Let's discuss Rainbow Cruise(We're done with Brinstar, I guess)!

[Raziek]

I wanted to post in this thread, and then Kain, SMJ and Strong Bad made me hate everything about people who know nothing about stages.

Carry on, gentlemen. I'm glad to see my data being used.

 

[-LzR-]

I'm kinda dying when I read the "player vs stage" crap. What game have you been playing? This is smash ffs! >: (

 

[Luigisama]

just thinking on characters that will benefit or will have to alter the stage in some way.

Ike and marth will benefit greatly from the tentacle thing at the edge because it will lag their hitboxes for moves like fsmash.

Yoshi could throw eggs through the bottom of the stage, but that could be risking a sd. Also they could just destroy the tentacle thing at the edge and then yoshi will be able to egg plank.

this is excluding the obvious like wario being able to move on the stage with no problem.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

The direction that I'm going in with this is exactly the same direction that Kyo took you to. There is no such thing as Player vs. Player combat in Brawl. It's always going to be Player vs. Player vs. Stage (or Player vs. Player on a given Stage, as Kyo put it). So in other words, if the game is meant to be played PvPvS (which it is, btw), then we should legalize Brinstar, Halberd, PTAD, GGs, and Norfair just like you said. However, we don't have to ban the static stages like you said we should because in reality, they don't pertain to the PvP group. They're in the PvPvS group just like Brinstar, just with less focus on the stage aspect.

Player vs. player is what happens on every stage that doesn't have stage hazards. If a player camps under a platform, it's the player using the stage to his advantage and not the stage going against the player. Same thing with stage spikes. It's the player, not the stage.

 

[-LzR-]

Of course, the lack of platforms or pretty much anything when trying to run away from an IC who is really wanting to grab you has nothing to do with the stage in the case of FD.

 

[Steam]

Well, ignored my first user. Congrats jebus.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Of course, the lack of platforms or pretty much anything when trying to run away from an IC who is really wanting to grab you has nothing to do with the stage in the case of FD.

It's still not you against the stage. It's the opponent taking advantage of the lack of platforms on the stage.

 

[Akaku94]

Player vs. player is what happens on every stage that doesn't have stage hazards. If a player camps under a platform, it's the player using the stage to his advantage and not the stage going against the player. Same thing with stage spikes. It's the player, not the stage.

If a player anticipates a hazard and forces his opponent into it, it's the player using the stage to his advantage just as much as using a platform (or a lack thereof). Hazards are just as much a part of the stage as platforms. Like it or not, every single stage in the game interferes with the players in some way; try to name one that doesn't. The boundary into ban-worthiness is only crossed when the interference of the stage causes blatant over-centralization (e.g. Temple, Spear Pillar), or when it drastically reduces the required level of skill (e.g. WarioWare, Mario Bros.); if the player can adapt to use a stage hazard to his advantage, he deserves that advantage because he is the better player, just as using the stage to spike or to remain in a positional advantage gives him a deserved advantage because he is the better player.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

The difference is that one involves luck and the other does not.

 

[Akaku94]

How does it involve luck if the hazard is predictable?

 

[SaveMeJebus]

How does it involve luck if the hazard is predictable?

They are not 100% predictable and can hit you when you are in the worst positions. Sometimes, players even have to stop what they are doing just to let the stage do its thing.

 

[Akaku94]

If there is any predictability/time to react to the hazard, it is your responsibility as a player to be ready for it to happen, and to adapt quickly when it does happen. If you can't, your opponent deserves any advantage they can get for using the stage better. The same thing occurs in a stage spike or smart camping.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

If there is any predictability/time to react to the hazard, it is your responsibility as a player to be ready for it to happen, and to adapt quickly when it does happen. If you can't, your opponent deserves any advantage they can get for using the stage better. The same thing occurs in a stage spike or smart camping.

How are you supposed to prepare for the acid if you are off stage trying to recover low? Same with Helberd's claw.

 

[John12346]

How are you supposed to prepare for Lylat tilting away from you when you are offstage trying to recover low.

At least you get to survive on Brinstar when your recovery gets intruded upon by the stage.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

How are you supposed to prepare for Lylat tilting away from you when you are offstage trying to recover low.

At least you get to survive on Brinstar when your recovery gets intruded upon by the stage.

