Official Stage Legality Discussion: Stage Specific

[Tesh]

Lava pretty much stops you from doing that all game. If you wind up outplaying your opponent every single time the stage stops you from circle camping, you are just better. Alot of transforming stages would have major issues if they didn't transform. But they do.

 

[UberMario]

Explain to me why someone could'nt circle camp on Norfair with relative ease of just gliding around or jumping under stages through ledge snaps and just jumping.

Because there are no solid features barring the other player from taking the quicker route (going to where you will be, rather than where you were), and I'm not sure what you mean by the latter part, are you referring to scrooging under the main platform, or constatly grabbing the individual ledges? You already deal with the former on Smashville (and sometimes Battlefield aswell), and if you were referring to the latter, the ledges are far enough apart to let the opponent intervene in some way, even if it's for a short time, it will still be longer than normal planking when they switch, and if they DO do "classic" planking, there isn't that much risk in trying to stop them, as you won't have to worry about stage spiking unless they're doing it on the main platform, and even then that is where the lava overlaps the stage for the longest.

Besides, the stage isn't tall enough to make circle camping effective, on another stage that has no barriers, Hanenbow, circle camping is still safe because gravity effectively becomes that "solid" object that prevents you from taking the shortest distance to your opponent, Norfair does not have this issue.

 

[Lih]

Explain to me why someone could'nt circle camp on Norfair with relative ease of just gliding around or jumping under stages through ledge snaps and just jumping.

It's really up to you to prove that it can be done - find a video showing someone circle camping on Norfair. It's never been one of the issues people have with the stage, so it seems like you're just grasping at straws here.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I know exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not a theory crafter. I actually go to tournies and play people on these stages.

Oh yeah, we know, trust us. The problem is, you're looking at this the wrong way. Go to tournaments or not, your mindset is completely ****ed. You honestly think the game would be a better competitive title with the Japanese ruleset, as opposed to, say, the Nova Scotia ruleset. This points to you not knowing what you are talking about, because you can be **** well sure that we do. And before you pack out the ad hom? We have support from Raziek, one of the best players and the top TO in Nova Scotia, AmazingAmpharos, who probably (actively) knows more about the game than anyone else, AlphaZealot, who is not only a top Diddy main but also a high-level TO and the main connection between smashboards and MLG unless I'm very wrong, and tons of other players and hosts who have seen the reasoning behind liberalized stagelists.

I'll say it again. Restrictive stagelists do not improve game balance beyond slightly nerfing MK; they make large swaths of almost-viable characters (i.e. below A tier) truly unviable, however. There is incredibly good reasoning behind only banning what you absolutely have to to keep gameplay non-degenerate.

The problem with the theory crafting in this thread is it makes almost any stage seem legitimate for tourneyplay.

Oh boy, these strawmen. This is gonna be bad.

You chose reasons why Brinstar, Norfair, and Rc were all credible stages. Try this one:

Quick interjection: we don't (or, at least, shouldn't) have to show that a stage should be legal; you have to show (CONVINCINGLY! I mean, more than bad theorycraft, which is most of what I'm getting, or incompetent play because you don't know how to deal with the stage) that it is banworthy.

*Summit- You can avoid all hazards and the ice is similar to Ps2's ice transformation. There is no walk offs. Every hazard is avoidable.

It also allows for circle camping via a hard circle. Furthermore, when you aren't circle camping, gameplay centralizes around that stupid fish-one hit towards him is usually death. However, even if you could/can avoid him effectively, the hard circle is still there, making the stage unquestionably broken due to a degenerate, broken tactic-circle camping. This is a legitimate ban reason.

*Corneria- Nothing is super deadly other then the lasers at the bottom of the stage, which are predetermined to fire at specific intervals. There is a wall, but it's similar to a ps1 transformation and parts of frigate/delfino.

Similar, but very different. Why? Because the walls on delfino and frigate are temporary. You can wait them out, they'll go away, and then you can approach without the risk of an easy 0-very high%/death. Furthermore, a wall at your back and above you allows for a ridiculously strong camping setup-have you ever seen a smart opponent approach anyone on PS1 Fire? Didn't think so. Now imagine that was the only transformation on the stage.
It's a shame, but the stage is unquestionably broken due to a degenerate, broken tactic-fin camping.

*Spear pillar- Everything is avoidable that's a trap. There are two areas to fight on, but this stage is similar to Luigi's mansion. Spear pillar utilizes a fair fighting atmosphere on the top of the stage and the bottom.

This stage is not like Luigi's mansion because you can destroy the hard circle on LM, even for a short time-that's all you need to regain the lead from an opponent if you play well. It's pretty easy to circle camp FOREVER on this stage. In short? The stage is unquestionably broken due to a degenerate, broken tactic-circle camping.

Notice what all 3 of these stages have in common-they have a ridiculously degenerate runaway/camp tactic that cannot be effectively banned or stopped. Norfair, RC, and Brinstar do not have these tactics. At least, not that has been demonstrated at all conclusively.

Explain to me, why these aren't legal when they share the same justifications you gave me for Norfair, Rc, and Brinstar.

Done. And again-Norfair, RC, and Brinstar need no justification. They need counterarguments to your justifications to ban them, but we do not have to justify keeping a stage legal. Ever.

Explain to me why someone could'nt circle camp on Norfair with relative ease of just gliding around or jumping under stages through ledge snaps and just jumping.

