The Iron Wolf
Smash Journeyman
I'm for the ban on these stages. Let us jump on the train to progress and pursue the path in search of a better Brawl metagame.
-
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)
- Thread starter ~Firefly~
- Start date
| Big D |
Smash Master
Halberd isn't only bannable because of sharking, although that is definitely a major reason to ban it, the other reason is the stage hazards.
Explanation of sharking
Explanation of hitboxes.
I would also like to add that there are many times where an incoming hazard gives one player a huge positional advantage regardless of whether they git hit or not. Examples are someone being on the ledge, or getting juggled. There are times where this can cost more than percent but entire stocks, just do to a random effect of the stage. Like a hazard coming when ICs get a grab or are separated. It adds a random factor that skews the outcome.
If you want siege banned, say why, provide evidence, and back it with results.
Explanation of sharking
[3/18/2013 11:20:04 PM] Big D: alright well
[3/18/2013 11:20:10 PM] Big D: First off there is no way to combat it
[3/18/2013 11:20:24 PM] Big D: the only character with the tools to combat it is mk himself
[3/18/2013 11:20:41 PM] Big D: You can try and shield it, but only make your shield unhealthy to get poked by nado
[3/18/2013 11:20:59 PM] Big D: You can try and evade it, but every character ideally wants to be grounded against meta knight
[3/18/2013 11:21:04 PM] Big D: or else they eat a ton of damage
[3/18/2013 11:21:13 PM] Big D: so they have to put themselves in a terrible situatiion
[3/18/2013 11:21:29 PM] Big D: The person who sharks can do the strat over and over again until an opportunity arises
[3/18/2013 11:21:41 PM] Big D: It forces an approach on the non sharking stages
[3/18/2013 11:21:47 PM] Big D: because of the guaranteed damage
[3/18/2013 11:22:17 PM] Big D: also
[3/18/2013 11:22:21 PM] Big D: from a balance perspective
[3/18/2013 11:22:46 PM] Big D: The only characters who normally have the tools to deal with mk are the ones without the tools to evade sharking
[3/18/2013 11:23:02 PM] Big D: So unless you go MK, you're always at a huge disadvantage
[3/18/2013 11:23:11 PM] Big D: and with both stages, you cannot escape it
[3/18/2013 11:24:28 PM] Big D: not only that but characters who normally do well on those stages still lose and cannot combat sharking
[3/18/2013 11:24:34 PM] Big D: with the threat of a pocket MK
[3/18/2013 11:24:44 PM] Big D: MK is the only character who makes use of the counterpicks
[3/18/2013 11:25:03 PM] Big D: Sharking also entirely deviates from player interaction, which is this game's measure of skill
[3/18/2013 11:25:22 PM] Big D: It is why stages like norfair are banned because of simillar strategies involving circle camping
[3/18/2013 11:25:30 PM] Big D: and why planking is limited and scrooging is banned
[3/18/2013 11:20:10 PM] Big D: First off there is no way to combat it
[3/18/2013 11:20:24 PM] Big D: the only character with the tools to combat it is mk himself
[3/18/2013 11:20:41 PM] Big D: You can try and shield it, but only make your shield unhealthy to get poked by nado
[3/18/2013 11:20:59 PM] Big D: You can try and evade it, but every character ideally wants to be grounded against meta knight
[3/18/2013 11:21:04 PM] Big D: or else they eat a ton of damage
[3/18/2013 11:21:13 PM] Big D: so they have to put themselves in a terrible situatiion
[3/18/2013 11:21:29 PM] Big D: The person who sharks can do the strat over and over again until an opportunity arises
[3/18/2013 11:21:41 PM] Big D: It forces an approach on the non sharking stages
[3/18/2013 11:21:47 PM] Big D: because of the guaranteed damage
[3/18/2013 11:22:17 PM] Big D: also
[3/18/2013 11:22:21 PM] Big D: from a balance perspective
[3/18/2013 11:22:46 PM] Big D: The only characters who normally have the tools to deal with mk are the ones without the tools to evade sharking
[3/18/2013 11:23:02 PM] Big D: So unless you go MK, you're always at a huge disadvantage
[3/18/2013 11:23:11 PM] Big D: and with both stages, you cannot escape it
[3/18/2013 11:24:28 PM] Big D: not only that but characters who normally do well on those stages still lose and cannot combat sharking
[3/18/2013 11:24:34 PM] Big D: with the threat of a pocket MK
[3/18/2013 11:24:44 PM] Big D: MK is the only character who makes use of the counterpicks
[3/18/2013 11:25:03 PM] Big D: Sharking also entirely deviates from player interaction, which is this game's measure of skill
[3/18/2013 11:25:22 PM] Big D: It is why stages like norfair are banned because of simillar strategies involving circle camping
[3/18/2013 11:25:30 PM] Big D: and why planking is limited and scrooging is banned
Explanation of hitboxes.