Your character should be able to edge snap if he was going to be able to grab the stage before it tilted.

 

[Raziek]

Your character should be able to edge snap if he was going to be able to grab the stage before it tilted.

This is blatantly false.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

This is blatantly false.

Try it out if you don't believe me.

 

[Raziek]

Try it out if you don't believe me.

I don't have to, I know with certainty that you're just straight wrong on this. Any recovery that requires any degree of aiming is susceptible to failure.

Immediately coming to mind are Lucario and Marth, both of whom I play.

Spacies with Side B are quite vulnerable, Wolf's Up-B, Dedede's Up-B after pull-out, my friend's DK has slid under as it tilted numerous times.

Like, I don't think you could be more wrong.

 

[Sushi3]

"Ban Cruise" is the vibe I'm getting from these recent posts .

But on a more serious note, I feel that some of the arguments in this thread are too simplistic and inefficient. There's a lot of back and forth that really doesn't get us anywhere.

Such as (with a bit of exaggeration):
A: Ban Brinstar, because it has hazards.
B: But Halberd has hazards, and it's legal.
A: Yeah, but Brinstar's hazards influence the game to be player v stage.
B: What's wrong with having to deal with the stage?
A: On other stages it's not so bad but Brinstar....

etc.

What I'm suggesting is that we first establish a general consensus of "ground rules" on what determines a starter and what determines a counterpick stage so we can refer back to it and get a lot of the confusion out of the way. Then, we'll have a much easier time applying it to any stage including RC/Brinstar.

If a post like this already exists, please link/post it to this thread.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

I don't have to, I know with certainty that you're just straight wrong on this. Any recovery that requires any degree of aiming is susceptible to failure.

Immediately coming to mind are Lucario and Marth, both of whom I play.

Spacies with Side B are quite vulnerable, Wolf's Up-B, Dedede's Up-B after pull-out, my friend's DK has slid under as it tilted numerous times.

Like, I don't think you could be more wrong.

I just practiced this with falco. I grabbed the ledge every time. The only time this would be a problem is if you've reached your edge snap limit and the stage decides to move. Even if that did happen, that's all you have to worry about. On Brinstar, you have to worry about acid both onstage and off

 

[ChocoNaner]

FOR EVERYONE THAT IS ARGUING WITH JEBUS, IT IS AN ULTIMATE TEST OF YOUR PATIENCE AND SANITY :I

tbqh ichu:

 

[MEOW1337KITTEH]

To me, any stage that forces a change in gameplay should not be allowed. Hanenbow is practically a RC that doesn't move, and Norfair is a big Brinstar. Only the simple stages should be legal. (@Japan)

 

[WindMajor]

All stages force a change in gameplay.

 

[-LzR-]

Seriously, if you have so many problems with stages in the game, just go play Street Fighter or something. Brinstar is a great stage when MK is gotten rid of and it's the air characters version of FD.
Considering putting my first person to the ignore list too.

 

[ChocoNaner]

Comparing brins to fd :I...

You must be ing sons I:

for srs ichu:

 

[Sushi3]

I think what he means is that FD is the "overall best" stage for grounded characters while Brinstar (and possibly RC) is the "overall best" stage for airborne characters

 

[WindMajor]

Read the bolded. At the end, you presented playing a game of "who can beat the other player while avoiding the stage hazards" as a problem, yet, when I asked you why it was a problem to you, you said there's nothing wrong with it, effectively invalidating it as a concern. If there's nothing wrong with playing a game of "who can beat the other player while avoiding the stage hazards", then there's nothing wrong with any of the bolded quotes above, because all of your concerns invalidate each other from the ground up. My question still stands then: What is so wrong with the act of getting hit by a hazard that makes it unacceptable for competitive play?

Jebus, I would still like an answer to this.

 

[-LzR-]

I think what he means is that FD is the "overall best" stage for grounded characters while Brinstar (and possibly RC) is the "overall best" stage for airborne characters

This was exactly my point. +1 internet for Sushi.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Jebus, I would still like an answer to this.

This is why

Anyways, I think that a stage that actively damages players (3rd party interactions) shouldn't be legal in play. That does, in fact, extend to Halberd.

It adds another level of randomness to the game. If it damages both players and it's not 100% predictable, I think it should be banned.