Let's see...
-Massive lava walls force you to stop sooner or later
-You can DIRECTLY RUN UP TO THEM (with so many ledge snaps, you're bound to be faster) and attempt to combat them from the ground below the ledge, which is a far better posisition than above the ledge.
-LGLs (don't support them, but 99% of the time, they're there)

I'd really like to see video evidence of this (bad) theorycraft.

 

[Akaku94]

^This.

Also, the fundamental problem most of the conservative stagelist advocates make is the assumption that complicated stages are bad. In reality, it's much easier to tell who is better at the game by who takes the time to learn the ins and outs of stages, not who can perform the best with an entire factor of the game removed! Imo, the only three things that should require a stage ban are

1) Excessive Randomness (Warioware, etc.)
2) Stalling (Corneria, Temple, etc.)
3) Permanent Flat Walkoff Edges (Eldin, Mario Bros, etc.)

Everything else is probably just banned out of personal dislike of a stage or a single abusable tactic that doesn't fall into any of the above categories (unless I missed something)

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

^This.

Also, the fundamental problem most of the conservative stagelist advocates make is the assumption that complicated stages are bad. In reality, it's much easier to tell who is better at the game by who takes the time to learn the ins and outs of stages, not who can perform the best with an entire factor of the game removed! Imo, the only three things that should require a stage ban are

1) Excessive Randomness (Warioware, etc.)
2) Stalling (Corneria, Temple, etc.)
3) Permanent Flat Walkoff Edges (Eldin, Mario Bros, etc.)

Everything else is probably just banned out of personal dislike of a stage or a single abusable tactic that doesn't fall into any of the above categories (unless I missed something)

Actually, it's pretty easy to simplify it into two objective categories. Stalling is not really a reason; I mean, after all, circle camping isn't even stalling.

1) Excessive randomness. This one is slightly subjective, but I'm sure everyone is clear that Warioware needs to be banned.
2) Broken, overcentralizing tactic. Walkoff camping, Fin camping, Circle camping.

Boom, done.

 

[xzx]

Delfino Plaza should be banned, it has walk-offs and walls!

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Temporary walkoffs and Walls. Same as Castle Siege, or Pokemon Stadium, or even Frigate Orpheon.
To explain what's wrong with what you just said, you have to ask a very simple question: Why are walkoffs and walls a problem? Well, when it comes to permanent walls...

There's one stage with a permanent wall that isn't banned for other, more pressing reasons (Corneria), and the reason it's banned is because camping under the wall is a ridiculously strong defensive position, akin to circle camping. Walls are therefore strong as a stalling tactic; they provide a ridiculously strong position to limit approaches. Wall infinites are also a problem, but on Delfino? Well, if there's a wall you're worried about, stall it out. If your opponent can wall infinite you, play carefully so that he can't catch you up against the wall (for example, on the sun tower transformation, never approach him from the wall side; always from the offstage side). If you simply can't approach him effectively due to the wall, then wait for the wall to disappear. Essentially, camp until the stage transformation works better for you. This is a necessary strategy on many stages.

Walkoffs? It's exactly the same deal. Camping with your back to the blastzone on a walkoff stage is simply a degenerate, depth-destroying tactic. If the opponent approaches, one of you dies. If your opponent is forced to approach, he's usually very ****ed. Hell, walkoff infinites aren't even a big deal most of the time-just don't get grabbed with your back to the walkoff-it's not that hard. It would not be a realistic ban criteria alone; walkoff camping is the broken strategy. But how well does walkoff camping work on delfino? Well, lemme give you a hint: you can only ever do it about 1/8th of the stage's duration, if that much.

There is nothing inherently wrong with walkoffs or walls; it's the strategies that are bound to them. Permanent walls and walkoffs enable fairly broken tactics, but non-permanent ones have no problems whatsoever. Next.

 

[ADHD]

YES, YOU DO NEED TOURNAMENT EXPERIENCE TO HAVE A GENERAL IDEA OF WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

Get over it, the ad hominem is somewhat true. How can you be so closed-minded to say something close to the analogy that you don't need to perform surgeries to be a credible surgeon? You can't just be all text-book. However, you do need both.

The Novia Scotia ruleset is indeed inferior to most rulesets-it will just take ALOT of time for this wave of "natural brawl" ntion to settle into the distance because the line between "anti-competitive" and "competitive" will have to be further resolved. You think what you're doing is right or something along those lines, but you're just trying to enforce something along your opinionated view of how brawl should be played. It doesn't have to be "innocent until proven guilty," when the majority of us realize that this is a another version of "we want everything because we think stages should dictate the win more often." Oh, and most of you people have a very open mind for what's "guilty," almost too open. Stages should be involved as little as possible because Smash's goal was to have what both players bring to the table dictate the win, and not some restricting, uncontrollable interacting object interfering along with that. We've made those counterpicks, and maybe, while counterpicks can sometimes be a flawed idea (metaknight), we should be focusing on making minute changes instead of jumping into this enormous theory-crafted change for the game.

 

[Tesh]

YES, YOU DO NEED TOURNAMENT EXPERIENCE TO HAVE A GENERAL IDEA OF WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

Get over it, the ad hominem is somewhat true. How can you be so closed-minded to say something close to the analogy that you don't need to perform surgeries to be a credible surgeon? You can't just be all text-book. However, you do need both.