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.
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.
I would also like to add that there are many times where an incoming hazard gives one player a huge positional advantage regardless of whether they git hit or not. Examples are someone being on the ledge, or getting juggled. There are times where this can cost more than percent but entire stocks, just do to a random effect of the stage. Like a hazard coming when ICs get a grab or are separated. It adds a random factor that skews the outcome.
If you want siege banned, say why, provide evidence, and back it with results.
_GrapE_
Smash Lord
I think we should bring back RC. Don't care to type a huge paragraph about it, just want it back.
I want Unity stages back 
Castle Siege is fun
Castle Siege is fun
~Firefly~
Smash Hero
So ban Halberd/Delfino but legalize Rainbow Cruise/Brinstar?
Sounds legit.
Sounds legit.
DeLux
Player that used to be Lux
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2010
- Messages
- 9,304
Ban Halberd, Keep Delfino, Bring Back RC
Give everyone 2 stage bans
Strike game 1 from the legal stage list of: Battlefield, Smashville, Lylat Cruise, Pokemon Stadium, Castle Siege, Final Destination, Yoshi's Island, Delfino, Rainbow Cruise
If you want a more liberal/larger stage list, add in two of: PS2/Luigi's Mansion/Frigate Orpheon
(possibly ban MK from use on Delfino or RC if that floats your boat)
There, now sharking AND ICs are dealt with. And now nobody can complain that "the stage hit me so I died". Everyone gets something they like out of it.
People have to play multiple characters to really maximize advantages in the counter picking process when the 9 stage variant is involved, which increase diversity which I like. But some people like the added stage diversity, but that shouldn't come at the expense of the stage having a hitbox.
Give everyone 2 stage bans
Strike game 1 from the legal stage list of: Battlefield, Smashville, Lylat Cruise, Pokemon Stadium, Castle Siege, Final Destination, Yoshi's Island, Delfino, Rainbow Cruise
If you want a more liberal/larger stage list, add in two of: PS2/Luigi's Mansion/Frigate Orpheon
(possibly ban MK from use on Delfino or RC if that floats your boat)
There, now sharking AND ICs are dealt with. And now nobody can complain that "the stage hit me so I died". Everyone gets something they like out of it.
People have to play multiple characters to really maximize advantages in the counter picking process when the 9 stage variant is involved, which increase diversity which I like. But some people like the added stage diversity, but that shouldn't come at the expense of the stage having a hitbox.
I would absolutely love that but I know it won't happen
Of course I am probably the least competitive person and I'm choosing stages based on where I think I'd have more fun playing Brawl instead of stages that benefit Peach the most.
I like pikachu cause he's good like everywhere
One other thing, I know Dawson's intentions are not selfish, and I think he's just in an unfortunate situation because of this, but pushing for the removal of his character's worst stages, while already on a 10 tourney winning streak is what makes me hesitant to see them go. I know that this is NOT actually a logically valid reason to keep the stages, but banning them can only widen the gap between 1st and 2nd in our region. If it had been Jake or myself on a year long win streak, I think both of us would not hesitate to support the ban. But just because the stages in question HAPPEN to be the worst stages for BC's most dominant player, it's questionable whether or not removing them would be best for our scene.
