• 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!

Canada [Jul 26, 2014] B.C. Brawl Monthlies - Back in business, now featuring Smash 64! (Burnaby, BC)

| Big D |

Smash Master
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
3,918
Location
Hinamizawa, BC
Do I need to make it a problem? Would you all just agree not to shark and the problem will just go away?

It's a problem that's there, it won't go away by ignoring it. It only isn't necessary if no one ever took advantage of it.

That's like saying if a soccer team never got fouls/carded, then they don't need rules for when they clock a guy.

As for the 3 stages, many characters get huge benefits from YI, notably Sonic and DK.
Right now Japan uses a 5 stage rule set with no counter picks. It's the same as the Apex starters.
 

Captain L

Smash Champion
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
2,423
Location
BC
you are comparing sharking to punching a guy out. If punching a guy in the face in soccer was defined as actually playing fair, then yeah they wouldn't need rules for it. If sharking is defined as playing fair, then we don't need rules against it. Which brings us to the original point of determining whether sharking (and by extension delfino and halberd) is fair game.

I was just pointing out that empirical evidence in BC does not support the hypothesis that delfino and halberd are broken stages. This doesn't mean anything absolute one way or the other, but it's a good point of evidence to note.
 

| Big D |

Smash Master
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
3,918
Location
Hinamizawa, BC
Why must the pool only be from in BC? There was a much larger pool with higher quality matches at Apex. There were even more tourneys run with the same rule set to draw from. There is plenty of evidence that support that MK on Delfino/Halberd is extremely skewed against non MK characters. The Apex series TOs, the TOs responsible for the rule set in the first place have seen it. This isn't the reason why, this is just confirmation of what I'm saying actually happens. It's a strategy with no counter, and you cannot even use your stage ban to escape from it.

We've concluded that the only thing you can do in response is run, and that is not a counter or a method of combating it.
This isn't a case of too strong, this is a strategy with no counter. By your definition, temple should still be legal and circle camping would be defined as "fair". Ultimately the rule set is fair, there is nothing to stop someone from going MK, but then the rule set would be "fair" no matter what it was. Things are banned to increase player interaction, and the result being an increase in skill gap, meaning a healthier meta game.

The stage is being phased out. The only reason for keeping this problem in the rule set around is if nationals and other regions maintained that problem in their rule set. But now that it's being removed, there is no reason to keep it, and test skills that ultimately lower the skill gap, and aren't being tested elsewhere.

Edit: I'd like to say things are banned to stop players from not interacting, like the lgl and scrooging rule. And stages for the same reason with circle camping, not just a general increase of player interactions, but it could be that way in the future.
 

traffic.

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Sep 1, 2012
Messages
427
The other thing I would point out is that by ignoring the generally agreed upon ruleset of the majority of the scene, and arguing that it doesn't apply to BC, is detrimental. If it was applied to BC, then you'd be better off for adjusting your play style to that with the most upward mobility in terms of competitive tiers. It's better to be in line with the rulesets of national and international level play, for the reasons that playing soccer with your own local set of rules doesn't prepare you for the real deal in the major leagues.
 

Captain L

Smash Champion
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
2,423
Location
BC
oh I guess that makes sense. I still don't agree that it's uncounterable but banning it for reasons of increasing player interaction seem fair enough.
 

| Big D |

Smash Master
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
3,918
Location
Hinamizawa, BC
Only way to do that is play MK tho

Problem is there is no actual counter to it, that's the point. It's like dealing with planking or scrooging.

Or something you're more familiar with, circle camping on temple.
 

Asa

Smash Hero
Joined
Jun 2, 2008
Messages
6,765
Location
Hawaii
Just did this and thought I'd share if anybody wants to try as well: http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp It's the Meyers-Brigg [Personality] Type Indicator!

I scored ESFJ which is kinda accurate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESFJ (scroll down to Characteristics)


Relying on sharking is kinda lame and desperate... I'd be embarrassed to use a tactic like that.

I'm ESTJ

Extravert(11%) Sensing(62%) Thinking(38%) Judging(44%)
  • You have slight preference of Extraversion over Introversion (11%)​
  • You have distinctive preference of Sensing over Intuition (62%)​
  • You have moderate preference of Thinking over Feeling (38%)​
  • You have moderate preference of Judging over Perceiving (44%)​
also sharking isn't desparate lol but kinda gay
can just run away tho
 

| Big D |

Smash Master
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
3,918
Location
Hinamizawa, BC
Once again tell that to Dabuz >.>

Once he's not sharking then he can stall, and because of sharking you're forced to approach on the transitions without it because of the free percent from sharking, and the stage already benefits MK already. Mk is in an extremely advantageous position and running away only puts yourself in an even worse position when MK returns from under the stage. Mk can rinse and repeat this, and they have been doing it. That's why the stage is being removed at top level and nationals. Regular characters don't have the tools to deal with it.
 