The Novia Scotia ruleset is indeed inferior to most rulesets-it will just take ALOT of time for this wave of "natural brawl" ntion to settle into the distance because the line between "anti-competitive" and "competitive" will have to be further resolved. You think what you're doing is right or something along those lines, but you're just trying to enforce something along your opinionated view of how brawl should be played. It doesn't have to be "innocent until proven guilty," when the majority of us realize that this is a another version of "we want everything because we think stages should dictate the win more often." Stages should be involved as little as possible because Smash's goal was to have what both players bring to the table dictate the win, and not some restricting, uncontrollable interacting object interfering along with that. We've made those counterpicks, and maybe, while counterpicks can sometimes be a flawed idea (metaknight), we should be focusing on making minute changes instead of jumping into this enormous theory-crafted metamorphasis for the game.

Oh come on, thats not even close to the same thing. performing surgeries will help make you better at performing more sureries BUT it doesn't mean someone who hasn't performed a surgery can't understand how they are performed.

Didn't read the rest of your post

In any case, M2K is the best player in the country, so lets just wait to hear what he has to say. Then we should follow that as law, because he wins more tournaments than ADHD.

 

[Juushichi]

No, stop that Tesh. I understand what you mean by that (irony), but man stop that.

 

[Tesh]

Stop what? My point is perfectly valid.

I don't agree with BPC, but people coming into a thread and trashing someone's arguement based on " you aren't a top player" is just silly. If tournament experience makes your opinion correct on a forum, then Diddy Kong should be moves to the top of the tier list because M2K said so.

And my other point still stands. When do you ever see the top players in any game/sport designing the rules? Its a recipe for bad policies.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

In any case, M2K is the best player in the country, so lets just wait to hear what he has to say. Then we should follow that as law, because he wins more tournaments than ADHD.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n5E7feJHw0
Appeal to authority is also a logical fallacy.

 

[T-block]

Get over it, the ad hominem is somewhat true. How can you be so closed-minded to say something close to the analogy that you don't need to perform surgeries to be a credible surgeon? You can't just be all text-book. However, you do need both.

You may not need experience in surgery to talk about HOW or WHY it should be performed though, even though experience CAN give you insight into that matter. You can't be all textbook if you're actually performing surgeries - but what if you're only talking about them?

Tournament experience is essential to being a better PLAYER, but not to understanding the game, although it can help.

Plus, just because you're an amazing surgeon doesn't mean you're automatically an authority on anything beyond what's already known. Maybe you just have steady hands ;D

Appeal to authority is also a logical fallacy.

I do believe Tesh was being sarcastic.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Even if that claim is true, it's still logically irrelevant. It is a very basic point of logic that who says something has no impact on the truth value of it. For instance ADHD, if you weren't actually posting what you were posting but instead it were your little sister on your account who has never played smash in her life, it would be irrelevant. As long as the actual content of your posts is the same, your posts have the exact same level of validity. If we changed the name tag on your posts from "ADHD" to "MarioMan851" it wouldn't matter either. Your name tag has no impact on the validity of what you post. Your argument that MarioMan851 is unlikely to understand the game may or may not be true, but what you just aren't seeing is that, even if you are right, your entire argument is simply irrelevant to the topic at hand.

I have a feeling this won't satisfy you so think about the old gimmick of monkeys with a typewriter. Given enough monkeys and enough time, eventually you have Shakespeare. Let's suppose we really did that and we got something roughly equivalent in value to Hamlet. We are asked to evaluate the artistic merit of the monkey Hamlet. Now, someone like you would immediately comment on how monkeys are stupid, you would point out how the monkeys produced thousands of scripts that make no sense, and you'd explain how the monkeys not having any formal training in writing means that their ability to produce sound manuscripts is thin. However, clearly, you would be in the wrong. You weren't asked to evaluate the monkeys; you were asked to evaluate this one particular script. It may have been produced by essentially random chance, but it is on the value level of Hamlet and an artistic masterpiece. It is exactly as meritorious as the real Hamlet as per the premise of the situation, and any analysis that in any way considers that it was made by random process by monkeys is logically deficient. The logically correct analysis is to hold it to be equal in worth to the real Hamlet and to discard the monkeys as irrelevant back story.

So with that explanation, can we please, please just drop the logical fallacy? Ad hominem is still not valid no matter how much you like it. At absolute best you decisively prove the person you are arguing against has no credibility, and in that case you have done absolutely nothing to prove the person you are arguing against is wrong. He could be a monkey holding Shakespeare, and the only way you can possibly argue against that is to actually engage his points.

 

[Raziek]

The Novia Scotia ruleset is indeed inferior to most rulesets

Son, you have some explaining to do.

And if the answer includes anything that references your opinions on stage philosophy, and their PERCEIVED merit vs. mine, I'm going to laugh at you.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

YES, YOU DO NEED TOURNAMENT EXPERIENCE TO HAVE A GENERAL IDEA OF WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

You know what? When you and I disagree, and I have EVERY scrap of logic and reasoning on my side; when I have wikipedia backing me up that Ad Hominem is a fallacy, when I am backed up by other people who are equally intelligent, and THE ONLY THING THAT YOU CAN PULL OUT IS A COMBINATION AD HOMINEM/APPEAL TO RIDICULE, then I'm going to take a wild guess that you are PROBABLY wrong.

Seriously. GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD. Ad hominem DOES NOT WORK. It DOES NOT MATTER. I have MILLENIA of debating behind me which is backing that one up; arguing against it makes you stupid, and if you argue in favor of Ad Hominem, then Diddy Mains simply cannot be trusted. Plus, look at your stupid face, GOD it's ugly, never gonna listen to you again, oh and you only placed 1st at one MLG event; M2K did it at like 3 AND outplaced you at APEX 2, and he literally is mentally challenged! By adhom logic, that makes you EVEN WORSE! We should never listen to you again! Oh and you main Diddy, which automatically makes you gay. We should definitely not listen to anyone who is gay.

