Official Stage Legality Discussion: Stage Specific

[Ghostbone]

So why exactly are stages like RC legal? Can someone explain the rationale behind making such polarizing stages legal? You see it happen all the time. Players that got bodied game 1somehow end up winning games they shouldn't Game 2 because of such stages. I suppose it makes sets more intense but I'm not sure if it is fair.

And it is interesting to note that regions like Japan apparently don't have such stages legal.

Burden of proof is on you, not us.
"Winning games they shouldn't"?
Why shouldn't they win?

 

[-LzR-]

So why exactly are stages like FD legal? Can someone explain the rationale behind making such polarizing stages legal? You see it happen all the time. Players that got bodied game 2 somehow end up winning games they shouldn't Game 1 because of such stages. I suppose it makes sets more intense but I'm not sure if it is fair.

Fixed. Problems?

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Vinnie is too good there.

He beats players like M2K there to the point where he is the best player in the country on that stage.

We gotta stop Vinnie from winning too much money on this stage!

~

I think getting rid of MK let's people look at it more with the cast in general, I wanna see how it plays out.

Though there was an argument to ban the stage since MK was too good to keep him legal if I tried Devil's advocate.

 

[zmx]

Burden of proof is on you, not us.
"Winning games they shouldn't"?
Why shouldn't they win?

Because they're winning mainly because of the stage and not because of superior skill in the matchup? I thought that was obvious. How about the infinites?

Because MK thrives there even more (and this stage was legal way before the ban)? The URC is constantly talking about how they had to shape the rule set to keep MK legal. Is it not contradictory to say this and keep one of his best stages legal thus making him even MORE dominant?

I can't be the only one who's said this. What exactly is the rationale to keep it legal? I'm curious.

And "because there is no reason to ban it" doesn't work as a viable argument. I've already explained reasons one might give to ban it. So either refute all those reasons or give better ones for keeping it legal.

 

[Ghostbone]

Because they're winning mainly because of the stage and not because of superior skill in the matchup? I thought that was obvious. How about the infinites?

What do you mean winning because of the stage? Surely they're still taking all 3 of their opponent's stocks, or running out the timer with a percentage lead.
Is it because of the way you play on the stage? I'm sure I could make a case for banning FD if we should ban stages because you need to keep the stage in mind to win.
And I'm fairly sure that excluding broken tactics that the person who wins is the person who is more skilled.

Because MK thrives there even more (and this stage was legal way before the ban)? The URC is constantly talking about how they had to shape the rule set to keep MK legal. Is it not contradictory to say this and keep one of his best stages legal thus making him even MORE dominant?

1. MK is banned.
2. He dominates just as much without the stage.

I can't be the only one who's said this. What exactly is the rationale to keep it legal? I'm curious.

Innocent until proven guilty....

And "because there is no reason to ban it" doesn't work as a viable argument. I've already explained reasons one might give to ban it. So either refute all those reasons or give better ones for keeping it legal.

So far your arguments for banning it apply to every stage in the game.

 

[zmx]

Well my point is stages like FD aren't so polarizing. If you got dominated on Smashville and you pick FD you are not likely to dominate back. At most you'll probably do a bit better. It doesn't make THAT much of a difference to the point where it's the main factor you won. Stages like RC however do in fact have an impact like this.

And no MK wouldn't still be as dominant without such stages like RC and Brinstar. And I repeat myself: These stages obvious were still legal BEFORE the ban. And I'm asking why.

In a recent France tournament they even banned MK but only for CP stages. Why else would they do this?

 

[-LzR-]

FD isn't polarizing? You don't know much about this game, do you?

 

[Ultra_(MQJ3)]

ZMX, metaknight was banned because he was generally dominant above all other characters. Even on neutrals, players found it tough to rival mk's abilities and counterpicks just worsened the whole thing. Being meta knight was just too advantageous in all aspects.

 

[C.J.]

Well my point is stages like FD aren't so polarizing. If you got dominated on Smashville and you pick FD you are not likely to dominate back. At most you'll probably do a bit better. It doesn't make THAT much of a difference to the point where it's the main factor you won. Stages like RC however do in fact have an impact like this.

