I have a huge problem with the current stage ruleset.

[Habefiet]

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

Excellent, if we both make it out to Evo/G3 I look forward to it, hopefully along with some normal friendlies.

I don't even necessarily think you're wrong btw, I'd just quite like to try it.

 

[Revven]

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.

I simply do not agree with arbitrarily changing a big component of the rule set, which largely has an affect on our current metagame. You can argue spectacle, character balance, etc. but the bottom line is the meta has revolved around the current stage list for the last 2 years. At EVO, we are trying to demonstrate the current meta. Involving stages that haven't been in the current meta, to fulfill some (clearly) small subsect of the community (some who don't even play anymore) changes the meta we've developed pretty significantly.

So no, it would not be a good idea to throw on stages that have been banned for a long time into EVO when we are showcasing the game in its best form yet. It'd be like releasing a patch to a fighting game on the day of a huge tournament that makes some changes to the character roster. Do you use the new patch, where players haven't had the time to adjust or play it? Or stick with the unpatched? Obviously you stick with what players are accustomed to and that would be the unpatched version of the game.

That's a bit of an extreme example, because this is just a rule set. But changing the stage list does change the game and that isn't a smart thing to push for the biggest event we've had in years. Throwing away what's been built up for the last two years isn't a smart move, even if you personally think it may benefit the game, there's downsides to it.

And yeah, you can argue players are "technically" used to these stages but they haven't been in play for two years in the current meta, so how do you know players aren't going to exploit them? How do you know the stages will work the way you think they will? It goes both ways, but even so, you're arguing for a change so the burden of proof is on the person (or people) asking for the change.

Like I said though, it's arbitrary. I never saw anyone in the stream chat for Apex complain about the stages being played, and I watched the stream all three days. I watched Kings of Cali stream and I never once saw anyone say, "Hey, they should unban KJ64, I'm tired of the same stages". The spectator argument isn't really valid going off of that... it shows it's not really a popular opinion among spectators either. Even new spectators to the game don't seem to question it, from the stream chats I've read.

The ONLY people you will see complain about stages from a spectator POV are players who do not understand why we have removed stages to begin with. And those players are not, again, worth our time to cater to. And you pretty much agree with that, right? So the spectator part, to me, sounds like your opinion vs what's actually true (the truth being, no spectator ever questions it, they like what they've been seeing). If you want to help those players, you help them understand why things are the way they are first before suggesting they would prefer more stages on.

Sticking with what works is objectively better.

 

[JPOBS]

But unbalancing it by reducing the number of accepted stages among the years is okay ?
Cause let's face it, that's what happened, giving top tier more advantages and low tier less chances.

Nope.
You think Zelda and DK are going to do better against fox and falco if they have Kongo/RC to choose from? Don't be ridiculous. Most of the banned stages are banned because the high tiers abuse them and literally make it impossible for the low tiers to participate in combat. You have the entire concept misunderstood.

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.....

Those 100,000 viewers don't seem to have any problem watching SF and Marvel where the stages are physically exact replicas of one another. This argument that it is "boring" to play/watch only 2-3 stages is silly, most FGC effectively only have 1 stage.

Yes, because I spent almost six-hundred posts addressing most of these arguments in the MBR Ruleset thread. After all that was done, it was clear to me: those who are "trying to logically discuss" the ruleset have left the building. The ones who are left either:

1) Accept that it's a matter of opinion, and don't care so much about what's "fair," or

2) Make disingenuous arguments to hide that they really just don't like the stages.

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.

All you do is bull**** about logic and semantics. You never address the topic at hand.

And even if the arguments made by cactuar and co. are "disingenuous", that does not refute the argument at hand. As long as the argument has merit (e.g. minimizing the stage-player interaction while maximizing the player-player interaction), then calling it "disingenous" on the behalf of the speaker to posit such an argument is a moot point. Its just you bull****ing.

 

[Deleted member]

yeah i think we can stop giving a **** about spectators at any time now.

i also think that changing the rule set for evo is off the table.

 

[Cactuar]

I make no effort to conceal that I dislike whatever stages. Generally, the reasons that end up being provided for why we don't like stages come after the feeling of disliking the stage, as the reasons are simply us defining our feelings. Once those reasons are countered with other reasons, the core of our beliefs change, and we end up appreciating things that we wouldn't have prior. Such is the goal of strong communication skills.