Like I said, I know Dawson has a ton of valid reasons why the stages are unfit for competitive play, and his reasons for wanting them gone are unselfish, it's just really unfortunate that it would only widen the gap between him and 2nd place. At this point enough people have spoken up to make the stages basically history, but that is my final input on it.*
*probably not final
One other thing, I know Dawson's intentions are not selfish, and I think he's just in an unfortunate situation because of this, but pushing for the removal of his character's worst stages, while already on a 10 tourney winning streak is what makes me hesitant to see them go. I know that this is NOT actually a logically valid reason to keep the stages, but banning them can only widen the gap between 1st and 2nd in our region. If it had been Jake or myself on a year long win streak, I think both of us would not hesitate to support the ban. But just because the stages in question HAPPEN to be the worst stages for BC's most dominant player, it's questionable whether or not removing them would be best for our scene.
Like I said, I know Dawson has a ton of valid reasons why the stages are unfit for competitive play, and his reasons for wanting them gone are unselfish, it's just really unfortunate that it would only widen the gap between him and 2nd place. At this point enough people have spoken up to make the stages basically history, but that is my final input on it.*
*probably not final
We could always switch rulesets for one event and see how it goes? But we do need a consensus first...?
| Big D |
Smash Master
The reasons are valid, decreasing the skill gap is never a good thing for a tournament scene, which is exactly what you are suggesting. Increasing the skill gap makes me more likely to win because I am the better player. A rule set is supposed to increase the skill gap, that's all there is to it. A higher skill gap means a higher capacity to improve. Factors that deviate from player interaction and add randomness decrease the skill gap. The current counter picks are a great measure for who has the best MK around, but at that point it gets shallow.
I could make the same case involving H and Neebee and only widening the gap between You/Jake and H/Neebee.
What is "best" for our scene is what players want to take from being in the scene. If we want our scene to have a lower skill gap, and generally lower the level of competition, then we may as well keep the stages and add other things like items or other stages. However If we want our scene to be more competitive with a higher skill gap, then the stage bans is what's best for our scene. It is a super majority from the players who have spoken out and who share the same competitive ideals. If we are seeking a better meta game, then this is what needs to happen.
The idea is whoever played better will win. The stage changing the score does not reflect who played better. You cannot play better against sharking because you can't challenge it. The same goes with everything that has been banned over the years such as walk offs, large circle camping stages, scrooging, IDC, and planking. If a tournament is out to find who is playing the best, then the rule set should reflect that.
I could make the same case involving H and Neebee and only widening the gap between You/Jake and H/Neebee.
What is "best" for our scene is what players want to take from being in the scene. If we want our scene to have a lower skill gap, and generally lower the level of competition, then we may as well keep the stages and add other things like items or other stages. However If we want our scene to be more competitive with a higher skill gap, then the stage bans is what's best for our scene. It is a super majority from the players who have spoken out and who share the same competitive ideals. If we are seeking a better meta game, then this is what needs to happen.
The idea is whoever played better will win. The stage changing the score does not reflect who played better. You cannot play better against sharking because you can't challenge it. The same goes with everything that has been banned over the years such as walk offs, large circle camping stages, scrooging, IDC, and planking. If a tournament is out to find who is playing the best, then the rule set should reflect that.
StarWaffle
Smash Lord
I'm pretty neutral on the situation but if I had to chose one of them to ban, I'd ban Halberd.
Good Microphone? http://www.memoryexpress.com/Products/MX44510
Spear Pillar was the first stage I played during a tournament. (A BC Brawl Monthly)
Spear Pillar was the first stage I played during a tournament. (A BC Brawl Monthly)
Alphicans
Smash Hero
Best possible ruleset is strike from the full stage list. Every region SHOULD adopt this, but they won't.
