Cruise without any issues.

Sorry if you got the wrong impression, but I'm not suggesting 100% catering to the public. Having more stage variety WILL be way more entertaining to watch, but also will benefit the community since its apparently obvious that no where near majority likes the new rules. So most importantly, we should cater to the community as a whole, then the spectators. Catering to a select handful of "top players" is pretty unfair. At this point and time, new players are a minority in this community and most players have a ton of experience, enough to be able to voice valid opinions about the game.

I'm not sure where you're getting the KJ64 and RC have "jank" in them, but those stages are perfectly fine. I can easily say "oh hey PS has random transformations, lets ban that" or "Dreamland's wind is really janky and the stage boundaries are massive lets ban that". The stages you call "janky" is entirely your opinion and is not shared with majority of the community, as demonstrated by this thread.

We should absolutely move forward and change the rules for EVO. Like you said, its the largest stage. We're sticking to what we know works since we've been playing on these stages for many many years without literally any issues. If anything, the new ruleset is the newcommer here and I can argue we shouldn't use new rulesets for such a large tournament but rather we should stick to whats been proven to work well.

Coming from a guy that wouldn't mind seeing more stages again, you are consistently making ridiculous statements right now.

1. "If the player is truly better at the game, then they should be fine with playing on a KJ64 or Rainbow Cruise without any issues."--I challenge you to a match on Temple. Me Fox, you Young Link (that's who you main, right?). If you're really better at the game, you should be fine playing without any issues. You can't just make a blanket statement like that without clarifying that it's because those stages aren't broken.

2. "Having more stage variety WILL be way more entertaining to watch, but also will benefit the community since its apparently obvious that no where near majority likes the new rules." You have exactly no way of knowing whether or not it will be more entertaining to watch. Just because you think it's the case doesn't make it so. I don't think I've ever seen a match on KJ64 that I found very enjoyable and I've been lurking since the MLG days. Also, you've kind of got a case of vocal dissent here. You're taking like twenty or thirty people that are coming into a debate on stages that are voicing their dissent--why do you assume these people are representative of the community at large? Honestly, during the last great debate on this issue, it seemed to me that the majority of players DID prefer the more limited stage list. FC ran with less stages than originally intended because there was such a huge uproar over some of the stages included.

3. "The stages you call "janky" is entirely your opinion and is not shared with majority of the community, as demonstrated by this thread. " Again, stop pretending that you DO speak for the majority when you don't know that. Of course dissenters will flock here. Most supporters of the current ruleset aren't going to bother with this topic because it's been talked over again and again and the ruleset hasn't changed so they don't feel too concerned about stating their views for the ten billionth time.

4. "We should absolutely move forward and change the rules for EVO." This is as close to an objectively terrible idea as possible, as far as I'm concerned. A ruleset that everyone is at least okay with playing, that has worked for a good long while, and is representative of most tournaments run today versus a ruleset that has been done exactly once in ages that is not the norm in the community anymore? Absolutely not.

 

[Gea]

Laijin, it's pretty obvious he's saying those stages marginalize things like spacing and matchup specific things in favor of a different skillset for that one stage. Whether or not you agree with that is another matter, but Scar (and others) have been pretty clear about what they value and what they mean in these cases.

If you disagree with him, you should probably explain how a stage like Brinstar can help develop new strategies around matchups that are part of the actual player vs player interaction, such as FD giving characters chaingrabs rather than "the stage has acid that may hit the player and then you knee them."

 

[Pengie]

But what you're saying now is that camping isn't a legitimate strategy and basically DL64 encourages the same thing to a lesser extent, not that Fox gets free wins by doing so or that it was a prevalent strategy. What I'm saying is you're encouraging the bans off of the theory that someone could dominate there, not that someone does and continues to dominate there.

Wait, how did you get "camping isn't a legitimate strategy" from my post? Let me rephrase my point: Because KJ64 makes Fox running away from characters with poor vertical mobility easier and more effective than DL64, it skews those match-ups in Fox's favor more significantly than DL64 does (which, imo, already skews them in his favor). Because of this, it should be banned because it skews the many match-ups greatly in favor of a small set of characters (for what it's worth I think that everything I've said about Fox on this stage also applies to Falco and Falcon, but since I main Fox I kept it focused on him.) To put this in terms of something that is actually banned, I think that KJ64 skews match-ups almost to the same degree that Green Greens and Corneria skewed them. I think that this is a sound method to go about deciding if something should be banned and if you don't think so then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I'm not saying you couldn't "play lame" there and maybe win some MMs against people, but I am saying that you couldn't suddenly start winning sets against Peach players that were consistently beating you before because the stage gave you an "automatic win."

I obviously don't think that I would beat Armada because this stage is legal, but I do feel that if the stage were legal I would have a significantly better shot beating him than I would on any other stage because of how much it skews an already bad match-up and should be banned for skewing the match-up (and others like it) to the extent that it does.

Entry level Marth/Puff offering a $10 Bo5 MM exclusively on KJ64 on the condition that we have a judge that determines I don't have to pay you jack, even if you win, unless you stall so severely that it is clear to an impartial observer that you are winning wholly as a consequence of the stage and not merely because you're better than me.

Alternately, let's get someone better than me to agree to this, lol

I summon Hungrybox to help prove whether this stage is broken or not

If we ever happen to be at the same tournament then you've got yourself a deal.

 

[Gea]

So then Pengie you're saying that your stage list philosophy reflects balance in matchups? If so, where is this line drawn? What stage is the "baseline" for a matchup? Do you believe in counterpicks? I'm not trying to play devil's advocate with you or twist your words, I just want to know exactly what your personal stage philosophy is and why.

And I'd like to add that I don't think Corneria and Green Greens were removed because of matchup imbalances, though I recall lots of people being anti-brinstar and mute for those reasons.