Seriously, STOP ****ING ADVOCATING AD HOMINEM. AA summed it up very nicely, but I'm sure that you can find various youtube videos, wikipedia articles, and many other web pages showing that you are completely wrong.

Get over it, the ad hominem is somewhat true. How can you be so closed-minded to say something close to the analogy that you don't need to perform surgeries to be a credible surgeon? You can't just be all text-book. However, you do need both.

Err... no, your analogy would fit with 'winning a major national' or 'performing well in tournaments'. i.e. you need to win tournaments to be a credible high-level player.

We, in the terms of this argument, not only don't have to be high level players, it's in fact better if all we have is this "book knowledge". See also: Jack Kieser's awesome, awesome post I keep quoting. You see, we don't need to be good players in order to make a ruleset. We have to have a very, very deep understanding of gameplay, and we have to know how the game works, but we do not have to be top players. Being a top player includes one set of skills that creating a ruleset doesn't (reflexes and reaction time; the subconscious play), whereas creating an intelligent ruleset requires extensive gameplay knowledge that is not necessarily directly applicable to gameplay; i.e. conscious knowledge like "when does CS transform" or "how does PTAD structure itself with cars". You can make out as a pro just fine without this knowledge (although it does help), and, in fact, almost all pros do. This is why getting pros to design the ruleset is stupid unless they have also proven themselves in this area; THE MOST IMPOTANT AREA when it comes to making a ruleset.

The Novia Scotia ruleset is indeed inferior to most rulesets

Cite examples plz. Yes, JUSTIFY YOUR THESIS. Like ANYONE has to. You haven't in your post below, and I'm honestly curious. Please note that you should not and/or cannot
-Hide behind your skill as a smasher ("It is because I know it is and I'm a top player"; as we've established, this does not help your case)
-Apply ridiculous, arbitrary values to it ("YI(M) is anticompetitive because I said so")
-Make sweeping generalizatons with very little to back them up ("Stagelist is gay/lack of lgls is gay/MK banned is gay")

it will just take ALOT of time for this wave of "natural brawl" ntion to settle into the distance because the line between "anti-competitive" and "competitive" will have to be further resolved. You think what you're doing is right or something along those lines, but you're just trying to enforce something along your opinionated view of how brawl should be played. It doesn't have to be "innocent until proven guilty," when the majority of us realize that this is a another version of "we want everything because we think stages should dictate the win more often."

All right first of all, let me make this perfectly clear to you.

More legal stages = more different scenarios the player is forced to deal with = more competitive depth.

It's really simple, and I've gone through it to a ridiculous extent, but you just don't get it. Where do you draw the line? Well, you draw the line when the stage openly and severely detracts from the competitive nature of the game with a degenerate and broken tactic. There's a fairly clear line here; the BBR hit it almost perfectly in their latest ruleset.

Second of all, there's a difference between the stages dictating the win and changing what is necessary for a player to be a good brawl player. The former happens on, say, warioware and arguably pictochat-the stage literally hands players wins. The latter is what we are advocating, and I still haven't heard a valid reason beyond, "Well, we just want to have it this way" to not have **** work that way. But you see, you can't have it your way when your way goes directly against the competitive depth of the game!

Oh, and most of you people have a very open mind for what's "guilty," almost too open. Stages should be involved as little as possible because Smash's goal was to have what both players bring to the table dictate the win, and not some restricting, uncontrollable interacting object interfering along with that

What. The. HELL. Are. You. Smoking? (Where can I get some?) You're talking about a game where 4 stages are completely static, somewhere in the range of 7-10 are completely non-random, and where matchups have up to a 50-point swing depending on stage selection!

We've made those counterpicks, and maybe, while counterpicks can sometimes be a flawed idea (metaknight), we should be focusing on making minute changes instead of jumping into this enormous theory-crafted change for the game.

Oh, this is rich. You guys are doing most of the theorycrafting. WE HAVE THE RESULTS. We have played on these stages and we have seen that they work. We have been presented either this ****TY philosophy that stages shouldn't move and that BF/SV/FD is ideal, or bad anecdotal evidence and bad theorycraft. Remember, you guys banned norfair because Spammerer planked you with JIGGLYPUFF! JIGGLYPUFF!!! Oh dear, ad hominem is raising its ugly head again-you were obviously wrong and overly hasty about that, why should we ever trust you again when it comes to banning stages? Oh, and you ban PS2... that's 3 times as bad!

You want to be able to claim that we're the ones presenting enormous theorycraft? Then YOU show us the videos. DMG says that wario's runaway on Norfair is broken? PROVE IT! Avarice Panda claims that Luigi's Mansion is broken? PROVE IT! You claim any number of bull****ty, outlandish things? PROOOOOOVE IIIIIIIIIIT!

We have an entire region successfully running a superliberalized ruleset with no problems. We have individual tournaments running these "awful" stagelists or rulesets with no problems. I see no reasoning behind this ridiculous failure, on your part, to OPEN YOUR ****ING EYES! You say that the Nova Scotia ruleset is awful? PROVE IT! You've NEVER played a tournament there. You almost never have to deal with a starter list where you can't get a great stage for your character game 1. You almost NEVER get counterpicked to Norfair, or PTAD, or LM, or DP, or or or or or or... Seriously, provide some form of evidence beyond "Herp I'm ADHD people I place well at nationals listen 2 me nd not dat scrub bpc who never goes to tournaments and never places there anywayz". I'll wait.