And no MK wouldn't still be as dominant without such stages like RC and Brinstar. And I repeat myself: These stages obvious were still legal BEFORE the ban. And I'm asking why.

In a recent France tournament they even banned MK but only for CP stages. Why else would they do this?

FD is the ONLY stage in the game without platforms. That right there screams "polarizing as hell."
You're right, your performance on SV and FD won't be that different, because SV is also a fairly polarizing stage. You apparently don't understand that our starter list is HEAVILY ground-centric. It isn't balanced between aerial characters and ground based characters.

As for your France comment, as the current starter stages are ground based, and MK is an air based character, ofc he's going to do worse on the starter stages. However, the starter stages aren't what they should be so it's irrelevant.

Also, you don't get to ask why something IS legal. Burden of proof is on you, you have to show why it should be banned.
*hint* If your reasoning includes anything resembling "they're gay" and "Metaknight..." your reasoning is bad.

RC is a moving, set-in-stone pattern stage that favors aerial characters. There is no randomness and there isn't any tactic on it that degenerates gameplay to focus entirely on it. Promoting "stalling" isn't a bad thing, it's just gay. Which isn't good reasoning. There is literally 0 reason RC should be banned (objectively). Brinstar is arguable.

Now back to the main point of it all, assume that every stage legal was possible to be a starting stage (known as flossing). Assume you have an aerial character (Wario) vs a ground character (Diddy). Almost all of the starter stages will be stricken (since they favor ground characters which is Diddy) and almost all of the heavy aerial based stages will stricken (since that is what Wario wants). Now, assume Wario wins game 1 and Diddy goes to FD. Do you REALLY think that there won't be a HUGE difference between the stage that is the median of bias and FD? If so, go to the stage forum more often and actually learn about the stages in the game. If not, than you agree that FD is just as polarizing as RC (because it is).

 

[chaosmaster1991]

Innocent until proven guilty....

Also, you don't get to ask why something IS legal. Burden of proof is on you, you have to show why it should be banned.

Why is that?

 

[Life]

Why is that?

You're not serious...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

You may wish to go to the disambiguation page for more detail.

 

[chaosmaster1991]

You're not serious...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

You may wish to go to the disambiguation page for more detail.

No I'm not, just having some free time

Now for the sake of the argument though...

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim.

Now of course, if you assume Unity as standard, the burden of proof is most definately on the person that says RC should be banned.

But when you turn this around, and use (for example) APEX as standard, wouldn't the burden shift to the person that says RC should be legal? Since that person would go against the standard in claiming RC is fine?

What I'm trying to say is that, while the burden of proof is not on them in this particular case, wouldn't it be a good idea to think of some good reasons for why it should be legal, in case it's needed at some point (say, Unity bans X stage and you want it back)?

 

[Ghostbone]

Well my point is stages like FD aren't so polarizing. If you got dominated on Smashville and you pick FD you are not likely to dominate back. At most you'll probably do a bit better. It doesn't make THAT much of a difference to the point where it's the main factor you won. Stages like RC however do in fact have an impact like this.

I could look at it the other way and say that if I got dominated on RC, then CP'd my opponent to FD, I could win.
Obviously FD is too polarising, ban it.

And no MK wouldn't still be as dominant without such stages like RC and Brinstar. And I repeat myself: These stages obvious were still legal BEFORE the ban. And I'm asking why.

Tournament results speak otherwise.

In a recent France tournament they even banned MK but only for CP stages. Why else would they do this?

Because they're too afraid to just ban the bat completely

What I'm trying to say is that, while the burden of proof is not on them in this particular case, wouldn't it be a good idea to think of some good reasons for why it should be legal, in case it's needed at some point (say, Unity bans X stage and you want it back)?

In the case of stages, it's impossible to provide reasons for it to be legal.
I'd like to see someone try to argue for FD's legality past "Why should it be banned?"

 

[chaosmaster1991]

In the case of stages, it's impossible to provide reasons for it to be legal.
I'd like to see someone try to argue for FD's legality past "Why should it be banned?"

Didn't BPC make that thread about PS2, eventually resulting in it being legalized in a lot of regions where it was banned before?

