I have a huge problem with the current stage ruleset.

[Revven]

Also, here is the post where pretty much it was as "decided" as you can get.

I'm strongly against changing the stage list at EVO. It's not wise and it would be incredibly stupid to go against the current metagame that's been built up with this stage list.

 

[Laijin]

Also, here is the post where pretty much it was as "decided" as you can get.

I'm strongly against changing the stage list at EVO. It's not wise and it would be incredibly stupid to go against the current metagame that's been built up with this stage list.

We've basically went over the entire thread going back and forth as to why the current ruleset is broken/not broken. Why would we continue using a ruleset in which a large amount of people think doesn't work? Shouldn't we just go with the majority opinion? Which we have literally no idea what it is since there hasn't been a community vote.

 

[Revven]

We've basically went over the entire thread going back and forth as to why the current ruleset is broken/not broken. Why would we continue using a ruleset in which a large amount of people think doesn't work? Shouldn't we just go with the majority opinion? Which we have literally no idea what it is since there hasn't been a community vote.

Who is this large amount of people????????????? WHAT majority opinion thinks the rule set/stage list is borked?????

Please someone drill it into Laijin's head this thread hardly represents the majority.

 

[Gea]

I don't think anyone is saying the current ruleset "doesn't work," it just is less than optimal to some people. The sooner EVO announces the ruleset, especially a ruleset as complex as ours, the better. Apex was the largest Melee event in a long time and it ran fine with as far as I know, no ruleset issues.

People have the most issue with DSR(m) but that doesn't magically make the current ruleset unplayable or gives the tournament inconsistent results. It works and for EVO it will work. If you want to pioneer change, EVO is not the place.

 

[Laijin]

Who is this large amount of people????????????? WHAT majority opinion thinks the rule set/stage list is borked?????

Please someone drill it into Laijin's head this thread hardly represents the majority.

Dude. When did I say this thread represents the majority? Reread my post since you apparently skipped over it.

We've basically went over the entire thread going back and forth as to why the current ruleset is broken/not broken. Why would we continue using a ruleset in which a large amount of people think doesn't work? Shouldn't we just go with the majority opinion? Which we have literally no idea what it is since there hasn't been a community vote.

I clearly said we don't know what the majority opinion is of the community.

What part of that is difficult to get?

Edit: This isn't about pioneering change. Its been stated the ruleset is up to the TO. In this case there are no TOs running this tournament from the smash community. So it should be up to the community as a whole to decide the rules, not just a couple of individuals. There have been a lot of TOs who have posted in this thread who prefer not to follow the Apex ruleset.

 

[Sox]

APEX was a huge event, and a huge success (for the most part) i think that they should use the most recent successful rule-set at EVO. 2013 is a long year, maybe for evo 2014 they'll include more stages.
Even if it doesnt, im still very curious into what makes a stage ban-able under the current ruleset.

 

[Habefiet]

I clearly said we don't know what the majority opinion is of the community.

There have been a lot of TOs who have posted in this thread who prefer not to follow the Apex ruleset.

A, you said very clearly that "its apparently obvious no where near majority likes the new rules." That's copy-pasted from Post #229. I responded to that post at great length and you didn't respond to my response.

B, there are also a lot of TOs who haven't posted who host using the Apex ruleset or a very similar ruleset and are just fine with things. Why do you think so many tournaments get hosted with that very ruleset? Do you know how many players/TOs/etc. just don't even bother with this kind of topic anymore? Go back through and read like the entire 2012 ruleset thread, then come back. A crapton of TOs and players think this is the best the ruleset's ever been but don't bother posting because they know full well that you're just going to sit back and accuse them of... something. Disingenuous behavior? I don't even know.

Again, I honestly would be okay with more tournaments having more stages and think that some of the supposed banning reasons are superficial at best, but come on dood, you're making some outlandish blah blah I don't even want to post anymore right now lol

 

[Dr Peepee]

I love these threads. Learn something new just about every time!(not sarcasm)

I'd be fine with hosting other tournaments with bigger stagelists if I did host.

I like the way Wobbles phrases this issue: Do we want to select for skills that are more player vs player and main-focused, or do we want to select for player vs player, knowing the stage, knowing how to play multiple characters, etc?

 

[ShroudedOne]

Nothing churns my butter quite like hate on FoD

Best stage in the game

Suck it haters

I hate FoD, and I agree that it's probably the best stage in the game, sadly.

I'd like to try out a ruleset where the stage struck to for game 1 is the only stage played through the set, and the losing player has the chance to call for a restrike.