Alphicans
Smash Hero
Well you can reasonably "ban" stupid stages that will obviously be striked within the first several turns. But yeah, like a 15-20 stage list is the best way to do it, and honestly doesn't take too long. I've done test sets with it and it takes like an extra 30 seconds. Well worth it imo, since it deals with the majority of the issues people have with a stage list.
EDIT: also keep in mind the process will get quicker and quicker as you do it more times. Eventually the difference will be negligible.
EDIT: also keep in mind the process will get quicker and quicker as you do it more times. Eventually the difference will be negligible.
Alphicans
Smash Hero
I'd probably want to add more stages/tweak the rules you use, but overall I think your ruleset is far superior to apex or any "mainstream" ruleset atm. It accomplishes the same thing those rulesets do + balances it more + adds diversity. I can't think of a single negative.
That sounds like a really good idea.
Alphicans
Smash Hero
Yeah that's a good idea.
Also with that said, when doing PM tournaments here in Edmonton, we do full legal stage strikes. Most people were worried about how long it would take, but by the end I think everyone was able to admit it wasn't THAT bad. I think the biggest complaint is that it felt pointless since people generally wanted to go to 2-3 stages anyways. I am not sure if brawl would suffer from this as well.
Also with that said, when doing PM tournaments here in Edmonton, we do full legal stage strikes. Most people were worried about how long it would take, but by the end I think everyone was able to admit it wasn't THAT bad. I think the biggest complaint is that it felt pointless since people generally wanted to go to 2-3 stages anyways. I am not sure if brawl would suffer from this as well.
| Big D |
Smash Master
I've come to the realization that Ice Climbers are bad.
Please discuss.
Please discuss.
_GrapE_
Smash Lord
Are Ice Climbers bad in the same way that I think Zelda is good?
| Big D |
Smash Master
More so in the same way I think Dedede is good.
Alphicans
Smash Hero
I am proud of you
~Firefly~
Smash Hero
T-block
B2B TST
take me back BC T_T
~Firefly~
Smash Hero
*looks outside at the beautiful sunny weather*
I can't possibly imagine why you'd want to come back here.
I can't possibly imagine why you'd want to come back here.
Alphicans
Smash Hero
Lol dude this random 2 feet of snow is amazing
In a report yesterday that considered many variables such as employment, living standards, cost of living, etc., Calgary placed as the best place in Canada to live in. Edmonton placed third. Vancouver placed 10th on this list but when you ask yourself if you could pick any place in Canada to live in, where would it be? I'm sure nearly everybody would pick Vancouver! (Downside being the highest cost of living here but we're all getting by )
It was actually sunny today with even more sun up to Sunday!
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-s-best-city-calgary-overtakes-ottawa-in-annual-ranking-1.1203108 (Top 10 Large Cities)
I'd consider moving to Alberta if it were not for the atrocious weather they have there.
) It was actually sunny today with even more sun up to Sunday!
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-s-best-city-calgary-overtakes-ottawa-in-annual-ranking-1.1203108 (Top 10 Large Cities)
I'd consider moving to Alberta if it were not for the atrocious weather they have there.
T-block
B2B TST
cost of living probably hurt vancouver quite a bit. plus oil and gas money in AB etc etc
but i'd pick vancouver in a heartbeat
the snowbank on my lawn is literally taller than me
but i'd pick vancouver in a heartbeat
the snowbank on my lawn is literally taller than me
traffic.
Smash Journeyman
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2012
- Messages
- 427
Vancouver benefits people "above" employment/money issues. Alberta and even now Saskatchewan are rising in the economic charts due to oil and government subsidized living. where Vancouver and Montreal don't need jobs or tax cuts to be the most sought after locations because they are cultural hubs. I didn't find the money in northern interior living to be worth the -40C or 80km winds, or the lack of people I relate to. I ended up spending 1000+ a week on drugs and alcohol because there was nothing else to do but get high and **** *******.
On second thought the last part wasn't that bad.
On second thought the last part wasn't that bad.