But then again, that statement might just be disingenuous.

**

 

[Sox]

WHAT MAKES A STAGE BROKEN? and why is that more broken than a characters given abilities? (I.e. fox shine is ok, but lava is bad?)

Has anyone addressed this? or does anyone want to discuss it with me?

 

[Theftz22]

It's pretty obvious that developing rulesets is an entirely subjective exercise. It all comes down to what skills and abilities you subjectively value testing. That isn't to say there aren't objective facts about which stages better promote certain skills (obviously BF tests platform skills better than FD), but that the decision to ban or include stages based on those facts rests on subjective values. I think then that the community should decide what skills it values and tailor its ruleset to testing those skills.

I also don't agree with the idea that we can't change the stage list to try to balance out the characters. Consider the fact that character abilities are relative to rulesets. A very different tier list would emerge if we played coin mode, or played all stages legal with 1 stock, or if we had a two minute timer. There is in principle no reason to say that a tier list relative to our current ruleset is the "true" tier list, unless you think that our ruleset is the only "true" way of playing the game. The characters are only as "good" as they are because we have crafted the ruleset the way it is. So why should we not consider character balance as a factor in creating our rulesets? I think that all other things equal, I definitely prefer character balance over imbalance.

A final point I want to make is that those in favor of a more inclusive stage list probably should not be pointing to stages like PS, YS, FoD, etc. to say that since they have "jank" elements, therefore the jankness of RC, MC, KJ should not be an obstacle to their legality. For though the proponents of the inclusive stage list take that to be a reductio of those stages being illegal, their opponents may well be fine with that implication and accept that PS, YS, FoD should be banned. That's why we've seen things like BF only being proposed. One man's modus tollens is another man's modus ponens.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrxVXHXHVcc#t=2m32s

 

[ZeldaFreak0309]

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?

Why are you making the assumption that platforming is "at the core" of Melee? Being able to traverse platforms and move well on stages has no worth in and of itself, they're simply movement tools to help you position better for the purposes of FIGHTING.

There isn't, nor has there ever been, some sort of external reward for "being good at jumping from platform to platform" OUTSIDE the context of creating better positioning for yourself vs your opponent.

MELEE IS A FIGHTING GAME. There's no other "core" element that we should be looking to reward, and we NEVER HAVE rewarded any of those other elements. We measure skill at Melee by WHO KILLS THE OTHER GUY MORE, and I'm against adding these stages you're proposing because they move emphasis AWAY from fighting game fundamentals (spacing and punishing in a predictable and stable environment) and toward arbitrary (and community-determined-undesirable) things like "being good at jumping on Pokemon balloons" or "aiming at barrels" or "running away for 8 minutes."

I also hate it when people try to argue that just because things are on a pre-determined timer, they're no longer disruptive in a random way. It's true that in a vacuum, you can always know when and where the barrel on KJ64 is going to be, but given how FAST Melee is, and how quickly and how often new situations/positionings are presented, the INTERACTION of those situations with where the barrel is at any given time IS ESSENTIALLY RANDOM.

Again, if you're trying to actively reward things like being good at traversing PokeFloats and knowing barrel timings and camping high platforms, then I can see why you'd want your stagelist. But the fact that the community as a whole has, over the years, gradually moved AWAY from those stages into the current stageset that we have now (which I think is almost perfect, by the way) the indication is that MOST people would rather reward "fighting game fundamentals" (which is to say, neutral game (spacing) and punish game (combos)) in relatively stable and predictable environments. You're a part of a small but vocal minority, which is why this topic is getting any attention at all.

 

[Kal]

..........

 

[Revven]

Why are you making the assumption that platforming is "at the core" of Melee? Being able to traverse platforms and move well on stages has no worth in and of itself, they're simply movement tools to help you position better for the purposes of FIGHTING.

There isn't, nor has there ever been, some sort of external reward for "being good at jumping from platform to platform" OUTSIDE the context of creating better positioning for yourself vs your opponent.