 

[Laijin]

Too many wall of textx posts to respond to. Thats a lot of typing and im lazy right now. I'll probably get to them tomorrow. But i'll respond to yours.

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.

1. Dude. Temple has been banned since the very early days of the community. What I'm suggesting are the levels that were widely legal around 2010-2011. I'm talking about the levels that were made illegal because a small handful of players(the Melee Backroom) decided its best we get rid of them without getting any opinions from the community. Its not a blanket statement. I thought that was implied...

2. Alright sure. This could be personal opinion I guess, but the general agreement of the people who have spoken about the spectators and have specifically mentioned these stages in this thread seems to be that matches played on Mute City, Rainbow Cruise, etc etc have been quite entertaining and hype. Of course you might not enjoy watching a match on a certain stage, but I've been going to tournaments for about the past nine years or so and people always got excited/hyped from watching matches on Brinstar and such. I'm speaking from personal experience.

3. If I've never seen the people who support the ruleset voice their opinion, then how am I going to know what their opinion is? I'll admit, that is a blanket statement that I later in the thread retracted. Until we have a vote, we don't know what the majority is.

4. Truth is, this new ruleset is relatively brand new. Its not been tested by time. Its only been around for like a year 1/2. The previous ruleset worked just fine and was never once proven to be janky, broken, or what not. The current ruleset has already presented a major flaw.

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.[/img]
Such a flaw does not exist in the previous ruleset and there are clearly plenty of other flaws on it that has been presented in this thread.

 

[Deleted member]

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

****

I still see randomness as a part of Smash like I see randomness as a part of poker. It is a part of the design for its depth. Randomness in a game is not a disservice to players in any way. Sometimes it is simply a part of a game. Randomness allows players to make risk/reward judgments, which are, in fact, a testable skill. Nor does the presence of randomness make a game "less of a game."

Risk/Reward is just a skill that you cannot master in the same way you can master a wavedash, which is frustrating to many of the types of people who still play Melee. It's logical that people, like those remaining in this community who put in many hours with an emphasis on honing their technical craft, would prefer to display these skills without "interference" from the game. However, that is an argument from self-interest rather than any kind of valid game-theory reasoning. Melee has been proven to be perfectly solid as a tournament game with more stage variety and random elements - there is substantive evidence for its consistency of results despite any of these factors.

Can you take out even the most minuscule random elements? Sure, in the same way that you can pick time over stock, or any other rules decision. Is it an improvement to the game to do so? I would say that it's unlikely. It's getting to the point where you might as well start arguing over whether the game would be better if you reduced Fox's upsmash power by 10% or 12%, for all of the impact that change would have. You're also basically selling out risk/reward as something that people here have just decided "we don't want that in our game." That's fine to do in the context of an independent, isolated community...but it's not thematically or rationally consistent in the context of the game of Smash Brothers. But here we are, in an independent, isolated community... so go for it. I have no opinion on the stages themselves, I simply want the final decision to be an informed one.

I'd like you personally to rephrase your arguments in a manner without all caps and expletives. You make some good points but your posts seem emotionally charged to where they might deter potential replies to them. I would say, for example, that smash is not a fighting game, but rather a positioning game with some elements from both strategy games and fighting games.

 

[outofphase]

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.

1. not *****ing at all. i play falco. **** you for saying that.

2. my reasoning is detached. i think ps is kind of jank. im just saying spacies shouldnt get ps while jiggs doesnt get brinstar when they are both jank.

 

[thumbswayup]

Pokemon Stadium is the best stage in the game.

-random falcon main

 

[Strong Badam]

I'd like to try out a ruleset where the stage struck to for game 1 is the only stage played through the set, and the losing player has the chance to call for a restrike.

i'd probably never attend another tournament if this became standard
or at least not enter

 

[KishPrime]

I still see randomness as a part of Smash like I see randomness as a part of poker. It is a part of the design for its depth. Randomness in a game is not a disservice to players in any way. Sometimes it is simply a part of a game. Randomness allows players to make risk/reward judgments, which are, in fact, a testable skill. Nor does the presence of randomness make a game "less of a game."

Risk/Reward is just a skill that you cannot master in the same way you can master a wavedash, which is frustrating to many of the types of people who still play Melee. It's logical that people, like those remaining in this community who put in many hours with an emphasis on honing their technical craft, would prefer to display these skills without "interference" from the game. However, that is an argument from self-interest rather than any kind of valid game-theory reasoning. Melee has been proven to be perfectly solid as a tournament game with more stage variety and random elements - there is substantive evidence for its consistency of results despite any of these factors.

