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!
Well ideally the ruleset should not affect balance of the game, or even take the balance character vs character matchups of the game into account at all. Stages should be added/removed based SOLELY on their influence on competitive play insofar as "fairness", predictability, and reproduction of results are concerned. (like, they shouldn't be random etc etc)Every ruleset and every stagelist we make affects the balance of the game.
By having bans, we eliminate a big part of Marth's gameplay. Why do you think most modern Marths suck at chaingrabs these days? Because they never need to use it; FD is always banned. ****, spacies sometimes take it off random when they sit down to play friendlies. [also, Marth cgs take a lot of game knowledge and execution to 0-death. Very few people can consistently do it v. opponents who know how to DI]
Its pretty ****ing dumb that an entire different set of skills are tested in a best-of-5 than a best-of-3. It makes no sense. Spacies get a counterpick against everyone (they have 2 good stages against most of the cast - Stadium and either Yoshis/Dreamland, depending on the matchup) but no one can counterpick them back. All because we have a rule allowing players to ban stages, when all the stages (left) are flat and plain as ****. As you said yourself, its not Marths fault Fox gets chaingrabbed. Why do we feel the need to ban that aspect of his character out of the game completely?
I just don't get how Marths get so much **** for executing beautiful combos on FD and then spacies play like absolute *****es on Dreamland and somehow thats more legit.
Do you not understand where I'm going with this?Within the scope of the physically possible, humans have no limit to their ability. However, everyone can push their bodies to the limit of the physically possible; there is only a lack of effort to do so.
For example, using your reaction time vommentary. The average reaction time is 200 milliseconds. The limit of human capabilities is just above 100 milliseconds. The ability for a person with that average reaction time to reach this mark is not limited; some people will be able to reach it more readily or easily, but the ability to reach that point is not limited.
I am not suggesting that humans can literally grow wings and fly if they "tried hard enough". Good Lord.
Edit: I'm sorry, I should have clarified. I suppose my faith in several people's ability to understand that a statement is not always meant to be taken at its extreme cases at all times is misplaced.
really? I remember seeing a post in s2j's thread about ps -> gentlmening because it was fasterPSing does not decrease shield stun at all in melee.
you need a move faster than frame 7 to actually punish falco harder than grabbing him
Thus ps shield drop jab is faster than shield drop jab. So it does have a use in this situation.it is faster. it negates shield drop lag, but not shield stun.
jab is faster than grab
I think we are largely in agreement on most of these points. I was just quoting you to make a jump off into a broader argument.Well ideally the ruleset should not affect balance of the game, or even take the balance character vs character matchups of the game into account at all. Stages should be added/removed based SOLELY on their influence on competitive play insofar as "fairness", predictability, and reproduction of results are concerned. (like, they shouldn't be random etc etc)
If all the playable stages just so happen to be stages character X excels on, then that's no fault of the character, it is the fault of the system we have chosen to test. If a stage deviates by some arbitrarily big enough margin from the criteria we wish to test in tournament, then it should be banned, regardless of how it affects character matchups.
Now, whether or not the arbitrary set of skills we choose to test in tournament are objectively the "correct" skills to test, is another argument entirely (in reference to your point about how marth gets crap for chaingrabbing but spacies camping is ok).
I don't really have anything to argue in reference to your point about the current ruleset testing different sets of skills in a bo3 and bo5 because that seems to be an unfortunate product of the system rather than the primary objective. I would be in favor of adjusting the stagelist/ruleset if the objective was the ensure that the same set of skills was being tested in both scenarios. I would not be in favor if the objective was to balanace the cast.
For the record, I'm not in favor for banning FD or whatever. I'm just saying that we shouldn't be adding (or removing) stages on the criteria that "X character needs Y stage to better compete with Z character".
How hard someone can try is a physical limit in and of itself. Your argument is ******** anyways because even with infinite effort, no one is going to PS every laser. The large majority of lasers are PSed in prediction, NOT reaction. Lasers travel fast enough that at most distance you can't wait for the visual cue of Falco's gun coming out. You also can't PS depending on your shield size and if you're dashing towards them and stuff like that. If you're going to make a claim that someone can achieve 100% PSing, then the burden of proof is on you. Until then, everyone else is going to just be rational and assume no one will ever play perfect because there's never been a single game of any sport that's ever been played perfect.Within the scope of the physically possible, humans have no limit to their ability. However, everyone can push their bodies to the limit of the physically possible; there is only a lack of effort to do so.
For example, using your reaction time vommentary. The average reaction time is 200 milliseconds. The limit of human capabilities is just above 100 milliseconds. The ability for a person with that average reaction time to reach this mark is not limited; some people will be able to reach it more readily or easily, but the ability to reach that point is not limited.
I am not suggesting that humans can literally grow wings and fly if they "tried hard enough". Good Lord.
Edit: I'm sorry, I should have clarified. I suppose my faith in several people's ability to understand that a statement is not always meant to be taken at its extreme cases at all times is misplaced.
But that doesn't mean we have to intentionally balance the game with the rule set. If we just ban stuff based on how good it is for a certain character in the current metagame, we might miss out on later development. People could have easily seen all the chars that chain grab spacies and deem the stage broken, but whether the spacies are top tier or garbage tier overall shouldn't affect the legitimacy of chain grabbing. Either you view it as a character weakness like you should, or you view it as the stage ruining what could be top tier characters. The latter perspective is inherently flawed because you're basically assuming that your opinion of their tier spot is correct, and also that it will never change. What if 2 years from now we have a bunch of Marth development to the point that all of the neutrals seem very advantageous for him. Should we then start banning stages that he likes to CP (as many people have suggested doing for Fox on PS)? Of course not.Every ruleset and every stagelist we make affects the balance of the game.
