DaomarIsBear
Smash Journeyman
Props to Orion for being able to tell someone to eat a **** and then **** the opposing argument with logic.
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!
Washed away? Naw...Before anyone gets on my ***, I have actually taken the time to read the whole darn thread.
The few things I am really gathering here is:
1) That we should test things for you guys in a tournament setting, in which we can possibly lose a lot of money for incredibly stupid things.
2) If we don't like the stages and don't use them, we are apparently scrubs (said at most of the earlier pages but is sometimes still mentioned.).
3) Some of the things said make it out to seem we're thought of as guinea pigs instead of players.
When you get answers like these, no matter if you support or are against the ruleset, this is how the community is being treated and, to me, it just doesn't feel right.
Basically, we're either getting called lab rats/guinea pigs or scrubs.
I do agree proof should be provided before crying "BAN!", but I also agree it should work both ways.
I'm not saying I'm for or against this ruleset, in fact, I haven't mentioned my opinion about this ruleset at all.
Waits for the inevitable getting washed away by the rest of the posts.
If this is sarcasm, it's in bad taste. If you're being serious, you should just be ashamed.I highlight the weakest part of your post, the rest is invalid.
Honestly, the majority is probably indifferent no matter how you look at it, and among those who care, it's a lot more split than you'd probably suspect. Most of the people who support more stages are quiet and mild mannered and generally disinclined to speak up, especially when dealing with a topic like this that is basically a total mess. Just look at this topic. A few people who posted in support of this rule set got attacked pretty viciously, and a few of us who posted strong support for it (such as myself or Alpha Zealot) got more or less ignored since our arguments were too good or something. Why would anyone who supports this rule set want to post in this topic? Most people don't find dealing with this nonsense fun; only BBR members who are invested in this rule set and a few gluttons for punishment are posting in support of this rule set not because they're the only supporters (VERY far from it) but because they're the only ones willing to put up with this nonsense.Just for the record, here.
Are you saying the majority of the community is in favor of this stage list?
Are you sure that circle camping wasn't tested or given a fair chance? Or are you just claiming that?planking is proven unbeatable yet you still allow no ledge limit. we havent fully tested if you can stop circle camping either, "it was never given a fair chance"
allow stages like hanenbow and summit. there is literally no argument you could make that doesnt contradict your cuurrent bull****
If it was, where are the results or data recorded?Are you sure that circle camping wasn't tested or given a fair chance? Or are you just claiming that?
i lurk a LOT and i havent seen a scrap of evidence other than it was deemed ban worthy in the games predecessors (fox on hyrule in melee example). the stage however WAS played in NJ locals in 08, and was abused by spam, and we deemed it banworthy. however apparently since 08 isnt enough for the bbr to deem crappy stages banworthy:Are you sure that circle camping wasn't tested or given a fair chance? Or are you just claiming that?
Give it time, it will happen soon.Washed away? Naw...
Though I appropriately agree with this line of thinking, during this time, those who do get screwed by these strategies potentially lose money, depending on the situation where this happened, it could be as negligible as $5 or past the $100 mark (Way past) for any large tourney that this would happen. People won't like this (as shown) and well whine about it, with or without good reason.Having the stages legal in a tournament setting is good because we get to see how the stage is played under a play to win mindset. With money on the line, players are gonna abuse things like crazy to get that win, just like in all competitive games.
Yes, but I feel this could have been more productive if we had the community (read as "people willing to give a ****") have a say in this by providing the information requested during the making of this ruleset instead of making the ruleset and posting it, then asking for the info for why it shouldn't be like this. I'm not doubting this ruleset was tested, but I think that having more communication with the community itself would have had a helping hand.The stages are put up because the BBR feels that they aren't bad enough to warrant a ban, and that healthy gameplay can come out of these stages. One of the reasons why they were banned in the first place was due to player preference, which is not a banning criteria. This is trying to be reversed now, by giving the stages a fair chance.
I see how some of these could be thought of as a viable stage in a competitive setting, but when one of the main arguments is to test it out while in a tournament where one cruddy tactic or incredible incident that can be abused by your opponent by a CP YOU picked can cost you your money, one would tend to avoid this as much as possible, no? I know I wouldn't take an opponent I'm comfortable with on say, Delfino Plaza, to Norfair unless I know it can definitely help me and hinder my opponent.The issue comes in when a good chunk of the public is apparently outraged at the stage list. They don't want to give, what COULD be a viable stage in a competitive setting, a fair chance. They rejected the stage instantly, and a lot of the arguments were simply because they either disliked the stage, thought it was gay, believed that it wouldn't favor them, or that ridiculous strategies could work on them. All they're asking for is for these claims to be proven so that they can be taken into consideration, but by the amount of complaining I've seen in this thread, I doubt that's ever gonna happen.
I agree this is disheartening, but some people seem genuinely interested in proving their points. Like YI:M and DP for example, some people seem to have genuinely gone out of there way to use a character they don't use normally to prove if what they say does indeed happen, but don't quite have the tools to bring this evidence to light. Wouldn't it be fair to say that if some people say it can happen, but can't really provide proof, that the BBR should at least look into this, test it out themselves and bring whatever evidence they find for or against the stage to light? I mean, if some people say it can be done but can't show the proof, but the BBR does nothing to disprove this (which some individual members keep saying it squarely falls on those who are mentioning it and apparently not the group who SHOULD have the tools for this), then what? We just do whatever we want with the stage list instead of checking if these claims are true or false before a select few potentially lose money for what was true or we completely ignore a stage for a false claim?Bringing up your 2nd point, it's really disheartening seeing how a lot of the players here are bringing up arguments with NO INTENTION of backing it up. The stages are gay, or that it's broken because theoretically, X can happen, and shouldn't be allowed. But when told to prove their points by playing a match on the stage and showing how said tactic is bad or how said stage is gay, people get angry because they feel like guinea pigs and get insulted, because apparently, it's an insult to prove a point by testing it out (ie. be a guinea pig).