MELEE IS A FIGHTING GAME. There's no other "core" element that we should be looking to reward, and we NEVER HAVE rewarded any of those other elements. We measure skill at Melee by WHO KILLS THE OTHER GUY MORE, and I'm against adding these stages you're proposing because they move emphasis AWAY from fighting game fundamentals (spacing and punishing in a predictable and stable environment) and toward arbitrary (and community-determined-undesirable) things like "being good at jumping on Pokemon balloons" or "aiming at barrels" or "running away for 8 minutes."

I also hate it when people try to argue that just because things are on a pre-determined timer, they're no longer disruptive in a random way. It's true that in a vacuum, you can always know when and where the barrel on KJ64 is going to be, but given how FAST Melee is, and how quickly and how often new situations/positionings are presented, the INTERACTION of those situations with where the barrel is at any given time IS ESSENTIALLY RANDOM.

Again, if you're trying to actively reward things like being good at traversing PokeFloats and knowing barrel timings and camping high platforms, then I can see why you'd want your stagelist. But the fact that the community as a whole has, over the years, gradually moved AWAY from those stages into the current stageset that we have now (which I think is almost perfect, by the way) the indication is that MOST people would rather reward "fighting game fundamentals" (which is to say, neutral game (spacing) and punish game (combos)) in relatively stable and predictable environments. You're a part of a small but vocal minority, which is why this topic is getting any attention at all.

 

[Pengie]

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.

Just to get this out of the way: any stage philosophy is bound to be completely subjective so don't take any of what I'm about to say as if I think they are facts.

The way I see whether stages should be allowed or banned is how much they deviate from what the community has been calling neutral. So the way I see it there are four stages that no one would really argue against being neutral (BF, YS, DL, FoD). My baseline for a match-up is how much they deviate from these 4 stages (and for what it's worth I don't think that any of these stages cause match-ups to significantly deviate that much from one another). So I guess I wouldn't say so much that my philosophy is based on balance in match-ups, but rather how much it deviates from the norm that we have decided is "neutral." I probably could have done a better job at stressing this point in my earlier posts, but oh well.

As far as whether or not I believe in counter-picks: I don't think that they are necessary. I feel that most of the counter-picks that people want just promote derpy game-play and I personally don't enjoy it and I have a sneaking suspicion that once people have been exposed to them for long enough they would change their minds and we'd be right back where we are now. I also don't mind FD and Stadium all that much because they are the least derpy of the remaining stages (once the 4 I mentioned are taken out) but if there were some way to strike from 4 stages then I would not be opposed to them being removed (although at the same time I wouldn't be up in arms saying that they should be banned)

To sort of sum this up: I think that 4 of the current 5 stages play very similarly and that is a game that I really enjoy playing/watching (side note; I also think that FD/Stadium are fine stages that aren't super dumb), and I think that counter-picks deviate from this to a point that I disagree with, so I guess I may have come off far more argumentative than I should have when I was really just trying to say "I think this stage is dumb."

 

[Kink-Link5]

WHAT MAKES A STAGE BROKEN? and why is that more broken than a characters given abilities? (I.e. fox shine is ok, but lava is bad?)

Has anyone addressed this? or does anyone want to discuss it with me?

Comparing acid to shine is about 6 cactuars.

In seriousness, the primary difference is that player interaction dictates how and when shine is used. Neither player has any control whatsoever over the effect acid has on the match, and that that effect is major enough to be worth mentioning.

Checklist:

           Is it in the players' control?         Does it have a major effect on the match and gameplay?
Shine      Yes                                    Yes
Randall    No                                     No
Acid       No                                     Yes

Whether the effect on the match is major is what is subject to interpretation.

 

[Gea]

Just to get this out of the way: any stage philosophy is bound to be completely subjective so don't take any of what I'm about to say as if I think they are facts.

The way I see whether stages should be allowed or banned is how much they deviate from what the community has been calling neutral. So the way I see it there are four stages that no one would really argue against being neutral (BF, YS, DL, FoD). My baseline for a match-up is how much they deviate from these 4 stages (and for what it's worth I don't think that any of these stages cause match-ups to significantly deviate that much from one another). So I guess I wouldn't say so much that my philosophy is based on balance in match-ups, but rather how much it deviates from the norm that we have decided is "neutral." I probably could have done a better job at stressing this point in my earlier posts, but oh well.