The reason we have bans is because you want players to play on the most fair stages possible while still encouraging stage diversity. Player strike to the first stage, which is obviously the fairest solution, and I think everyone's happy with it. For bo3s, we allow players to ban the best cps so that game 1 isn't the sole decider of the set. While it is certainly possible for players to break even the best cps, it just makes more sense to play on each player's slightly less character-biased cp. Why should a set with Marth/Falco make them play game 1 on a struck stage they both agree on, then they play on FD and DL where it's significantly more difficult to win based on their opinion of how good of a cp it is. Allowing that ban means they'll stick to the other 5 stages that are deemed by the players to host tighter battles than on DL and FD (which get banned).I think we are largely in agreement on most of these points. I was just quoting you to make a jump off into a broader argument.
To quote Ken from KoC commentary: "You can ban neutral stages now!? What is this?"
We have to go back and re-evaluate why we give each player a ban, especially since, unlike other fighting games, we allow the winner to switch characters after game 1. What is the purpose of bans, and what does it accomplish toward the goal of creating a fair ruleset? Cause, from my perspective, the end result is simply a balance shift in favor of top tiers (spacies mainly) while penalizing high-mid tiers (Marth with no FD, DK with no FD, Bowser with no Yoshis, Pikachu with no FD, Puff with no Dreamland, Peach with no FD, ICs with no FD, etc etc) with little to no other benefits.
Maybe it made sense in an era where we had controversial stages on, and the TOs compromised by allowing players a way to avoid their most hated stage, but with such a small stagelist, I don't see the point. Its an unnecessary rule that causes an artificial balance shift.
This is all gibberish.But that doesn't mean we have to intentionally balance the game with the rule set. If we just ban stuff based on how good it is for a certain character in the current metagame, we might miss out on later development. People could have easily seen all the chars that chain grab spacies and deem the stage broken, but whether the spacies are top tier or garbage tier overall shouldn't affect the legitimacy of chain grabbing. Either you view it as a character weakness like you should, or you view it as the stage ruining what could be top tier characters. The latter perspective is inherently flawed because you're basically assuming that your opinion of their tier spot is correct, and also that it will never change. What if 2 years from now we have a bunch of Marth development to the point that all of the neutrals seem very advantageous for him. Should we then start banning stages that he likes to CP (as many people have suggested doing for Fox on PS)? Of course not.
So instead we have a system where game 1 is the sole decider of the set for one character, and not for the other. Perfect.For bo3s, we allow players to ban the best cps so that game 1 isn't the sole decider of the set.
...Even if you think Marth gets wrecked by bans, that doesn't mean it's unfair. It just means Marth is a worse character.
If you had actually read my post, you'd see that I already explained it. Not having bans is just as much of a community construct as having bans is. AGAIN, the point of giving a ban is so that the set is played on the 3 most evenly-matched stages instead of playing game 1 on a fair stage, and games 2 and 3 on unnecessarily radical cps. AGAIN, why would we have Falco/Marth sets play FD/DL when the stages are simply influencing the match more than the rest of the cps? I am not pro-bans because I think we should be playing bo5s with DSRm. If you're going to play a bo3, you might as well add in bans so stages play less of a role. You will play on the same stages in a bo5 as you would in a bo3 with bans, with the exception that you'll have to play two additional cps. Why choose to include the cps that are more likely to benefit a player based on their character choice as opposed to playing skill?I have a flight to catch so I'll make this quick..
This is all gibberish.
You're arguing against yourself. Player bans are a community construct. I'm arguing for the removal of them because I don't see their benefit. What is the point of giving each player a ban if the goal isn't to balance the characters? If they get ***** on a particular stage then oh well sucks for them. None of our remaining stages have any exceedingly random or gamebreaking elements, which in the past were a point of controversy, so we do not need this system any longer.
A character's "goodness" is determined through the lens of the rule set. Without a rule set, you can't determine whether a character is good or bad. All you are saying is that Marth is worse in a rule set with bans than in a rule set without bans. So what? SOMEONE will happen to receive benefits or detriments from rule changes, but that doesn't mean that the rule change is somehow unfair. Even if the community agreed that every match should be on FD, that wouldn't be unfair to spacies. It would just make spacies worse because the rules of the game would be about being good on FD. So long as everyone is playing on FD, it's fair.So instead we have a system where game 1 is the sole decider of the set for one character, and not for the other. Perfect.
[see: game 1: neutral, game 2: neutral, game 3: stadium/dreamland]
...
(I'm actually shocked that anybody could actually believe this but...)
A character getting wrecked by a community imposed rule is indeed unfair, and no, it does not make that character any worse.
i don't think it's that bad, but YL probably wins. i wasn't able to find a way to beat YL upair last time i played the match.yo ness loses to ylink hard
IMO Bo7s are unnecessarily long. But Bo3s are unnecessarily short. Should do Bo5s for everything, certainly at least for all of bracket, and just run tourneys more efficiently.Solution to stage discussion: do what Europe does and run bo5s/bo7s?
Yes.it would probably make results more accurate
Incorrect.but all bo5's would probably not fly for a major because of time constraints
that **** would be so tiring and time consuming lol
Who, exactly? Legitimate question.Shoutouts to Rom for sucking huge **** because people are children.
"Doesn't show up" is the main point imhoI do find it funny in a sense...
So...Marth really can win a national...if everyone forfeits/sandbags.