Can you take out even the most minuscule random elements? Sure, in the same way that you can pick time over stock, or any other rules decision. Is it an improvement to the game to do so? I would say that it's unlikely. It's getting to the point where you might as well start arguing over whether the game would be better if you reduced Fox's upsmash power by 10% or 12%, for all of the impact that change would have. You're also basically selling out risk/reward as something that people here have just decided "we don't want that in our game." That's fine to do in the context of an independent, isolated community...but it's not thematically or rationally consistent in the context of the game of Smash Brothers. But here we are, in an independent, isolated community... so go for it.

lol@the epic copy/paste.

I still see randomness as a part of Smash like I see randomness as a part of poker...

I was ridiculously confused when I read this. But i guess I'm happy it is here.

 

[Deleted member]

lol@the epic copy/paste.

I don't always agree with you on your actual stance, but I have a lot of respect and admiration for your rationale and choice of methods. Had we lived closer, I think you and I would have been good friends if only for the exchange of ideas. Since that is not the case, I'd prefer to learn from you instead.

 

[Laijin]

Man Umbreon. You're able to take what I'm thinking and put it into actual words. Good job

 

[JPOBS]

I don't recall ever discussing semantics (except making a comical distinction that I think the current stagelist is actually very "liberal"). You seem to have misunderstood my points altogether if you think all I did was discuss logic. Perhaps this is more of the disreputable sophistry we see from those who don't like the non-neutral stages. Or, more likely, it's confirmation bias. Since I did make plenty of points (regardless of whether you agree with them) that actually addressed the issue of the stage list, this post of your is asinine.



I didn't mean to suggest that, just because those who make these arguments are disingenuous, that it invalidates them; the points could still be entirely valid. My earlier post was just an observation. However, I do think the points they've made don't really have merit. They are shallow arguments that are only superficially reasonable. I only mentioned the posters being disingenuous to explain why I do not wish to continue arguing the points. The ruleset won't change, and the opinions of those ban-happy players who lump together all but six of these stages as "janky" isn't going to change, no matter how much I argue. Again, this is because, as far as I can tell, everyone knows that their only real justification for these bans is a matter of preference. The only distinction I made was between those who acknowledge this and those who argue a sort of humbug "better" quality to their ruleset.

If they are shallow and superficially reasonable, it should be easy enough for you to refute them.

It's just annoying when you/nosiefy (or however his name is spelt) start posting dissertations about formal argument and logic, without actually addressing the topic. I'm all for structured debate, but to debate about debating is taking it too far.

 

[KishPrime]

I agree! Wish we'd made it to more of the same events. :/ Oh well.

If I were in charge of every game, I'd do my best to capture the uniqueness of each game as much as possible. This is a very bold statement, but I have a guess that Smash may be the most technical game in existence that also counts either luck-based or cue-based, risk/reward play as a solid 10% of it's decision-making on the majority of its stages. The contradiction is marvelous in action, but it's also exactly what frustrates the people that want to show off their tech skill.

Melee is so beautifully deep on so many levels that I just feel it's a shame to neuter it.

 

[Deleted member]

Man Umbreon. You're able to take what I'm thinking and put it into actual words. Good job

yeah well, nothing makes me feel like a tool like positively representing people that hate me right?

 

[Laijin]

yeah well, nothing makes me feel like a tool like positively representing people that hate me right?

Basically the only reason that came about is when I met you. You didn't really give me a good first impression to say the least. First impressions stick with me. But its w/e man. <3

 

[Kal]

..........

 

[Bones0]

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.

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.


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

The platforms don't move the entire game like Randall does. Their fairly static, and when they do move, they move very slowly. I don't see how them going low is good or bad. Not to assume, but it just sounds like you're bad at dealing with low platforms so any time you mess up you just blame the stage (much like every other person I've ever heard try to justify why FoD is bad).

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?

I don't agree that a handful of people should dictate the "official" ruleset for everyone else (I don't believe the MBR did that at all because the ruleset was practically a foregone conclusion based on the majority of TOs long before they posted it). However, allowing everyone to vote on the ruleset is just as bad. Some people just don't care and will vote for whatever benefits them the most. Some people will convince themselves they aren't being biased while they are (every Falcon main ever). Some people are just ****ing clueless about why they even want the stages they want. Having a community-wide vote where anyone can suggest any stage list they want is pointless because humans are naturally selfish beings and will tend to vote in their favor regardless of what they believe or what the facts suggest. I saw the same **** with MK getting banned. They tried like 5 times to ban that mother****er, and eventually they got enough scrubs who want to john about MK to vote in a poll where the only requirements are that you take a whole 10 seconds to vote and put forth at least 0 seconds of thought.