As far as whether or not I believe in counter-picks: I don't think that they are necessary. I feel that most of the counter-picks that people want just promote derpy game-play and I personally don't enjoy it and I have a sneaking suspicion that once people have been exposed to them for long enough they would change their minds and we'd be right back where we are now. I also don't mind FD and Stadium all that much because they are the least derpy of the remaining stages (once the 4 I mentioned are taken out) but if there were some way to strike from 4 stages then I would not be opposed to them being removed (although at the same time I wouldn't be up in arms saying that they should be banned)

To sort of sum this up: I think that 4 of the current 5 stages play very similarly and that is a game that I really enjoy playing/watching, and I think that counter-picks deviate from this to a point that I disagree with, so I guess I may have come off far more argumentative than I should have when I was really just trying to say "I think this stage is dumb."

I see. Thank you for being very clear and straightforward. I definitely hold different philosophies than you do but I can certainly respect this point of view and agree to disagree on said philosophies.

 

[Laijin]

Comparing acid to shine is about 6 cactuars.

In seriousness, the primary difference is that player interaction dictates how and when shine is used. Neither player has any control whatsoever over the effect acid has on the match, and that that effect is major enough to be worth mentioning.

Checklist:

           Is it in the players' control?         Does it have a major effect on the match and gameplay?
Shine      Yes                                    Yes
Randall    No                                     No
Acid       No                                     Yes

Whether the effect on the match is major is what is subject to interpretation.

I don't have time to respond to the other posts atm, but I'm gonna point out its pretty easy to argue that Randall does has as much of an effect on the match as acid. Like you said, its up to interpretation.

 

[Bones0]

In regards to people saying, the majority of the community never agreed on banning Cruise, Brinstar, and Kongo, i think at least in terms of cruise and kongo we have, in the sense that we as a community seem to absolutely hate really campy and/or matches that result in stalling. Evidence of this is clearly shown in the reactions to Armada's YL vs Hbox. Majority of the people absolutely despise watching it. Cruise and Kongo imo allow for more camping/stalling than any other stage.

That being said, even though I main spacies (on most days lol) i see no reason for brinstar to be illegal while Stadium is still legal. Correct me if im wrong but they both seem to do the same thing. They both seem to have random transformations, and both force you to play on one part of the stage when it transforms.

Brinstar has acid that does pretty massive damage to players who fail to get out of the way at mostly predictable, but nonetheless arbitrary times throughout the game. PokeStadium also transforms arbitrarily, but the change is announced in advance, and not all of the transformations are as unplayable as a fully engulfed Brinstar. Water and grass only have minor issues, fire plays fine as long as both players are on the right, and when both players are separated on fire or rock, they usually just wait 30 seconds until it transforms back. I'd be in favor of getting rid of PS, but it's absolutely ridiculous to compare any stage with hazards that do damage to players to stages with none similar hazards.

I can argue that Final Destination promotes heavy camping just as much as Kongo and Rainbow Cruise.
Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPk1...16sr_hpQx2FaWdfbdMYT2U4S&feature=results_main

Your comment is even up there and got response from chibo lol

No one cares about camping. What people care about is STALLING. You can stall on KJ, and there's nothing some characters can do about it. This has been demonstrated on occasion, but it's just not that common because most people don't enjoy stalling people out of tournaments. You can call that scrub mentality, but it's still the truth. Myself and others would much rather lose fighting in a way that is conducive to learning and improvement than try to time out a player better than us who will win the set anyway.

I do like the idea of the melee backroom, but when it comes to decisions like this they really should have had the input from the entire community rather than just what a few space animal mains think should be legal lol.