Kantrip

Kantplay
Joined
Jul 11, 2010
Messages
10,188
Location
B.C. Canada
I do think it's dumb that mk has a guaranteed stage where he will be able to utilize sharking, while there is only ONE flat stage where, say, an IC's main can utilize the lack of landing options.


#freepicto
 

Captain L

Smash Champion
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
2,423
Location
BC
dawson still wants to get rid of halberd and plaza tho

one at most imo

hint: not halberd
 

The Iron Wolf

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Nov 27, 2011
Messages
277
Location
British Columbia
Okay, I'm going to approach this issue from an entirely different angle and keep it as clear and concise as possible.

Halberd and Delfino should be banned.

Let's approach this from an entirely different angle. As far as Halberd is concerned...well I've never understood why a stage that has the capacity to deal external damage can even be considered viable. Sharking aside, the stage in and of itself should be banned for that very reason. I take a conservative approach to all fighters and I bring this argument up with others when talking about stages of this nature. They say I'm too 'out there' and their only counter-argument is that Smash isn't like any other fighter. I don't buy that. If it's played competitively then it's played in a setting where the game focuses solely on player to player interaction. A counterpick is there for strategic advantages but it should NOT go as far as having the capacity to drastically alter the outcome of the game on it's own (i.e. rogue claw hits you in a close game when you're at death % thereby killing you and ending the match).


SoCal 7 is ideal. The more jankiness is eliminated in this game the better.

It should be enough that the most dominant communities will/have scrap/scrapped these stages because they have realized just how janky they are at the highest level. It would only make sense to keep up with the metagame and follow suit.
 

Alacion

Sunny skies
Premium
Joined
Oct 6, 2009
Messages
8,061
Location
Vancouver, BC
NNID
Alacion
3DS FC
0216-0918-5299
I like Rainbow Cruise and Brinstar :(

Peach may not be the best at those stages but they're fun :)

At least the stage elements for both stages can be predicted. Just don't let MK CP those stages and we're set.
 

Alphicans

Smash Hero
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
9,291
Location
Edmonton, AB
H, idk like that discussion has been done till the end of time and honestly it's not worth having anymore. The way I see it is that people who hold that view dislike those kinds of hazards but yet give no good reason why that makes it ban worthy other than "they're dangerous hazards." The reason for why that's bad cannot be the thing itself, that's called begging the question :/. When you argue for something like that then you need to explain why SV's platform is better, or why YI is better or why frigate is better etc.
 

DeLux

Player that used to be Lux
Joined
Jun 3, 2010
Messages
9,303
There's actual legal precedent that stages with hitboxes ought to be banned from competitive play. At least in the United States, video game tournaments lie under a discretionary gray area as a game of skill, but if there are man vs. computer elements in the game as part of the interaction, it no longer is considered a game of skill and is kin to gambling (to account for video poker).

That being the case, hitboxes are how the score is altered in the game we play. They deal knockback and percent with the win criteria is eliminate your opponent's stocks or have more stocks then less percent. There's a logical distinction that one can make between manipulating the smashville platform for tactical gain (which lies soley in player vs. player because the smashville platform does not alter the score of the game alone) compared to the Halberd claw targetting a player and hitting them (which can exist outside of the context of player vs. player) since the stage's hitbox is interacting with a players hurtbox which happens independent of an opponent's hitbox and by doing damage or knockback alters the score in the win/loss criteria. For example, if a stage element had a hitbox that required an opponent to interact with via their hitbox (like let's say hypothetically Green Hill Zone's Course Flags existed on smashville) they would be acceptable as it requires manipulation of a player. However, randomized stage elements without hitboxes requires a player to capitalize on the element to punish their opponent, which is by definition player vs. player (like pokemon stadium's non set phases or Delfino's set track).

But as far as hitboxes on stages go, most people apply the "reasonably avoided" argument. The criteria of "reasonably reactable" is incoherent if using the discretion criteria provided by Sirlin. Is reactable to a hazard 12 frames average human reaction time? Is it the total animation length of the longest move in the game? Is it that longest move animation plus average human reaction time? Is it average human reaction time, plus the longest animation length, plus another factor of human reaction time to account for reacting to when the hazard comes out AND if it will hit you? Picking one is pretty arbitrary so it's better to remove the stages with hitboxes in the first place.

With that criteria in mind, it's why the KC stagelist is: Battlefield, Smashville, Lylat Cruise, Yoshi's Island Brawl, Final Destination, Castle Siege, Pokemon Stadium, Delfino Plaza, and Rainbow Cruise (and sometimes Frigate Orpheon and Pokemon Stadium2) since the stages have no hitboxes and would fall under player vs. player in manipulating terrain for tactical advantage.
 