The ruleset should only ever be changed by what tournaments people attend. If you can host a tournament with every stage legal, more power to you. If that ruleset sweeps the nation, then it will become the standard. Right now, the standard is 6 (maybe 7) legal stages because that is what TOs think will maximize their attendance. This is very much a capitalist society, so if you want to increase you supply, I suggest you increase your demand first.

I hate FoD, and I agree that it's probably the best stage in the game, sadly.

I'd like to try out a ruleset where the stage struck to for game 1 is the only stage played through the set, and the losing player has the chance to call for a restrike.

I never understood the desire to test this ruleset. If you want to imagine playing on the stage you struck to, just imagine game 1 repeated 1-2 more times with you or your opponent maybe playing a little bit better or worse depending on how you've adapted to them. Calling a restrike will pretty much never change anything. If, as a Falco, I struck FD and BF vs. a Marth, why would I ever unstrike them? I'd have to be getting annihilated on YS/FoD/DL in order for me to want to pick what I believe to be my 4th best stage in the matchup.

1. Dude. Temple has been banned since the very early days of the community. What I'm suggesting are the levels that were widely legal around 2010-2011. I'm talking about the levels that were made illegal because a small handful of players(the Melee Backroom) decided its best we get rid of them without getting any opinions from the community. Its not a blanket statement. I thought that was implied...

2. Alright sure. This could be personal opinion I guess, but the general agreement of the people who have spoken about the spectators and have specifically mentioned these stages in this thread seems to be that matches played on Mute City, Rainbow Cruise, etc etc have been quite entertaining and hype. Of course you might not enjoy watching a match on a certain stage, but I've been going to tournaments for about the past nine years or so and people always got excited/hyped from watching matches on Brinstar and such. I'm speaking from personal experience.

3. If I've never seen the people who support the ruleset voice their opinion, then how am I going to know what their opinion is? I'll admit, that is a blanket statement that I later in the thread retracted. Until we have a vote, we don't know what the majority is.

4. Truth is, this new ruleset is relatively brand new. Its not been tested by time. Its only been around for like a year 1/2. The previous ruleset worked just fine and was never once proven to be janky, broken, or what not. The current ruleset has already presented a major flaw.

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.[/img]
Such a flaw does not exist in the previous ruleset and there are clearly plenty of other flaws on it that has been presented in this thread.

1. That's simply not true.

2. I've seen no general agreement that spectators prefer counterpicks. In fact, I see quite the opposite. Go read the comments for sets with counterpicks at high level. I remember how deflated everyone was when PP took M2K to RC for game 5 at RoM 3(?). It was still a great match and everything (both players are very adept on the stage), but the general vibe I got from comments was that it was, in a word, lame.

3. The vast majority of competitive players (95%) play only with the currently 6 legal stages on random during friendlies. If virtually no one plays on the counterpicks, how can you even say anyone wants those stages legal? If there are really so many people who think the counterpicks are stages that require the same level of skill as other stages, why do these people never play friendlies on them? You seem to personally enjoy KJ a lot (I do to actually, which is a shame that it promotes such vicious stalling against so many characters). How come you didn't offer to play KJ in any friendlies the entire time you were at Sypher's (or if you did, I'd be interested in hearing what your opponent's reaction was)?

4. I replied to this part in the Evo thread. That statement is just flat-out wrong. The majority of the community (whether they support it or not), have been attending tournaments with 6-7 legal stages for about 2 years now. That's WAY longer than any ruleset needs to stand the test of time. Most games don't even last that long, so if that's really the case then we should still be playing with all the walkoffs legal, and only have a handful of stages banned... As I also said in the other thread, there is only one issue with the current ruleset's stage selection process, and my rule fixes it easily and simply.

I still see randomness as a part of Smash like I see randomness as a part of poker. It is a part of the design for its depth. Randomness in a game is not a disservice to players in any way. Sometimes it is simply a part of a game. Randomness allows players to make risk/reward judgments, which are, in fact, a testable skill. Nor does the presence of randomness make a game "less of a game."

Risk/Reward is just a skill that you cannot master in the same way you can master a wavedash, which is frustrating to many of the types of people who still play Melee. It's logical that people, like those remaining in this community who put in many hours with an emphasis on honing their technical craft, would prefer to display these skills without "interference" from the game. However, that is an argument from self-interest rather than any kind of valid game-theory reasoning. Melee has been proven to be perfectly solid as a tournament game with more stage variety and random elements - there is substantive evidence for its consistency of results despite any of these factors.