This wasn't a decision of the MBR. Anyone who thinks they even influenced this change is off their rocker. I think the simplest thing to point to is the stages people keep on random. Since my very first time playing other competitive Melee players, I've NEVER ONCE seen any stage other than the current 6 legal ones on random. Why don't people who think KJ, BS, and RC are legit stages play with them on random? Why do I never see people play friendlies at all on these stages? People who want more stages need to lead by example. If you want a stage legal, maybe actually playing on it would be a good way of getting others more comfortable with its elements. Even if TOs run tournaments with extra counterpicks, they just get banned without any thought of the players in 99% of all sets. Obviously I pulled that number out of my ***, but I'd be surprised if it was that much lower.

ps needs to go. the normal cofiguration is awesome, but spacies shouldnt get a solid and almost universal counterpick with that much jank if youre not gonna allow brinstar. i would be down for bf and fd only but i feel that would be unpopular cuz everybody hates fd. i think that would not only solve the problem of jank (outside of bf's ledge if you consider that jank lol) but would be well balanced for all relevant characters. obviously the balancing comes second though. just have those 2 stages, go random. loser picks stage, winner picks character, then loser picks character. you could argue that the random first stage hugely alters sets, but i wouldn't say there are any hugely altered matchups on fd as far as who wins. it just alters the way the matchups work.

Okay, I'm so tired of people complaining about spacies getting an advantage on PS. Having a stage that is in your favor as a counterpick is a DISADVANTAGE. What would be an advantage is if players had to strike from a list that had PS as neutral and FD as a counterpick. Suddenly spacies would be complaining about "Oh, why is the only counterpick FD? That's so unfair for spacies getting chain grabbed!" STFU. There are 6 legal stages, and PS was left off the striking list, which directly benefits everyone that sucks on PS. Quit *****ing about an advantage. If you think PS should be banned, then your reasoning should be detached from how it affects character matchups, and it shouldn't be based on the fact that it is the only stage not included in the striking list.

Thats not even the case right now. The current stage selection is only what a small handful of the community wants or at most a little under half of the community, but definitely not majority.

This is simply not true. Saying this at all is a huge generalization, but saying it when you're coming off of a 1-2 year hiatus is just ignorant... No one wants to play on cps. I frequently ask people in tournament if they want to play with just 6 legal stages, and I've only had a handful of people who have said no. The funniest part is that most of them went on to ban one of the counterpicks, and didn't counterpick any of the other counterpick stages. They weren't really concerned with the counterpicks, but they wanted me to waste my ban on them instead of their favorite neutral which they were going to pick anyway. Again, if so many people really believe we should have my counterpicks, why do I never see people playing on them? Sypher still has them legal at his biweeklies, but I've never seen anyone practicing on any of them during all of the times I've gone there.

Whether you agree with it or not, I don't think some characters are viable on some stages. Its in my opinion that Young Link does very poorly against majority of the high tiers on Final Destination, but does just fine against them everywhere else(because of platforms). One match in the bo5 doesn't entirely decide the entire set, no, but it does contribute a huge part of it and it does matter.

Ganon isn't viable on a lot of counterpicks because he's too slow and has a ****ty jump. You could argue that banning stages has made non-top tiers much more viable than in rulesets with more counterpicks (though I wouldn't because I don't use the stage list to balance the cast...).

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.

Just because no one has made it a living to camp on a stage in all of their sets doesn't mean it isn't possible. Do you honestly think a good Fox couldn't time out even the best mains for a huge portion of the cast on KJ64?

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

Test my rule set. It doesn't have more counterpicks, but it is better than DSR shenanigans.

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.

The barrel is random, but as it's been stated about 100 times already, the stage is banned because players can stall, and stall in a way that greatly marginalizes skill. Running away and throwing bombs at a character that can't reach two high platforms is not a fundamental of the game. It is a niche skill that wins games despite only being relevant in a handful of matchups and on a handful of stages. By contrast, something like controlling space with movement and zoning moves is relevant on every single stage and in every matchup (except ones like KJ where you just run away and have 4-5 decision trees that keep you safe in every single situation.

 

[♡ⓛⓞⓥⓔ♡]

I don't have time to respond to the other posts atm, but I'm gonna point out its pretty easy to argue that Randall does has as much of an effect on the match as acid. Like you said, its up to interpretation.

Acid has quite an effect. But you don't have to do it

 

[DoH]

The brinstar acid is really predictable and it lets you know when its coming. All you have to do is secure the top platform when it comes up, and it dissipates fairly quickly

 

[Sox]

Comparing acid to shine is about 6 cactuars.