And that's all well and good. But certain things I feel should be proven by the BBR or some similarly reliable source like a tactic that is said to be exploited quite easily or something, that way they should be able to quell these argument, just saying they (as in, the ones who are complaining) should prove it seems more like "We don't believe you, you do it 'cause we don't want to."Anyways, the BBR is currently open to constructive criticism. They want what is best for the game. If you have a good point and it's proven to be valid, they'll acknowledge it. If your argument looks like this...
"I don't like it, the stage is gay, this doesn't favor me"
...then you're being scrubby. If your argument holds no water, then they want you to make that argument hold water, so it can be taken into consideration.
Hey ACTION PANDA, fixed that K for ya. =)So yeah, Hi DusK!
NWit that avatar, I think you shouldnt play either.you should all play melee. brawl sucks.
Most ironic avatar-post thing I have ever seen, LOL.you should all play melee. brawl sucks.
what are you talking about? Almost every tournament in America applies the LGLthere is no LGL, MK can plank all day.
The Ethipoian smash scene's best player mains link..what are you talking about? Almost every tournament in America applies the LGL
Hilariously enough, the Midwest doesn't really enforce or support a ledge grab limit on the whole.what are you talking about? Almost every tournament in America applies the LGL
This really isn't true. It's probably about half, if not less.what are you talking about? Almost every tournament in America applies the LGL
No, proper translation: We shouldn't be remaking an entire ruleset just to make one or two characters that already lose to the entire cast lose slightly less.Translation:
**** low tier characters, they are trash and people that play them should not be allowed to have fun when playing Super Smash Bros. Brawl for the Nintendo Wii.
Yes, but I feel this could have been more productive if we had the community (read as "people willing to give a ****") have a say in this by providing the information requested during the making of this ruleset instead of making the ruleset and posting it, then asking for the info for why it shouldn't be like this. I'm not doubting this ruleset was tested, but I think that having more communication with the community itself would have had a helping hand.
And how is that different from any other case where you lose because of lack of knowledge of a stage or lack of MU knowledge?I see how some of these could be thought of as a viable stage in a competitive setting, but when one of the main arguments is to test it out while in a tournament where one cruddy tactic or incredible incident that can be abused by your opponent by a CP YOU picked can cost you your money, one would tend to avoid this as much as possible, no? I know I wouldn't take an opponent I'm comfortable with on say, Delfino Plaza, to Norfair unless I know it can definitely help me and hinder my opponent.
Actually you're incorrect, a number of people in the BBR DO go out of their way to test claims.I agree this is disheartening, but some people seem genuinely interested in proving their points. Like YI:M and DP for example, some people seem to have genuinely gone out of there way to use a character they don't use normally to prove if what they say does indeed happen, but don't quite have the tools to bring this evidence to light. Wouldn't it be fair to say that if some people say it can happen, but can't really provide proof, that the BBR should at least look into this, test it out themselves and bring whatever evidence they find for or against the stage to light? I mean, if some people say it can be done but can't show the proof, but the BBR does nothing to disprove this (which some individual members keep saying it squarely falls on those who are mentioning it and apparently not the group who SHOULD have the tools for this), then what? We just do whatever we want with the stage list instead of checking if these claims are true or false before a select few potentially lose money for what was true or we completely ignore a stage for a false claim?
Just for clarification, Mew2King has stated to me that without an LGL, MK's planking is broken and he cannot be beaten. MK can be beaten on the ledge when there is an LGL (forcing him to regrab it).And BTW, not everyone agrees that the Meta Knight is guaranteed the win here - M2K is, ironically enough, is one of the ones who disagrees strongly.
?No, proper translation: We shouldn't be remaking an entire ruleset just to make one or two characters that already lose to the entire cast lose slightly less.
Probably waiting for someone to actually perfectly plank with MK as the final bit of proof. Currently, it hasn't been done to win a tournament as far as I know.without a LGM and MKs perfect planking with the current rulset ISSUED BY THE BBR why isn't MK banned on the BBR ruleset?
Then somebody go out and use this for a whole tournament (preferably a very large, public tournament), so we can end this already.It's been done to win important tournament sets. Nobody is going to do it the whole tournament, only when they feel they really need to.
You can't ban neutrals? Are you saying the character you main is that bad that he does worse on every counterpick?Multiple stage bans are acceptable if you cannot ban neutrals. How am I supposed to play a Meta Knight if he bans FD and SV? I can't.
Ah you got me there lol, brain skipped on me.You can't ban neutrals?
Say hello to 5000 Falco's, Wario's, Diddy's, and IC's.
By preventing the banning of neutrals, well you know.
?
You remade the ruleset to include absolutely ludicrous stages that mitigate player skill.
IE:
Game 1: Falcon vs D3, Falcon wins
Game 2: Falcon bans Green Greens, D3 still can take me to FD, Castle Siege, PTAD, AND Distant Planet. Whatever stage he feels most comfortable on.
Before I could just Castle Siege and play on FD (which isn't as bad as most people think).
Everyone also "knows" that falcon vs D3 on fd is a horrible terrible idea.I still say minimize the stage list, 20 is just way too much. I shouldn't have to say these stages are absolutely ******** either because everyone knows that.