Can you take out even the most minuscule random elements? Sure, in the same way that you can pick time over stock, or any other rules decision. Is it an improvement to the game to do so? I would say that it's unlikely. It's getting to the point where you might as well start arguing over whether the game would be better if you reduced Fox's upsmash power by 10% or 12%, for all of the impact that change would have. You're also basically selling out risk/reward as something that people here have just decided "we don't want that in our game." That's fine to do in the context of an independent, isolated community...but it's not thematically or rationally consistent in the context of the game of Smash Brothers. But here we are, in an independent, isolated community... so go for it. I have no opinion on the stages themselves, I simply want the final decision to be an informed one.

I'd like you personally to rephrase your arguments in a manner without all caps and expletives. You make some good points but your posts seem emotionally charged to where they might deter potential replies to them. I would say, for example, that smash is not a fighting game, but rather a positioning game with some elements from both strategy games and fighting games.

If we were playing 99-stock bouts, I might be able to get behind the whole "depth in the randomness"/"patterns emerge from the chaos" argument. Unfortunately, logistics demand that we play 4 stock matches, and I just don't think anyone can justify acid wrecking your whole stock because your opponent (by sheer happenstance) to respawn with invincibility right when the acid decided to make you choose between bouncing around in it for massive damage or jumping to the top plat and hoping your opponent accidentally unplugs his controller. Poker players play an absurd number of hands. Anyone could become the world poker champion if every round consisted of 4 hands...

1. not *****ing at all. i play falco. **** you for saying that.

2. my reasoning is detached. i think ps is kind of jank. im just saying spacies shouldnt get ps while jiggs doesnt get brinstar when they are both jank.

You're reasoning isn't detached. You just said it was unfair because of how Puff doesn't get Brinstar. If your reasoning was detached, your explanation for why PS should be banned would have stopped after "I think PS and BS have equal amounts of jank." Pick the legal stages based on how they affect gameplay quality. If you think PS detracts from the type of skill you value, great. If you think spacies should lose a good counterpick because Puff lost her good counterpick, you're ******** for taking matchups into consideration.

 

[Gea]

If we were playing 99-stock bouts, I might be able to get behind the whole "depth in the randomness"/"patterns emerge from the chaos" argument. Unfortunately, logistics demand that we play 4 stock matches, and I just don't think anyone can justify acid wrecking your whole stock because your opponent (by sheer happenstance) to respawn with invincibility right when the acid decided to make you choose between bouncing around in it for massive damage or jumping to the top plat and hoping your opponent accidentally unplugs his controller. Poker players play an absurd number of hands. Anyone could become the world poker champion if every round consisted of 4 hands...

Just for clarity, are you asserting that the old stagelist did not give consistent results?

 

[thumbswayup]

Man, I don't even really care about this lol. The rules may seem strange but it's completely fine. Speaking directly as someone who never counter picked a non-neutral stage ever or barely even practiced on them, I couldn't care less if those stages were kept or not. Keeping them in adds variety to the game. Taking them out does not change it as much as you may think. The neutrals are played on the most, you'll rarely see anyone on those other 3 stages and if bans are in play they would probably be used on those. I had nothing against DK 64 or Brinstar (Falcon main here) but one could see why Rainbow Cruise would want to be removed.

Fountain of Dreams is the most hated stage of the neutrals but it's there anyway and people will still play on it. So what I'm saying is this topic is pretty pointless because you aren't going to change anything and you should be happy that Melee has made it to Evo and that the rule set is actually quite good considering what it has degraded to in some tournaments. I would say you could try a new rule set at other tournaments but until then just enjoy that the greatest game is back at Evo.

 

[RaphaelRobo]

The platforms don't move the entire game like Randall does. Their fairly static, and when they do move, they move very slowly. I don't see how them going low is good or bad. Not to assume, but it just sounds like you're bad at dealing with low platforms so any time you mess up you just blame the stage (much like every other person I've ever heard try to justify why FoD is bad).

I personally don't think I have too much trouble dealing with the stage. I mean, I'm worse on it than other stages, but not because of the low platforms. I usually strike it, though, since I'd rather play on BF/YS/DL in most matchups. When I screw up on the stage, it's definitely my fault, not the stage's, just like it would be on any other stage.