In seriousness, the primary difference is that player interaction dictates how and when shine is used. Neither player has any control whatsoever over the effect acid has on the match, and that that effect is major enough to be worth mentioning.

Checklist:

           Is it in the players' control?         Does it have a major effect on the match and gameplay?
Shine      Yes                                    Yes
Randall    No                                     No
Acid       No                                     Yes

Whether the effect on the match is major is what is subject to interpretation.

What I wanted to say with that post is why can't people use what the stage gives them instead of getting rid of the stage? like mastering stage control during the lava segments, or learn how to take advantage of a campy fox's mistakes on rainbow cruise.

Also, anything that has a major effect on the match and is not in the players control = broken? So the wind on dreamland and the transformation on stadium qualify as ok? I think something should only be considered broken and ban worthy if something has a major effect on the match and in no way is consistent. I would say things like random spawning items, or the speed at which the level moves changes, or say if the wind on dreamland blew at different strengths each time, things like that. I would say that things like brinstar, PS transformations, RC, Mute City, and other consistent but questionable interruptions to battle are ok.

Dunno why Im posting so much about this, i guess i'm more interested in it than i thought

 

[Spit-wad]

It's not just about balance, it's about making the game fun. DK64 gets really stupid with campy **** and nobody likes FoD. FoD is legal but we see it way less than the other stages right now. Nothing says we can't adapt to the preferences of the masses - that's basically what the current stage rules are already.

Use map rotations like other games do.

Best of 5 series
Stage 1: Battlefield
Stage 2: Pokemon Stadium
Stage 3: Dreamland
Stage 4: Yoshi's Story
Stage 5: Final Destination

I think that order would provide a good match flow. Save a little time by cutting out stage striking at the start and just always play this rotation. Yoshi's makes for a good comeback game and Final D would always be hype.

For a best-of-3 series, each player bans one stage, then play the same order.

 

[ZeldaFreak0309]

OH MY GOD

It's not important that the acid, barrel, cloud, whatever is predictable/on a timer

What's important is whether or not the INTERACTION OF IN-GAME SITUATIONS WITH THESE ELEMENTS ARE RANDOM

Melee's pace is such that situations and positionings are changing at such a rapid rate with such variety that the way it INTERACTS WITH MOVING STAGE ELEMENTS IS ESSENTIALLY RANDOM

****

 

[Bones0]

It's not just about balance, it's about making the game fun. DK64 gets really stupid with campy **** and nobody likes FoD. FoD is legal but we see it way less than the other stages right now. Nothing says we can't adapt to the preferences of the masses - that's basically what the current stage rules are already.

Use map rotations like other games do.

Best of 5 series
Stage 1: Battlefield
Stage 2: Pokemon Stadium
Stage 3: Dreamland
Stage 4: Yoshi's Story
Stage 5: Final Destination

I think that order would provide a good match flow. Save a little time by cutting out stage striking at the start and just always play this rotation. Yoshi's makes for a good comeback game and Final D would always be hype.

For a best-of-3 series, each player bans one stage, then play the same order.

I strike to FoD all the time... You can't just take your personal experience and assume that's what everyone experiences.

 

[DoH]

OH MY GOD

It's not important that the acid, barrel, cloud, whatever is predictable/on a timer

What's important is whether or not the INTERACTION OF IN-GAME SITUATIONS WITH THESE ELEMENTS ARE RANDOM

Melee's pace is such that situations and positionings are changing at such a rapid rate with such variety that the way it INTERACTS WITH MOVING STAGE ELEMENTS IS ESSENTIALLY RANDOM

****

Nope.

The acid has predictable knockback and you know what will happen if it touches you. If you can't react to the wall of yellow creepin slowly up at you, why are you playing this game?

Brinstar requires you to have situational awareness that is different from other stages.

 

[Jockmaster]

Ok but why are we valuing a stage attacking you in a meta based in one on one human competition? It isn't a dodging game, it's a fighting game

 

[ZeldaFreak0309]

Brinstar requires you to have situational awareness that is different from other stages.

