Does it really matter? I'm just trying to tell him that this was not a result of anyone's influence, especially a certain region. Generalizations bug me, that's all. I personally love the new standard.
Language is important, so I think it's important to point out when the language is negative, personally far prefer the stagelist over the common AN one from before, my only real issue is some inconsistency (Green Greens and Norfair, but no Japes?).
As I said before, I especially love the new starter list, much more balanced then the old, and the only way FD and SV should be starters.
mlg didn't choose their stagelist because of midwest stagelist lol.
But midwest-east has ******** stagelists when OS hosts tourneys (and others where hes not still have ******** stages like nopes monthly ect) and enough cats support it so it doesn't change
And, what's wrong with that?
While I strongly suspect that OS and AZ's liberal stage views (and other BBR members with similar views) factored heavily into the decision, that certainly doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with it.
All I get from this is that you don't like it, which I understand. It is a radical change from what you're probably used to, but that doesn't make it a bad thing.
Smash has such a wierd community. I can't think of any other community where we would just ban parts of a character rather than the entire character itself. It'd be like just banning Akuma's aerial fireball in SF2. Or, to go back to the Pokemon comparison, saying "Yes, you can use Arceus, but only if he can't use Ice Beam."
I mean, it's not the exact same, but it's close enough to be a valid comparison.
Pokemon did that with double team.
As for the stagelist thing, I like MLGs stagelist. If you look at our established criteria for banning stages, we're pretty conservative. Technically 75M should be legal. Our ban theory vs our ban practice are decently different. Although as a Falco, I can say that FD should probably be counterpick.
The real issue honestly is that it's very open to interpretation.
i didn't even know there was "official" criteria for banning stages. imo as a TO it is your job to come up with a stagelist that works and if it isn't good then the people you are hosting for should let you know. Overall, Midwest east failed at this because probably like half of the people were liek omg awesome 75 M is legal I looooooooove rumble falls too btw hinthinthinthint!111
*sigh*
You're just accusing them of being stupid, firstly, I have never seen 75m on a legal stagelist (rumble falls has been proposed, and honestly I see some merit in testing it in a side-tournament environment, similar to what OS has suggested).
Have you ever considered maybe they found ways to get around the issues.
For example, get grabbed pretty much anywhere on YI and DDD 0-deaths you with his chaingrab? OS debunked that.
Now, I may disagree with OS on a lot of things, but I think that IN GENERAL he takes the right tact to banning stages, too many people just have knee-jerk reactions.
how would we determine otherwise viable characters?
do you suggest a temp ban?
Yes, but with two caveats.
1. We need to paint a target BEFORE the ban is instituted.
2. We need to have at least a 3 month period between when it ends and we take the question of permanent removal up.
Would you agree that this is the equivalent of saying that Metaknight would need an 80:20 match-up against 70% of otherwise viable characters?
(or 70:30, if that sounds better.)
70-30s as I understand it, however understanding who is "otherwise viable" is more complex, because it's obvious that MK is omni-present enough that this would render the character non-viable.
Unfortunately, part of this requires greater precision with MU ratios and it also requires translation the results to my understanding or using my understanding of it as the lens.
Which reminds me, I have a project I need to attempt to kick off.