Couldn't something similar be done for other stages? As in, you analyze the stages and adress all arguments that could be brought up against it? For example, if someone asked you "Why is RC legal?", you wouldn't have to demand proof, but could just bring up all points that are usually made against it, and show why they aren't an issue?

That being said, you could also just look at the issue from a different angle, and for example take the list of accepted stages as basis, and show that the stage you want legal fulfills whatever criteria those already legal stage fulfill.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Didn't BPC make that thread about PS2, eventually resulting in it being legalized in a lot of regions where it was banned before?

Couldn't something similar be done for other stages? As in, you analyze the stages and adress all arguments that could be brought up against it? For example, if someone asked you "Why is RC legal?", you wouldn't have to demand proof, but could just bring up all points that are usually made against it, and show why they aren't an issue?

That being said, you could also just look at the issue from a different angle, and for example take the list of accepted stages as basis, and show that the stage you want legal fulfills whatever criteria those already legal stage fulfill.

I tried that for Mario Bros. and it didn't work

If a stage is banned but was not given a reason for its banning or the reason was proven to be illegitimate, then burden of proof shifts to the one trying to say the stage should be banned.

If there is already a reason for the stage to be banned, anti-ban have the burden of proof to reason that the ban criteria is illegitimate.

 

[Ghostbone]

Didn't BPC make that thread about PS2, eventually resulting in it being legalized in a lot of regions where it was banned before?

Couldn't something similar be done for other stages? As in, you analyze the stages and adress all arguments that could be brought up against it? For example, if someone asked you "Why is RC legal?", you wouldn't have to demand proof, but could just bring up all points that are usually made against it, and show why they aren't an issue?

That being said, you could also just look at the issue from a different angle, and for example take the list of accepted stages as basis, and show that the stage you want legal fulfills whatever criteria those already legal stage fulfill.

Yea, and guess what the whole thread was about.
Basically going through each transformation and explaining why they're not broken, and the stage doesn't deserve to be banned.

We can provide reasons to not ban a stage (by refuting reasons to ban it), but not to legalise it, kinda.

So yea, with the RC thing, basically the reasons to keep it legal would be just, not enough good reasons to ban it.
It's why I was asking what reasons zmx had to ban it, so I hard something to work with explaining why they're not legitimate.

 

[chaosmaster1991]

I tried that for Mario Bros. and it didn't work

While you didn't manage to get it legalized, you still got quite a few people to think about it and support your case, no?

Also it's legal in the ISP rules, isn't it?

Yea, and guess what the whole thread was about.
Basically going through each transformation and explaining why they're not broken, and the stage doesn't deserve to be banned.

We can provide reasons to not ban a stage (by refuting reasons to ban it), but not to legalise it, kinda.

That would be correct with this particular philophy. But imagine someone new to the scene is asking you why X stage is legal. Sure, you can tell him that it's not broken and burden of proof is on him, but that will neither change his views, nor actually help him in any way.

If there is a set of common arguments (as there was against PS2, and as there is against these stages), I would claim that it's much more helpful to just bring them up and refute them yourself.


Also, thought experiment. Let's assume our standard stage list is FD and RC. I want to legalize BF. I can go through all of BF's attributes and find similar attributes in at least one of FD/RC. As those attributes are already accepted, it's proof that BF should be legal.

So yea, with the RC thing, basically the reasons to keep it legal would be just, not enough good reasons to ban it.
It's why I was asking what reasons zmx had to ban it, so I hard something to work with explaining why they're not legitimate.

We have a 22 (?) page thread about Brinstar's and RC's legality flying around here, surely you already know why someone would want one of those stages banned.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

You've given me an idea for a project once I finish with the MK-ban collab vid.

 

[Arcansi]

Don't worry Grim Tuesday, I'ma go find that thread and proceed to bump it (if it's not locked, in which case make a new one) possibly.

Fighting against the status quo since forever.

On-Topic: RC deserves to be legal as it fits the criteria all other stages fit. (and there you go ghost, one reason to legalize it found in 10 seconds flat.)