 

[Tesh]

Even if that claim is true, it's still logically irrelevant. It is a very basic point of logic that who says something has no impact on the truth value of it. For instance ADHD, if you weren't actually posting what you were posting but instead it were your little sister on your account who has never played smash in her life, it would be irrelevant. As long as the actual content of your posts is the same, your posts have the exact same level of validity. If we changed the name tag on your posts from "ADHD" to "MarioMan851" it wouldn't matter either. Your name tag has no impact on the validity of what you post. Your argument that MarioMan851 is unlikely to understand the game may or may not be true, but what you just aren't seeing is that, even if you are right, your entire argument is simply irrelevant to the topic at hand.

I have a feeling this won't satisfy you so think about the old gimmick of monkeys with a typewriter. Given enough monkeys and enough time, eventually you have Shakespeare. Let's suppose we really did that and we got something roughly equivalent in value to Hamlet. We are asked to evaluate the artistic merit of the monkey Hamlet. Now, someone like you would immediately comment on how monkeys are stupid, you would point out how the monkeys produced thousands of scripts that make no sense, and you'd explain how the monkeys not having any formal training in writing means that their ability to produce sound manuscripts is thin. However, clearly, you would be in the wrong. You weren't asked to evaluate the monkeys; you were asked to evaluate this one particular script. It may have been produced by essentially random chance, but it is on the value level of Hamlet and an artistic masterpiece. It is exactly as meritorious as the real Hamlet as per the premise of the situation, and any analysis that in any way considers that it was made by random process by monkeys is logically deficient. The logically correct analysis is to hold it to be equal in worth to the real Hamlet and to discard the monkeys as irrelevant back story.

So with that explanation, can we please, please just drop the logical fallacy? Ad hominem is still not valid no matter how much you like it. At absolute best you decisively prove the person you are arguing against has no credibility, and in that case you have done absolutely nothing to prove the person you are arguing against is wrong. He could be a monkey holding Shakespeare, and the only way you can possibly argue against that is to actually engage his points.

This needs to be put into the OP of every single discussion thread. Most of these discussions wind up being stifled by posts just like ADHD's, which lead to flaming and then locking of threads that COULD have gone somewhere.

 

[ADHD]

Yes, you need a balance to know what you're talking about. The only reason all of you are claiming you don't, is because you're the ones being biased.

I don't see why it's so hard to believe that you need tournament experience to know what you're talking about. For stages and how they work? No. For opinions on how the game should be played? YES. Did smash REALLY degrade this much from the transition of Melee to Brawl? If you were constantly placed in a position with money on the line, your opinion would be ENTIRELY different--and it doesn't have to be biased like you will probably claim. Is that hard to understand? You don't have to believe me, but I know I'm right, lol.

Oh, and BPC I can't answer all that right now, but knowledge of gameplay (I don't exactly know about yours..) can not change or grow greater with tourney experience? You can't just start off having it all and then say what is what and what should be what. I didn't think engaging in the game was such a sin around here.

 

[Albert.]

Are there people in this thread ACTIVELY vouching for Green Greens?


kill yourselves LOLLL

... oh and why do people still read BPC's stuff as if it's to be taken seriously?

 

[Raziek]

You're funny Albert.

Except not.

"YOU GUYS ARE DUMB HURR HURR" is not a valid argument.

 

[ADHD]

So skill and engaging with the game will never amount to credibility, either?

 

[-LzR-]

Yes there has to be a balance, but BPC knows how to play the game. I know how to play the game and ADHD knows how to play the game. Making statements like that against BPC is extremely ********.

 

[Akaku94]

BPC knows how the game works just as well as any of us. ADHD knows how to play as well, and he would beat BPC in a tournament, hands-down. But being a better player doesn't mean you have superior knowledge of the game, but rather that you're better at actually playing it. Kind of like how the best quarterback in the NFL doesn't have better knowledge of football than ESPN's top analysts just because he is a football player rather than someone who provides insight.

I personally think we should just ignore the ad hominem and fallacy of irrelevance and get back to Brawl. Sheesh...

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

EDIT:

So skill and engaging with the game will never amount to credibility, either?

When it comes to being able to say "I'm good at winning games in smash"? It will. When it comes to credibility in fields such as understanding game design philosophy, constructing smart, competitive rulesets, and knowing which stages should be legal, it should never, on its own, be enough.

Yes, you need a balance to know what you're talking about. The only reason all of you are claiming you don't, is because you're the ones being biased.

Oh look, more argument to authority. You're not seeing it? You're claiming that you can disregard our arguments due to lack of tournament experience. You can't. It just doesn't work that way. I don't think that "not letting someone use a famous debate fallacy" qualifies us as bias. Hypothetical question: if DMG pulls through and gets these vids of his wario on Norfair just ABUSING the stage at MLG Dallas and shows them to me, do you think I can claim, with no tournament experience, that Norfair belongs banned and have any legitimacy behind that? If so, how is it different from the claim that Norfair belongs legal? Because you back it up?

I don't see why it's so hard to believe that you need tournament experience to know what you're talking about. For stages and how they work? No.

Yeah, and that's kinda all that matters for the discussion here. Stages, and how they work. What else actually matters when talking about stages? Once you understand stages, and how characters work on them, then there's not really all that much you need to determine if a stage should be legal or not. Ever.

For opinions on how the game should be played? YES.

