Jason!
Smash Lord
#Legalize temple
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
I agree wholeheartedly about the discussion of new rules and stage bans, IMO Dawson is the most qualified to propose new ideas and his bias should be pretty unquestioned at this point, winning is not something he has to change the rules to achieve. His character has been proven time and again by the way he graciously accepts slander and insults, as petty or facetious as they may be at times. I don't understand why we are still on the subject when the very obvious answer has been presented by our best player:
That's actually what Kansas does.What would happen if we were allowed to ban two stages? >_>
How about not allowing MK to counterpick on certain stages?
Character attributes give the character with the stage benefit a boost in their rps options, but still vulnerable. An overpowered strategy has no RPS game, just a strategy can't fail with 0 risk and no RPS game at all, or one that you can't lose. You're thinking of this as "If I do it right I will always avoid sharking" but realistically you will always be above MK with no means of attacking him. He gets to do that for free and can do it over and over until an opportunity arises. There is no counter, running is not a counter.What is the meaningful difference between working with a characters attributes and an over powered strategy? That sounds like an arbitrary distinction and shouldn't be taken seriously.
Why is non-combatable automatically an over powered strategy? Why can't the option to beat it be doing nothing at all and avoiding all damage? Why put so much importance on combat interactions and not running away interactions? How are running away interactions any less of player interactions than fighting interactions? Because one is more fun than the other? Again this sounds like an arbitrary distinction and shouldn't be taken seriously.
Finally what defines an unbeatable strategy, and why does ICs not have one and MK does?
Absolutely 100%. Constant research and game knowledge combined with practical application make Dawson an authority. Winning just happens to be the byproduct of those (and others, irrelevant to this discussion) factors. This in no way takes away from anyone else's value, just backin' the D up yo.He has lots of evidence, and that's what should make his input more important.
And now you are on a platform above MK where he can still poke at you and follow you with nado >.>It's almost as if you don't realize there are platforms to stall on during the sharing phases of these stages
Many top players have given their sediments
Wario gets walled extremely hard in the air and gets frame trapped by his aerials. Wario wants to read MKs grounded options from the ground and punishing from there.Umm yes wario does want to confront mk in the air. Are you suggesting you confront a grounded mk who will wall you out incredibly easily. Gaw vs mk isn't a -2 I am almost certain it'll be agreed to be -1, although its not like these numbers are relavant to the discussion at all. You also have yet to explain why characters cannot simply run away from sharking. Instead you say they can't and conclude that big tos agree these stages are a problem which again has no relevance to actually determining whether or not sharking is op