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Well, with FD at least characters can gain a tangible advantage, TL vs ICs is still TL's favor there same with Peach.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Peach does not beat ICs on FD.

 

[Ghostbone]

Peach does not beat ICs on FD.

Unfortunately she doesn't, she can't get back from the ledge safely if she doesn't have float :/

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Peach does not beat ICs on FD.

Does she rely on a platform that much?

All she needs is Fair, Dair, Turnip.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

And all ICs need is to intelligently avoid shield pressure and juggle her with uairs, abusing the fact that she is very vulnerable on the ground to getting grabbed.

The MU is even at best for Peach.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

And all ICs need is to intelligently avoid shield pressure and juggle her with uairs, abusing the fact that she is very vulnerable on the ground to getting grabbed.

The MU is even at best for Peach.

ICs aren't fast enough in the air to do proficient juggling.

Who care if she is vulnerable on the ground if she can safely cover her landing with literal 0 frame advantage on block and that she will be floating 90% of the match.

ICs spend most of their game in shield, Peach has one of the best pressure games on shield and she can safely do it.

FD might not be in her favor but I guarantee the MU is in her favor overall because of how she plays it out, anything I've heard and seen Illmatic and Nicole do in the MU has shown me it is in Peach's favor.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I sighed out loud.

ICs don't lose any MUs aside from MK on starters.

It isn't as simple as "she can pressure shields well, ICs shield a lot". Her shield pressure still needs to be mixed up and is still easily escapable by the ICs (resetting positions in the process), not only that, Peach takes more of a risk by approaching than ICs do just sitting in shield.

Peach's shield pressure is just vastly overrated on the whole. Maybe its because I play Melee so I know what real basically inescapable pressure looks like, but whatever.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

They don't lose to TL?

That is a bad Mu for ICs.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Your opinion has been tainted by bad American ICs.

Why would TL beat ICs, in theory?

 

[Tesh]

Constantly pressuring with projectiles with basically 0 risk of being grabbed?

Last time I saw 1lImat1c play and ICs, he lost. And it wasn't a top ICs either. Not sure what N1coIe has done tho.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Constantly pressuring with projectiles with basically 0 risk of being grabbed?

Projectiles that are stupidly easy to powershield and make him susceptible to getting uair'd?

 

[Tesh]

If it were that simple, I guess toon link wouldn't have the advantage on anyone. Nana isn't as quick to shield things on time, and toon link has some pretty safe things on shield.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

No, because in other match-ups Toon Link has other tools that he can work to his advantage. Against ICs, they aren't effective enough to give him any kind-of +1.

 

[Ghostbone]

I sighed out loud.

ICs don't lose any MUs aside from MK on starters.

It isn't as simple as "she can pressure shields well, ICs shield a lot". Her shield pressure still needs to be mixed up and is still easily escapable by the ICs (resetting positions in the process), not only that, Peach takes more of a risk by approaching than ICs do just sitting in shield.

Peach's shield pressure is just vastly overrated on the whole. Maybe its because I play Melee so I know what real basically inescapable pressure looks like, but whatever.

You're forgetting how dumb Nana and her shield is.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Wait, ICs don't have any bad matchups?

 

[DMG]

With MK gone, IC's are hands down a top 5 character. Only a few characters could claim to have an advantage on them.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

DMG knows what is up.

 

[Tesh]

With MK gone, IC's are hands down a top 5 character. Only a few characters could claim to have an advantage on them.

What proof do you have of this? No one has had notable success solo-maining ICs. Compare that to top results from Ally, Razer, Gnes, ADHD, Rich Brown, MikeHAZE (i guess) etc.

ICs is a powerful tool for a top player, but I wouldn't put them in top 5 unless you list them as " and friends"

 

[DMG]

With MK gone, mind you. Biiiiiiig difference with MK in or out the game for them.

 

[Tesh]

Why? That just means they lost their strongest and easiest secondary to cover all the stages they suck at.

ICs however remains in the same boat everyone else was in vs MK. They HAVE to win game 1 on like BF/ps1/lylat or they pretty much lose the set UNLESS they have a secondary. What other top tier is in such a poor position?

 

[C.J.]

Fal co