Oh look, now I need to know something that is not only completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, but **** well should be ignored. In my opinion, FD and BF should be banned because they lower the skill required to play the game immensely with their lack of movement and transformation and hazards (No, obviously I'm not serious ). Why is my opinion worth less than yours on the subject? I mean, hell, I have shown several times that I actually know more about stages than you, my opinion should be worth more than yours!

Opinions should not matter. Keep it as objective as possible. Find out which tactics are degenerate and broken, and ban the stages where they work. Then filter out the excessively random stages. When in doubt, don't ban the stage and wait for the broken tactic to show itself off before banning. But surely you can understand this-when a certain region decides to ban FD because all the tourneygoers say, "it's a ******** stage imo", then that shows a certain level of scrubbyness, doesn't it? What about if, in their opinion, the randomness on Warioware just simply isn't random enough to make the stage banworthy? Are their opinions correct, or worthy of looking at? Should we accept their opinions? NO.

Did smash REALLY degrade this much from the transition of Melee to Brawl?

Could say the same thing about from 64 to Melee, where we went from "random starter stage" to "fox only, final destination". Actually, I have a bone to pick with most melee rulesets. Why was Poke Floats banned at APEX? Where's Mute City? I can't find the pound ruleset, but I have a sneaking suspicion that I can add Brinstar and RC to that list of stages that are mysteriously missing with no adequate reason.

Honestly, we haven't degraded. We've upgraded. We've decided, "hang on, this isn't right, we're nuking the depth of gameplay and abandoning the basic rule of 'ban only what is broken'!" and we've tried to take action on this. And I honestly feel that smash would be a better game if every region used the Nova Scotia ruleset; not only that, but it would be a better game even if every region used the Nova Scotia ruleset without the "mk is banned" clause (and this is really saying something, because with MK legal and that liberal of a stagelist...)!

If you were constantly placed in a position with money on the line, your opinion would be ENTIRELY different--and it doesn't have to be biased like you will probably claim. Is that hard to understand? You don't have to believe me, but I know I'm right, lol.

First of all, I main MK. If I was constantly placed in a position with money on the line, and my character's overall performance depends heavily on getting 2 counterpicks per round and being able to ban some of his worst stages, then I probably would have a different opin-oh wait no that's bias.

The fact that I'm not in the same situation as you and that the bias is completely evident with you actually kind of proves Jack Kieser's point when he speaks of us being against the game.

Oh, and BPC I can't answer all that right now, but knowledge of gameplay (I don't exactly know about yours..) can not change or grow greater with tourney experience? You can't just start off having it all and then say what is what and what should be what. I didn't think engaging in the game was such a sin around here.

I did not say that. I said that it was possible that it does not actively improve through tournament experience. And also moderately likely beyond a certain point, especially in superconservative regions. When I go to tournaments here in germany, I'm not learning anything about stages I haven't already known. I'm learning matchups I had no idea how to play, but I'll say this-I did not actively learn ANYWHERE NEAR as much in 3 games with the lucas main I was playing against as I did in 15 minutes on SWF figuring out matchup tricks.

If you want "active" knowledge (AA summed this one up a while back very, very well) of the game, then tournament play can only really help you to a certain degree, and "book learning", which you seem to hate so much, is actually way more useful.

Don't misunderstand me. Your knowledge of gameplay can and probably will change or grow greater with tournament experience. But your active knowledge (again, AA made good points about this) is really best off being improved by reading about things, and then testing them out on your own.

Are there people in this thread ACTIVELY vouching for Green Greens?

Name us an argument we haven't already refuted or proven irrelevant as to why the stage should be banned. Such arguments include:
-It's overly random
-It's gay
-It provides broken camping locations

Yeah, I'm pretty sure we've refuted all of those.

... oh and why do people still read BPC's stuff as if it's to be taken seriously?

Because it is.

EDIT: you know what, nvm, that last part just sounded creepy.

 

[Akaku94]

I've looked through the last 4 pages, and the only two people who have made a post without making idiots of themselves are BPC and AA (Well, I'd like to include myself in that list, but I'm not sure...). The fact that basically every time I look, there's some person I've never heard of before slamming BPC with nothing else to their post but a stupid comment that's been refuted dozens of times, I start to think that the problem is those guys, not the one who posts these walls of text with nobody responding to them.

 

[Kole]

You're funny Albert.

Except not.

"YOU GUYS ARE DUMB HURR HURR" is not a valid argument.

NEWSFLASH: Every time someone posts, they're not always trying to get in an argument.

 

[ADHD]

When it comes to being able to say "I'm good at winning games in smash"? It will. When it comes to credibility in fields such as understanding game design philosophy, constructing smart, competitive rulesets, and knowing which stages should be legal, it should never, on its own, be enough.

And I'm saying the reverse isn't either. You can't just be purely educated on stages and Brawl in the shadows on SWF and form an "intelligent ruleset." And no, no one can say stages like LM, YI (Melee), and PTAD have been tested extensively in tournament where the final result exists but you still seem to insist there are no problems based on..hell, I don't even know. Overswarm's word?

Oh look, more argument to authority. You're not seeing it? You're claiming that you can disregard our arguments due to lack of tournament experience. You can't. It just doesn't work that way. I don't think that "not letting someone use a famous debate fallacy" qualifies us as bias. Hypothetical question: if DMG pulls through and gets these vids of his wario on Norfair just ABUSING the stage at MLG Dallas and shows them to me, do you think I can claim, with no tournament experience, that Norfair belongs banned and have any legitimacy behind that? If so, how is it different from the claim that Norfair belongs legal? Because you back it up?