Captain L

Smash Champion
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
2,423
Location
BC
I would trade halberd for rainbow cruise

airborne mk is less scary than grounded mk anyway
 

Alacion

Sunny skies
Premium
Joined
Oct 6, 2009
Messages
8,061
Location
Vancouver, BC
NNID
Alacion
3DS FC
0216-0918-5299

Alphicans

Smash Hero
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
9,291
Location
Edmonton, AB
Lux I see absolutely no difference between the green hill zone example and the SV platform. You're interacting with the computer, and can potentially kill your opponent because of it. The SV platform may not have done the damage but it facilitated it, and on a functional level it has done the same thing as the GHZ things or any of Halberd's hazards.
 

DeLux

Player that used to be Lux
Joined
Jun 3, 2010
Messages
9,303
That's the point, the Green Hill Zone Flag example is acceptable because of its dependence on a player's hitbox. Therefore it can only exist when a player necessitates its existence. Theoretically/hypothetically speaking, the GHZF would not exist functionally in the game if nobody hit them. In the same manner, Smashville's platform doesn't affect the MU unless it's actually utilized by a player intentionally/unintentionally. If you disagree with that notion, play against an IC main on SV without ever landing on the platform. It'll play like a smaller FD, I promise you. Either way that exists as player vs. player.

The Halberd hazards aren't as they have hitboxes that are out that aren't dependent on a specific players hitbox. They exist independently as their own entity. There is no hypothetically them not existing like in the GHZF example because regardless of player action, the hitbox of the hazard will come out.

Damage facilitated through manipulating stage elements is different than damage caused by a stage hazard independent of player involvement.

I was attempting to give a logical backing to distinctions made on specific acceptable stage elements. So it would make sense to qualify the criteria that I use more if it were necessary. However, the list of commonly used stage does not have a stage element like the GHFZ that is player dependent on a hitbox, so it's a lot easier to say "it has a hitbox, it shouldn't be legal".
 

The Iron Wolf

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Nov 27, 2011
Messages
277
Location
British Columbia
H, idk like that discussion has been done till the end of time and honestly it's not worth having anymore. The way I see it is that people who hold that view dislike those kinds of hazards but yet give no good reason why that makes it ban worthy other than "they're dangerous hazards." The reason for why that's bad cannot be the thing itself, that's called begging the question :/. When you argue for something like that then you need to explain why SV's platform is better, or why YI is better or why frigate is better etc.
That discussion is straightforward and the point is clear. Any stage in which the environment itself deals damage to the opponent should not exist in competitive play.

You stated that people with my view give no good reason as to why it makes it ban worthy other than 'they're dangerous hazards'. I stated the reason in my initial post which is the fact that the outside environment is directly intervening in the flow of the game much differently than a platform. I don't even see how the two instances can even be comparable.


Also +5 points for Lux. Well said, agree 100%.
 

Alacion

Sunny skies
Premium
Joined
Oct 6, 2009
Messages
8,061
Location
Vancouver, BC
NNID
Alacion
3DS FC
0216-0918-5299
Off topic but I have a question about the stream. Obviously some things about it can improve such as the audio so my question is if we still need to upgrade some of the current hardware? Microphone, capturing device?
 

Alphicans

Smash Hero
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
9,291
Location
Edmonton, AB
I can see your point to a degree delux. I mean it's not a bad claim tbh (I take it to be relatively strong), but when I talk about functionality I talk about it in terms of the view of functionalism. Basically if two things carry out the exact same result then they are equivalent... That's the view. This is why I equate the SV platform with halberd hazards: they both can result in one player gaining a random advantage. So I wouldn't use your criteria to differentiate them, because to me it's irrelevant to determining what a hazard is. They both exist independently of player interactions just because they are always going to be present, and I don't think it's too big of a claim to say that during the course of a match both are going to always influence match in some way. I mean I'd argue that the SV platform affects a match to a much higher degree than any of the halberd hazards. Also I am curious as to why the conceivability of the SV platform or the GHZF not being used within a match is even considered in a topic like this.

@BO: I don't believe hazardous stages in melee should be banned. But stuff like brinstar's lava in melee can lead to pretty lolsy combos, so I guess that's why it was so easily banned.
 

DeLux

Player that used to be Lux
Joined
Jun 3, 2010
Messages
9,303
I was throwing out the hypothetical in terms of how you can distinguish player vs. player as compared to elements of player vs. computer.

Obviously they both influence the match, but the divide that we have I guess comes from how we interpret how they influence the match.

To put it simply:

If someone touches the Smashville platform, how is the matchflow altered? It's altered to the degree that a player uses it against his opponent. The scoreboard isn't altered unless a player causes it to be altered, which means it exists in a player vs. player context. This type of tactical leverage of terrain is at the core of brawl and is encouraged as part of the game of skill.

If someone touches the halberd bomb, how is the matchflow altered? It's altered by X percent damage taken and Y knockback taking place, which fundamentally and measurably alters the scoreboard. The hitbox from the halberd bomb is not player generated, it is computer generated. Therefore it's an instance of computer vs. player, which would by definition make the game a form of video gambling by most accepted definitions employed by most gaming commissions. Even worse the hazards on Halberd also combine that random element, which is like a double no-no when trying to establish a game of skill.
 
Top Bottom