I address this point in my other post above. It's a difference of values--I don't think rewarding "having situational awareness about lava," something that is specific to one stage and not related to fundamentals (spacing and punishing) is a skill that we should emphasize rewarding. If we have, as a community, been gradually cutting out stages like Mute City and Brinstar and Rainbow Cruise, wouldn't that indicate that people care, as a whole, about fighting game fundamentals rather than niche "situational awareness" skills?

 

[CanISmash]

thread is cool, hopefully it goes somewhere because the counterpick scenarios where we are left with two stages to choose from that both give your opponent the advantage should be proof that something is broke by limiting all these stages.

the hypothetical fox camping the whole match is what bugs me. pokefloats was the only one i'd agree with on that. hypothetically planking in melee could be worse than brawl especially w/o a ledge grab count. i think if a neutral is really neutral then regardless of the stage it should be able to be banned. so foxes should enjoy playing marth on fd.

no one is thinking about the yoshi vs kirby matchup whent hey ban mute city.

rainbow cruise, brinstar etc bring em back.

 

[Spit-wad]

I strike to FoD all the time... You can't just take your personal experience and assume that's what everyone experiences.

It's not personal preferences, it's the majority of player's preferences. FoD gets played significantly less than the other stages in large tournaments.

 

[DoH]

No, it indicates that Falcon/spacie players are more vocal and influential and got their view of how smash should be and their own vested self interests inputted. We didn't do anything as a community, the MBR - which you weren't there for the discussions about - suggested a list and the community blindly ran with it because they don't understand that the MBR has no governing authority and they are too lazy to make up their own rulesets.

Why can't we test both fighting/spacing and stage awareness? Why are they mutually exclusive values? Brinstar offers that test on one particular stage and you have 5 other static stages that test your "fundamentals" plus stadium. Stages like Brinstar and Rainbow offer additional depths of spacing and punishing than the static stages offer; they just give your characters more options in which to do so.

Why don't you think we should reward stage awareness? What's the warrant? One of smash's unique attributes are stage hazards and manipulation. Stripping the game of those unique things without a warrant because you feel we should only reward pure vacuumed combat is asinine.

 

[Sox]

game 1: battlefield
game 2: Brinstar/Mute City (loser of game 1 chooses)
game 3: Pokemon
Game 4: Rainbow Cruise/Pokefloats (loser of game 3 chooses)
Game 5: FD

I'm running a tourney like this. Who's joining?

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

It's not just about balance, it's about making the game fun. DK64 gets really stupid with campy **** and nobody likes FoD. FoD is legal but we see it way less than the other stages right now. Nothing says we can't adapt to the preferences of the masses - that's basically what the current stage rules are already.

Use map rotations like other games do.

Best of 5 series
Stage 1: Battlefield
Stage 2: Pokemon Stadium
Stage 3: Dreamland
Stage 4: Yoshi's Story
Stage 5: Final Destination

I think that order would provide a good match flow. Save a little time by cutting out stage striking at the start and just always play this rotation. Yoshi's makes for a good comeback game and Final D would always be hype.

For a best-of-3 series, each player bans one stage, then play the same order.

...
....
.....

 

[RaphaelRobo]

I would participate in this discussion, but we already use all these stages at our locals, and that's not going to change, so I'm happy. I feel sorry for people that don't get to play on them.

Some stuff I do want to say, though, is that Randall is, in my opinion, under the player's control. It's on a timer, and with a glance at the timer you can tell where Randall will be. Taking this into account during a match leads to really fun edgeguards.

FoD, on the other hand, is completely random, and I would argue has a much larger influence on gameplay. I mean, it's obvious just looking at the stage that the platforms are right in the center where people are fighting, rather than off the stage like Randall is. The platforms also go far lower than platforms do on any other stage, giving it very unique conditions.

In my opinion, that has even more of an impact on the game than the lava on Brinstar does. Brinstar's Lava only shows up occasionally, making it easier to avoid, whereas FoD's platforms are there all the time.

Also, Brinstar lets you jump really far off stage for edgeguards that would normally get you killed, and then you can bounce back on the lava to survive. That's really really fun.