I don't think it's a bad stage either, I think it's pretty good. I just think it interferes more than the other stages do. And I'm pretty sure the platforms move more quickly than Brinstar, so you have less time to react to them. I could be wrong, though.

However, the idea of having to learn to deal with low platforms seems to be something the community is adamantly against. After all, people here keep saying that stages shouldn't have unique aspects that you need to learn in order to play well on them. YS and FoD both have things like this (Randall and low/moving platforms), yet for some reason we still like them.

I don't think them going low is good or bad, but it's definitely different than other stages. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty a lot of people think different and bad are the same thing.

And I probably should put more work into learning FoD, since I feel like Ganon could do some really cool edge-cancel stuff on it.

 

[ShroudedOne]

i'd probably never attend another tournament if this became standard
or at least not enter

I understand where you're coming from, and I'm not saying I'd pick it over the one we have now 100% of the time. Just that it'd be an interesting test.

 

[MK26]

I've never understood Smash's distinction between Neutrals and Counterpicks. What makes some stages more or less neutral than others? (please, nobody respond to this, I've spent more than enough time theorycrafting on Smashboards and I don't want to start this argument again with a new set of usernames.) The answer is that it's almost purely personal and community preference, by the way. Give me a sec to explain.

What's more understandable is the separation between legal and banned stages. Some stages are tournament-worthy. Others are not. You can have all the criteria you want in your decision making, but the cases really boil down to

• Stages that don't test the skill set we think should be tested in competitive play.
• Stages that do.

Frankly, that's really it. Why is Brinstar banned? Because some influential people decided that covering the lava isn't a skill we want to test. Why is Cruise banned? Because some influential people decided that some problem with the stage means that games devolve to something we don't think should be tested in competitive play. Heck, if you want to ask why Temple's banned, it's because we don't want to test the skill set of "is it possible to catch up to Fox?", because that's what the game boils down to on that stage. These criteria really do cover every situation and edge case.

So my (semi-rhetorical) question to all of you is: "Which stages cultivate the kinds of skill sets that you think should be tested in competitive play?" That's all this discussion/debate/growing flame war boils down to, in the end. Ignore the spectator factor. Please, to god, ignore the spectator factor. After all, we're freeing the Ice Climbers here, and I want to see that become standard. Try not to let your judgement be clouded by which character you main. Which stages promote the skill sets that should be tested in competitive play?

Spoiler

Personally, in my mostly uninformed opinion I would argue for 7 neutrals including Brinstar, no counterpicks (hell, **** the idea that some stages are more neutral than others altogether - does a stage test for what we want competitive play to test for? If so, it's legal, if not, it's banned, no grey area necessary), regular DSR, Wobble stalling not needing its own rule and being covered under the blanket 300% stalling rule, etc, etc. Basically, slim down the ruleset. Has KISS ever had any meaning to you guys?

 

[nublet06]

I've never understood Smash's distinction between Neutrals and Counterpicks. What makes some stages more or less neutral than others? (please, nobody respond to this, I've spent more than enough time theorycrafting on Smashboards and I don't want to start this argument again with a new set of usernames.) The answer is that it's almost purely personal and community preference, by the way. Give me a sec to explain.

What's more understandable is the separation between legal and banned stages. Some stages are tournament-worthy. Others are not. You can have all the criteria you want in your decision making, but the cases really boil down to

• Stages that don't test the skill set we think should be tested in competitive play.
• Stages that do.

Frankly, that's really it. Why is Brinstar banned? Because some influential people decided that covering the lava isn't a skill we want to test. Why is Cruise banned? Because some influential people decided that some problem with the stage means that games devolve to something we don't think should be tested in competitive play. Heck, if you want to ask why Temple's banned, it's because we don't want to test the skill set of "is it possible to catch up to Fox?", because that's what the game boils down to on that stage. These criteria really do cover every situation and edge case.

So my (semi-rhetorical) question to all of you is: "Which stages cultivate the kinds of skill sets that you think should be tested in competitive play?" That's all this discussion/debate/growing flame war boils down to, in the end. Ignore the spectator factor. Please, to god, ignore the spectator factor. After all, we're freeing the Ice Climbers here, and I want to see that become standard. Try not to let your judgement be clouded by which character you main. Which stages promote the skill sets that should be tested in competitive play?