I would like to see you say Norfair belongs banned, but I think you have as much legitimacy behind claiming that as claiming it should remain (or be) legal. Although, Norfair is probably the least mild amongst others like Green Greens and LM.

Yeah, and that's kinda all that matters for the discussion here. Stages, and how they work. What else actually matters when talking about stages? Once you understand stages, and how characters work on them, then there's not really all that much you need to determine if a stage should be legal or not. Ever.

Err, most of these threads are far more than simply stages and what makes them tick. All of them turn into debates on starter lists, counterpicks, etc, and how tournaments should be ran.

Oh look, now I need to know something that is not only completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, but **** well should be ignored. In my opinion, FD and BF should be banned because they lower the skill required to play the game immensely with their lack of movement and transformation and hazards (No, obviously I'm not serious ). Why is my opinion worth less than yours on the subject? I mean, hell, I have shown several times that I actually know more about stages than you, my opinion should be worth more than yours!

Opinions should not matter. Keep it as objective as possible. Find out which tactics are degenerate and broken, and ban the stages where they work. Then filter out the excessively random stages. When in doubt, don't ban the stage and wait for the broken tactic to show itself off before banning. But surely you can understand this-when a certain region decides to ban FD because all the tourneygoers say, "it's a ******** stage imo", then that shows a certain level of scrubbyness, doesn't it? What about if, in their opinion, the randomness on Warioware just simply isn't random enough to make the stage banworthy? Are their opinions correct, or worthy of looking at? Should we accept their opinions? NO.

..And the underlying problem is that so little about these debates is objective, other than the stages and their properties. Circle camping enforcing a stage's elimination from competitive play isn't objective, when you can actually stop it. You can hit the opponent if he makes a mistake, or certain characters have a projectile that might hit after a few minutes or so, while Wario and Metaknight are immune to being circle-camped. Also, specific characters are incapable of circle camping because of ground speed/air speed. So what else constitutes a ban other than a conforming opinion, really?

Could say the same thing about from 64 to Melee, where we went from "random starter stage" to "fox only, final destination". Actually, I have a bone to pick with most melee rulesets. Why was Poke Floats banned at APEX? Where's Mute City? I can't find the pound ruleset, but I have a sneaking suspicion that I can add Brinstar and RC to that list of stages that are mysteriously missing with no adequate reason.

Honestly, we haven't degraded. We've upgraded. We've decided, "hang on, this isn't right, we're nuking the depth of gameplay and abandoning the basic rule of 'ban only what is broken'!" and we've tried to take action on this. And I honestly feel that smash would be a better game if every region used the Nova Scotia ruleset; not only that, but it would be a better game even if every region used the Nova Scotia ruleset without the "mk is banned" clause (and this is really saying something, because with MK legal and that liberal of a stagelist...)!

You said "upgraded" and gave your opinion on why things should be so right after belittling opinions and saying "it should be objective as possible."

First of all, I main MK. If I was constantly placed in a position with money on the line, and my character's overall performance depends heavily on getting 2 counterpicks per round and being able to ban some of his worst stages, then I probably would have a different opin-oh wait no that's bias.

The fact that I'm not in the same situation as you and that the bias is completely evident with you actually kind of proves Jack Kieser's point when he speaks of us being against the game.

How is it evident with me? Why would I not benefit from PS2, PTAD, or Pictochat added to the list?

I did not say that. I said that it was possible that it does not actively improve through tournament experience.

I still disagree, but w/e.

When I go to tournaments here in germany, I'm not learning anything about stages I haven't already known. I'm learning matchups I had no idea how to play, but I'll say this-I did not actively learn ANYWHERE NEAR as much in 3 games with the lucas main I was playing against as I did in 15 minutes on SWF figuring out matchup tricks.

This will change due in time, and you'll probably find out that SWF can be really unreliable sometimes. Matchup write-ups can be one of SWF's biggest misleading factors. Usually, I've found that there's so much unwritten information about them that you can only learn by playing the characters over time.

 

[Luxor]

Completely unrelated, but does anyone know where I could find a list of pictures for every stage? I need them for a project (a very useful project, too).

 

[ぱみゅ]

I have them (everyone but Wario Ware) =P
I just need to found some place to upload them

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

http://www.serebii.net/ssbb/stages/

Voila.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Mines are bigger =P
Just sayin'

 

[SuSa]

Stick them in a folder or .zip and upload them to Mediafire or another host.

Luxor needs them because I asked for them to help with his stated project. Figured uploading one folder (or temporarily uploading the to any old image host like imageshack) would be easiest on you.

Your help is greatly appreciated. (And I'll be sure you get thanked for supplying the pictures)

:leek:

 

[UberMario]

And no, no one can say stages like LM, YI (Melee), and PTAD have been tested extensively in tournament

Agreed.

where the final result exists but you still seem to insist there are no problems based on..hell, I don't even know. Overswarm's word?

Of the three, Luigi's Mansion is the one that probably is the most borderline due to the Cave-of-Life effect, but the other two are not that bad, especially in comparison to legal stages like Pictochat or Pirate Ship, which are more often used. (As I've said in the past, I'm still baffled on how Pictochat is considered the 3rd fairest counterpick, it should be last due to the randomness and match-stopping transformations)

Yoshi's Island probably needs the most testing [in terms of planking potential, etc.], but other than the close killzones and the walkoff, there really isn't anything particularly overcentralizing, especially since the latter is sloped in a way that makes walkoff-camping and most chain-grabs less effective than normal.