Okay, so I ended up getting slightly involved in this discussion. But whatever, I still get to play on Brinstar/Rainbow Ride/Kongo Jungle 64 at Locals, and I love it. I've also played on Big Blue, when my opponent lets me CP it.

game 1: battlefield
game 2: Brinstar/Mute City (loser of game 1 chooses)
game 3: Pokemon
Game 4: Rainbow Cruise/Pokefloats (loser of game 3 chooses)
Game 5: FD

I'm running a tourney like this. Who's joining?

I'd definitely play on this. It would be a lot of fun.

 

[ZeldaFreak0309]

No, it indicates that Falcon/spacie players are more vocal and influential and got their view of how smash should be and their own vested self interests inputted. We didn't do anything as a community, the MBR - which you weren't there for the discussions about - suggested a list and the community blindly ran with it because they don't understand that the MBR has no governing authority and they are too lazy to make up their own rulesets.

You're right--I had no involvement in the MBR -> community ruleset discussion, so perhaps I wrongly assumed that things were done in accordance to what the community as a whole wanted. But has there ever been a real poll, involving all actual tournament goers, on what the stageset should be? If it is actually the case that a significant subset of the community thinks the current stageset blows, how has there not been any real push to change that until now? (again, maybe I'm just out of the loop? But if I am then so are a lot of other people who play this game competitively)

Why don't you think we should reward stage awareness? What's the warrant? One of smash's unique attributes are stage hazards and manipulation. Stripping the game of those unique things without a warrant because you feel we should only reward pure vacuumed combat is asinine.

We as a community stripped the game of A LOT of things like Icicle Mountain and Flat Zone and Items and Coin Mode. We don't reward catching coins or using ray guns or any of that stuff. The only reason we did that is because "we wanted to." That's a good enough reason--why the hell would I want to play a version of this game that I didn't find fun? Smash is getting to be near the biggest it's ever been, in a time period where the prevailing ruleset happens to exclude Brinstar, Rainbow Cruise, etc. so I don't think it's wrong to assume that most people like the game in its current version. I'm not saying that we should reward pure vacuumed combat because it has some sort of intrinsic value; it has value because the community values it.

 

[TheCrimsonBlur]

Nothing churns my butter quite like hate on FoD

Best stage in the game

Suck it haters

 

[RaphaelRobo]

Nothing churns my butter quite like hate on FoD

Best stage in the game

Suck it haters

I feel exactly the same way about Big Blue.

But I'm not trying to hate on FoD. I really enjoy playing on the stage, despite it being terrible for Ganon. I just think it's unique element has a greater impact on gameplay than YS's or Brinstar's

 

[Sox]

I guess The greatest thing about being a "grassroots" community is that TOs are able to customize their rulesets to whatever they want. So many different types of playing can be showcased based on their desired rulesets. Personally, im in favor of more stages is inherently better for the game until proven to be unplayable, but those who host the tourneys are very knowledgeable and make whatever rules they feel will best help the tourney succeed.
I really want to host a tournament now.

I guess I dont know what "broken" is, and theres not much more i can say without knowing this first.
And I still want to be a mute city main.

 

[Laijin]

Well if there is no set defined ruleset, whats the problem with having a community wide vote on what kind of ruleset we get to have at EVO?

 

[CloneHat]

^@Laijin agreed

I was in a similar position, I came back after a period of inactivity and was upset that all the stages were banned. Thus far I have refused to use the new ruleset in my locals.

I use a larger stage list, with a different counter pick method that increases the power of bans. The loser picks two stages, and the winner selects one of them. All in all, I treat stage knowledge and preference as an important part of the game.

 

[Revven]

Well if there is no set defined ruleset, whats the problem with having a community wide vote on what kind of ruleset we get to have at EVO?

It's already been decided what rule set we're using for EVO.

 

[Gea]

Well if there is no set defined ruleset, whats the problem with having a community wide vote on what kind of ruleset we get to have at EVO?

Because you're too late and the ruleset has been made already, for one.

 

[Laijin]

Because you're too late and the ruleset has been made already, for one.

Who? When? Where?
I'm pretty sure we can change it easily. Its not written in stone.

None of us are the TOs for EVO, so its not up to any one person's decision. This should be a community wide decision.

 

[Gea]

None of us are the TOs for EVO, so its not up to any one person's decision. This should be a community wide decision.

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=333591

Straight with involvement with the TO of EVO.