Spoiler

Personally, in my mostly uninformed opinion I would argue for 7 neutrals including Brinstar, no counterpicks (hell, **** the idea that some stages are more neutral than others altogether - does a stage test for what we want competitive play to test for? If so, it's legal, if not, it's banned, no grey area necessary), regular DSR, Wobble stalling not needing its own rule and being covered under the blanket 300% stalling ban, etc, etc. Basically, slim down the ruleset. Has KISS ever had any meaning to you guys?

is the point of playing the game to test such lame skill sets? its supposed to be exciting and competitive. not to see who practiced camping in circles on temple the most.

as a luigi main i will tell you that if you hit me off the stage on mute city, brinstar, kongo jungle, or rainbow cruise i am at a much higher disadvantage than almost the entire rest of the cast becuase my recovery relies heavily on a wall to side b in to...or a ledge to grab.

and its not cool when i have to switch characters just to not get 3 stocked.

 

[Vulcan55]

as a luigi main i will tell you that if you hit me off the stage on mute city, brinstar, kongo jungle, or rainbow cruise i am at a much higher disadvantage than almost the entire rest of the cast becuase my recovery relies heavily on a wall to side b in to...or a ledge to grab.

and its not cool when i have to switch characters just to not get 3 stocked.

But, to me, this falls under 'what to expect when playing low tiers'.
Or even a mid-tier.

If that Jiggs keeps countering you to Mute City, maybe it's time to bring out your pocket Fox you've been training for just such an occasion.

 

[nublet06]

yeah thats what i do. i play fox on all of those stages. im not an idiot. just pointing out why i dislike the old rules.

for instance when playing against fox as luigi i have to decide on if i wanna ban mute city, rainbow cruise, or pokemon staidum. aka, which 2 stages would i rather fox ditto on lol.

and thats a great mindset. "thats what you get for playing a low tier" lmfao

 

[Mic_128]

People are still using the term 'neutral' for starter stages?

 

[SonuvaBeach]

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).

This ^

People on the other side say that they ARE fighting with you by establishing and defending superior position using their character's movement and tools. You do the same thing on Battlefield. It's no different conceptually on RC.

Stall tactics are an interactive strategy so long as the opponent CAN reach you and there is a time limit forcing interaction. Depends how you're defining stall tactics. If either of those conditions aren't true, THEN it's non-interactive.

There is a large difference in RC.. It gives a huge advantage to falco, the best character in the game already, if he is up and he can go to a platform in the corner, without a ledge, and just shoot lasers. Do I need to elaborate on why?

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.

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.

Stages were removed to increase competitiveness and advance the metagame among characters. Not to improve how well people could abuse stages.

It is not apparently obvious that the majority likes the "new" rules. They aren't new. Do you not think this exact topic hasn't been covered a million times to get them removed? You know how hard you're trying to get the janky stages back and getting irritated people aren't listening? Yeah, we felt the same way when we wanted them removed. And guess what, then we actually had the majority and they got removed. The majority of the community is not on your side and feels no reason to argue with you when you are clearly the minority.

And no, changing the ruleset right before the biggest tournament in recent years is a horrible idea. The metagame has advanced the last two years with this ruleset, not with the old MLG one.

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.

Agreed.

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.

The reason why there is disagreement right there. Can you not see this? We don't agree on what the game is about.

All I think about when I think RC or KJ64 is puff/peach/falco/fox getting a lead and running away from me spacing their high priority moves or projectiles and keeping me at a disadvantage. That is not the reason I play melee.

We've basically went over the entire thread going back and forth as to why the current ruleset is broken/not broken. Why would we continue using a ruleset in which a large amount of people think doesn't work? Shouldn't we just go with the majority opinion? Which we have literally no idea what it is since there hasn't been a community vote.

Why should we even "debate" with you when you clearly have no idea what the community wants.

Who is this large amount of people????????????? WHAT majority opinion thinks the rule set/stage list is borked?????

Please someone drill it into Laijin's head this thread hardly represents the majority.

He doesn't listen.

I clearly said we don't know what the majority opinion is of the community.

Pretty sure we do. Most of the players who disagree with you don't see a point in posting. We value different things. You think having other stages adds to the enjoyment of play/spectating/skill. We think it detracts from it. Simple as that.

You're free to ask each and every person you play at tournament if they mind playing with the other stages. Watch how many say, no thanks.

A point only made once or twice in this thread thus far...a large part of why the stages were banned is because they only increase the advantages that fox/falco have over the rest of the cast. They are already the two best characters, they don't need more advantages.

 

[Laijin]

snip

Basically you're telling me I don't know what the community wants, which is true. But neither do you nor anyone else in this thread. No single person can actually sit here and claim "The entire community wants this". Earlier in the thread I did say "majority", but I retracted my statement since I am unsure.