Port Town is a fine a counterpick in pretty much every aspect. The presence of the road is good enough for the majority of the cast to not have an issue with a ledge, as the amount of times the road is not physically present on the stage is no more than four seconds at any one time, and is always in two specific places: the staircase "dive", and the vertical wall [when it goes past the stationary platforms, you can get hit upwards by one of the skyscrapers to "save" you]. Which nearly every character can stall out unless gimped, and at that point it's the equivalent of being spiked on a normal stage like Smashville. As I've also said before, the cars are extremely easy to avoid if you know where to look for them. Even on buttonlagfi I have had plenty of matches where both I AND my opponent were totally unaffected by the cars, and it's even easier to avoid them offline. This stage is easily aa playable as Jungle Japes, it just takes a bit of practice to learn how to deal with, but that reasoning never stopped the Pokemon Stadiums, Castle Siege, Delfino Plaza, or Pictochat, so I don't see why PT should be considered any different.

I would like to see you say Norfair belongs banned, but I think you have as much legitimacy behind claiming that as claiming it should remain (or be) legal. Although, Norfair is probably the least mild amongst others like Green Greens and LM.

Far from it [being barely mild], all of the properties of Norfair are easy to see, low in range, or easily DI'able. The only times that a player should come even close to being gimped by the lava is if they are literally hit into the upper 20% of a lava wall, otherwise the player is either really not paying attention [like 3+ seconds of gameplay] or isn't DI'ing properly. To be honest Brinstar's lava affects gameplay a lot more than Norfair's does, most notably because Brinstar's lava forces the players to be together on a platform only slightly wider than the moving one on Smashville, while Norfair's seperates the players.

..And the underlying problem is that so little about these debates is objective, other than the stages and their properties.

Which is what the majority of stage discussion is about . . . . .

Circle camping enforcing a stage's elimination from competitive play isn't objective, when you can actually stop it.

I believe you mean "when you CAN'T actually stop it", which is the case on Big Blue, Spear Pillar, Temple, Summit, etc. Luigi's Mansion, Distant Planet, and to a degree, Castle Siege's second mode all have breakable circle camping.

So what else constitutes a ban other than a conforming opinion, really?

Technically . . . . nothing, if it's in the game, a ban is opinionated. There's nothing more to say about that other than that an opinion is only justifiable with definitive evidence. Such as the case is with items, they spawn randomly, occasionally explode, have high knockback, are more useful chucked than weilded, cause unnecessary chaos, etc. Those are justifiable with evidence, as there's NO way to disprove that [in order] they are randomly spawned, have the potential to explode, have high knockback, or are just overly spammable. That's a case where banning is justified with evidence. For an example of the flipside, I'll use Port Town: most people think there is little-to-no response time when it comes to the cars, the only way this is justifiable is with evidence. And it turns out, the "little-to-no respponse time" opinion is incorrect, as there is plenty of response time, with each of the track sections where cars can hit giving 2, 2, 6, 6, and 2 seconds respectively, which during the speed of a fight is VERY easy to deal with, especially if you're used to the other faster games like Melee. [PLEASE don't turn this into a Melee-vs-Brawl topic, it's just a valid example] The majority of moves in the game are faster than 2 seconds, not to mention it's not like all of the road is consumed in cars within those two seconds, the shield allows you enough time to avoid one car and jump SHOULD you have waited too long to get out of the way to begin with.

How is it evident with me? Why would I not benefit from PS2, PTAD, or Pictochat added to the list?

Well, why would you not?

This will change due in time, and you'll probably find out that SWF can be really unreliable sometimes. Matchup write-ups can be one of SWF's biggest misleading factors. Usually, I've found that there's so much unwritten information about them that you can only learn by playing the characters over time.

Agreed, playstyles affect matchups far too strongly to make matchup amounts anything more than generalizations.

 

[-Vocal-]

Delfino Plaza should be banned, it has walk-offs and walls!

Serious response

BPC you kill me sometimes

 

[fkacyan]

but BPC knows how to play the game.

No. I've seen videos of him play. He's lost to a Lucas in tourney with MK. This is assuredly not the case.

I'm glad the point about circle camping is still being brought up, because that is just as legitimate a tactic as any other form of stage control, and why we don't reward that form of versatility is beyond me.

Spoiler

Wait this goes in Philosophical whoops

.

 

[Raziek]

Because it drastically REDUCES game depth.

Come on Thio, you're better than that.

Ad hominem AND blantantly wrong arguments?

 

[ADHD]

Because it drastically REDUCES game depth.

Come on Thio, you're better than that.

Ad hominem AND blantantly wrong arguments?

That's a terrible reason. So does air camping and timing out. So does general camping. I'd rather you elaborate further.

 

[V]

I would love to see every player worth their salt at this game get together for a weekend and test all this out in a competitive environment without money involved. Different match times, stages, mk banned, etc just to see the results and come to a conclusion on the best competitive ruleset for this game. But even then, its all subject to opinion and personal bias, and who's gonna buy a plane ticket without the chance of making money?

Oh well

 

[Raziek]

Alright, I'll elaborate, ADHD.

With the exception of PPlanking, Aircamping and timing out are strong strategies that DO reduce depth, to some extent, but they aren't a matter of "Do this or you lose"

Circle camping comes down to "Is my character faster, and can I can the lead once?"

Not the case with the other two, which is why Circle Camping is considered a degenerate tactic.