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!
Why? Almost no one actually likes melee the way it was "intended to be played" (i.e. time). They like the game that melee can be- and that means the game that they've made it into via careful rule-pruning. The reason why people don't want to play against the stage is simply that they have more fun playing against opponents. They have more fun when they don't get ****ed by stages. Maybe people like neutrals in tourney because they play them in friendlies- but they play them in friendlies because they quickly tire of the gimmicky, shallow stages. It goes without saying that there's no objectively "right" way to play smash.
Thanks for all of the links. I'm going to look through them when I have more time. But is there any way to get the discussions for the current ruleset? (Since that's the one that is being used right now...)
I'm glad you asked. Every stage is, in a sense, infinitely complex for all relevant intents and purposes. But with (and I'm not familiar with the details of what makes melee stages banned or not banned, so I'm making something up here), for example, a stage where there was Zebes-esque lava that rose to the top platform every 10 seconds, the players would focus on ways to avoid the lava and to get their opponent to get hit by the lava, and then you have a game that is, in some sense, "shallow," even though you can still always get better on it and at it.
I don't really buy this argument, and the analogy at the end just seems insulting. To compare stages like Brinstar with those of Icicle Mountain and with things like "Hammers on very high" is pretty ridiculous.
I don't really care about how much fun you have on certain stages. "Fun" is a subjective concept, and I would never ban anything on the premise that its existence removes "fun" from the game. Playing to Win is not about having fun, nor is it fair in the least to force your perspective on what is fun upon other players.
I don't like playing on any stages but Pokemon Stadium, honestly. But that's sort of beyond the point. I also don't like playing against Falco or Sheik. But there's a distinction between what I personally want to ban and what I should ban. Even if we disagree on what we "should" ban, we can all agree that boiling it down to preference is a bad idea; we need some sort of agreed, objectively measured, criteria by which we determine whether a stage is banned.
No one ever said we were going for "intended to be played." Whose intention matters in that case? There is no such thing in a game full of options, and it's completely different from "preserve as much of the original game as possible." In the case of opposite rules (Time/Stock, TA On/Off), you've got to pick a standard, but stages aren't like that.
Can I MM your g&w next tourny I see you at?
I love this
You're missing the point. Icicle mountain with hammers on very high is much worse than brinstar, but both of them introduce "stage-fighting" elements that most players hate. If Brinstar is OK but Icicle mountain isn't, what's the difference? The difference is how much the stage ****s with your game. And if the stage ****s with your game even a little bit, you've got a little of that Icicle mountain vibe. This is why people like to play with relatively few stages.
So why ban Icicle mountain, unless you're doing it because it's not fun? Someone would still win the match if it were on IM. The stage list is there to standardize play, so that the majority (people who like the standard stages) don't have to play by the rules of the minority (people who like "jank" stages) when they go to tourneys.
Not personal preference. Community preference. There's no objectively "right" or "wrong" way to play the game.
The reason I ban Icicle Mountain isn't because it "****s with the game." It's not "how much" it ****s with the game. My criteria for banning a stage is dependent on how broken the stage, i.e., whether playing on that stage causes degenerate gameplay, and how random the stage is (i.e., if the stage has random elements which both occur too frequently and which strongly impact a match's outcome). You're equating two different standards here:
Again, we don't ban things based on whether it's fun. What some people find fun, others do not, and vice-versa. To force the majority's opinion of what's fun down the throats of those who dissent is unfair. This is why we create a strict criteria for banning things.
I didn't call it "personal preference." I said "preference." Because I maintain that boiling it down to preference at all, regardless of how many people share this preference, is unfair. You don't even address the final part of my post, which says that we should have an agreed upon, objectively measured criteria by which we determine whether a stage is banned.
When I say that something ****s with the game, I mean that it's too broken or too random. Anyways, most people don't like the stages you're talking about because they're too broken or too random. What's the cutoff? It depends totally on peoples' preferences.
We ban one because we like it less. That's my entire point.
What about these strict criteria is non-arbitrary? Why should we use these criteria as opposed to different criteria?
You can play however you want. Hell, I don't even have a problem with you hosting strange-rules tourneys. But you can't pretend that everyone has to play by your rules. Most people favor a stagelist that resembles the BR one more than it does yours. It would kind of suck, then, if these people all had to go to tourneys with "jank" stages.
No, people don't like the stages because they're "janky." Arguments are rarely put forth for how they are too broken or too random, and I would love to hear an argument for why these stages are broken. Instead, we hear arguments about "standardizing gameplay" or about how it should be "player vs. player, not player vs. player vs. stage." These arguments hold not water, and they're just manifestations of people's preference. Literally, it's just "I don't like these stages, let's ban them" put forth as some absurd argument.
You'll note that my criteria does not prevent players from playing how they wish on the sole premise that I dislike it. However, the point is that we need criteria which doesn't fall upon preference. It's absurd to suggest that things should be banned just because the majority wants it that way.
No way. I ****ing hate my criteria. If I have to play on Brinstar again I might murder my friends and family. It's not about what I ****ing enjoy. It's not about how I want to play. It's about fairness, and, as far as I've seen, the fairest set of criteria is one of minimalist banning; we simply can't play (in any reasonable way) when there are broken strategies available, so we limit those. But we are wary to ban things, because banning things on preference is inherently unfair. Thus, we limit bans to those things which are broken.
How is this relevant in the least? I don't recall saying anyone had to play by my rules. We're not talking about enforcement in any way, here. All we're discussing is what ruleset "should" be used. It's not like I'm going to call in the National Guard to enforce the ****ing ruleset.
I don't disagree that there is no objectively right way to play the game. But that does not equate to "all criteria are equally arbitrary." I didn't just choose my criteria out of a class of sets at random; I chose it because it maximizes fairness while maintaining depth. The fact that there needs to be some deliberation within the criteria to decide whether things are actually worth banning does not make the criteria itself arbitrary.