Also, when are stage hazards too powerful? Why is it that stages like GG and PATD are banned yet stages like Brinstar and Helberd are not? The hazards on those stages can also easily be avoided.

 

[WindMajor]

That quote from Tuen really didn't answer my question.

Also, I believe you are contradicting yourself in your 2nd and 3rd paragraph.

 

[Kuro~]

There is no reason for rc+brinstar to BOTH be legal with or without mk. They both serve a purpose to enhance aerial characters. It's not fair to get 2 great cps and have two instant bans where the person HAS to choose one or the other.

At least, that's my opinion. And i'm sure most ppl in the actual scene agree both don't need to be legal.


Brinstar's lava is predictable. The problem that could be drawn from it is that the laval literally makes it very easy for an opponent to get you in a bad position or just downright kill you.

However, without mk, all you have to do is di away from the opponent after getting hit by lava and then take your time recovering. Anyone but mk is prone to mix-ups in that situation. You can even FF into the lava to get away.

 

[Sushi3]

I like bullet points, so here goes.

I think that the main factors affecting stage legalization are:

• 
  Matchup Polarization
  Stage Interactions
  Randomness
  "Fun" (Fun is very essential, especially competitively, if we want to attract more sponsors as well as gain a broader audience)

The thing is though, that you cannot simply argue one specific aspect of each point at a time. If you do so, it will usually be extremely easy to find a counterexample.
For example:
Player A: Brinstar has X so it is bad for competitive play.
Player B: Counterexample: Lylat Cruise has X and yet it is suitable for competive play.

A more substantial argument would be more along the lines of:
Player A: Brinstar is a stage with X and Y so it is bad for competitive play. Another stage with X and Y can be made an exception if it contains Z to mitigate X and/or Y.

That said, information/data (as objective as possible) on Brinstar should be compiled into a single post that we can base our arguments off of.

 

[Akaku94]

By that logic, We should ban FD or SV because both of them enhance ground characters.

If there are more stages that "enhance aerial characters," than aerial characters have the natural character strength of being good on more stages. Banning Brinstar because of RC or banning RC because of Brinstar is stupid. A stage is either legal, or it's broken. If the stage isn't broken, it should be legal, regardless of who does well there.

EDIT: Ninja'd by Sushi... this is a response to Kuro

 

[SaveMeJebus]

That quote from Tuen really didn't answer my question.

Also, I believe you are contradicting yourself in your 2nd and 3rd paragraph.

I'd rather see who the better player is on a certain stage than seeing who's the better player is while being able to avoid semi-random stage hazards. It's all a matter of preference.

 

[Sushi3]

In that case, even if Brinstar and/or Cruise is deemed to be banworthy due to "Matchup Polarization," we should at least wait to collect tournament data to help determine if one or both of these stages is in fact polarizing towards aerial based characters. Without MK, we do not have enough evidence to determine how "instant banworthy" these stages will become.

@ Akaku, I know

@ Jebus,
I don't know what you are arguing about exactly, but it's probably not the best idea to use the phrase "I'd rather see" when we're discussing as a community the implications of two very controversial stages.

 

[z00ted]

By that logic, We should ban FD or SV because both of them enhance ground characters.

If there are more stages that "enhance aerial characters," than aerial characters have the natural character strength of being good on more stages. Banning Brinstar because of RC or banning RC because of Brinstar is stupid. A stage is either legal, or it's broken. If the stage isn't broken, it should be legal, regardless of who does well there.

EDIT: Ninja'd by Sushi... this is a response to Kuro

People really need to read this.
Especially you, Jebus.

 

[Sushi3]

"Enhancing" is relative. Some might argue that SV is actually the "perfect balance."

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Like I said, it all comes down to preference.

 

[Sushi3]

Don't we have any guidelines on stage legalization that someone can post/link?

 

[Kuro~]

By that logic, We should ban FD or SV because both of them enhance ground characters.

If there are more stages that "enhance aerial characters," than aerial characters have the natural character strength of being good on more stages. Banning Brinstar because of RC or banning RC because of Brinstar is stupid. A stage is either legal, or it's broken. If the stage isn't broken, it should be legal, regardless of who does well there.

EDIT: Ninja'd by Sushi... this is a response to Kuro

No. Rainbow cruise is x10 the strength of a cp( in comparison to sv for the grounded) for the characters that we're not trying to harm by banning both.