You can say "oh but most people don't want to post in this thread who are for it". That doesn't mean anything. Without a proper vote or something similar, there is no way to tell what majority of the current active community wants

 

[Acryte]

2cents

"you cannot choose a stage that you have already picked yourself and won on in a b05 set" <-- maybe i read that wrong, but the way that's phrased, if you had your 2nd strongest cp and the opponent won then the you will get to go back and try to win on that stage again (since you had lost)? sounds a little lopsided.

also @cactuar about the being forced to approach... perfectly competitive games like Guilty Gear and Persona 4 Arena etc enforce a negative penalty where if you don't approach and run away for too long it robs you of meter or puts status effect on you. People have to approach. Game is super competitive.

Lol on another note Magus should make a code where if you run for too long it puts a lip's stick on your head or just gives you 15% every 10 sec till you approach or something lol. I want my negative penalty code heh.

 

[SonuvaBeach]

Basically you're telling me I don't know what the community wants, which is true. But neither do you nor anyone else in this thread. No single person can actually sit here and claim "The entire community wants this". Earlier in the thread I did say "majority", but I retracted my statement since I am unsure.

You can say "oh but most people don't want to post in this thread who are for it". That doesn't mean anything. Without a proper vote or something similar, there is no way to tell what majority of the current active community wants

If you aren't a troll, then you must not understand what has gone on in this thread at all. I'll refrain from throwing insults at you, but I want to.

Most of us arguing against you have read these threads, repeated the same points, more times than I can even count at this point.

You aren't a part of the active community. We do know more about what the "majority" wants than you do.

The "majority" of players isn't what is relevant. The majority of smash players play with items on. I care about what the majority of top players think. I am not one of them. I have seen 4 post in this thread I believe thus far. They all stopped posting, and I believe they all disagreed with you. Except PP, who said he'd run whatever, but didn't say what he favored.

I'm going to stop refuting your points just like everyone else. You didn't even respond to the ones already made. To be blunt, your opinion and the majority that have posted here's opinion's, don't matter. Mine doesn't either. Oh wel

 

[batistabus]

#legalizejunglejapes

 

[RaphaelRobo]

If you aren't a troll, then you must not understand what has gone on in this thread at all. I'll refrain from throwing insults at you, but I want to.

Most of us arguing against you have read these threads, repeated the same points, more times than I can even count at this point.

You aren't a part of the active community. We do know more about what the "majority" wants than you do.

The "majority" of players isn't what is relevant. The majority of smash players play with items on. I care about what the majority of top players think. I am not one of them. I have seen 4 post in this thread I believe thus far. They all stopped posting, and I believe they all disagreed with you. Except PP, who said he'd run whatever, but didn't say what he favored.

I'm going to stop refuting your points just like everyone else. You didn't even respond to the ones already made. To be blunt, your opinion and the majority that have posted here's opinion's, don't matter. Mine doesn't either. Oh wel

All the NC Locals, which is what PP plays at, have Brinstar/RC/KJ64 on the counterpick list. I don't know how that affects his opinion, but it's something worth noting.

 

[Laijin]

If you aren't a troll, then you must not understand what has gone on in this thread at all. I'll refrain from throwing insults at you, but I want to.

Most of us arguing against you have read these threads, repeated the same points, more times than I can even count at this point.

You aren't a part of the active community. We do know more about what the "majority" wants than you do.

The "majority" of players isn't what is relevant. The majority of smash players play with items on. I care about what the majority of top players think. I am not one of them. I have seen 4 post in this thread I believe thus far. They all stopped posting, and I believe they all disagreed with you. Except PP, who said he'd run whatever, but didn't say what he favored.

I'm going to stop refuting your points just like everyone else. You didn't even respond to the ones already made. To be blunt, your opinion and the majority that have posted here's opinion's, don't matter. Mine doesn't either. Oh wel

Calling me a troll is pretty useful to the conversation. You don't have to refute my points. In fact I could care less if you didn't post again in this thread. Doesn't bother me.

No. Sorry dude. I don't know what fantasy world you live in but you don't know what majority wants and yes, I am part of the active community.

The majority of smash players are not relevant, but majority of the competitive community is(I.E. smashboards users). I have no idea why you would assume I'm talking about casual players here. Like..really? lol.

 

[Deleted member]

Basically the only reason that came about is when I met you. You didn't really give me a good first impression to say the least. First impressions stick with me. But its w/e man. <3

I'd rather you just disliked me strongly rather than having you like me with shallow reasoning after disliking me based on shallow reasoning. ****.