Linkshot
Smash Hero
Port Town :O Awesome.
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!
Port Town was a counter/banned in the original list, wasn't it? Most people just ignore it regardless.Port Town :O Awesome.
I'm still of the opinion the RF should be at least in the CP/Banned category. I feel bad that I haven't gotten all of my information added for this discussion, but Jesus... people need to actually get off their OWN ****ing ***es and do some research for a change instead of just throwing out wild guesses as to what might or might not be banned.At least there were a few people there that looked into Rumble Falls.
I've never been able to catch a ledge in Hanenbow... Which ones are actually grabbable?There are three ledges on Hanenbow.
In the meantime... I desperately hope to get my Dazzle working for a change so I can show some of my findings. I'm still compiling a list of everything relevant to the outcomes of each of the sample matches I played, and I'll get them posted soon. (No, I'm not just saying that. )I plan to test Rumble Falls (and maybe Distant Planet) with the local community tonight. I'm bringing my cousin (read: D3 main), too.
the circled onesI've never been able to catch a ledge in Hanenbow... Which ones are actually grabbable?
Anyone that thinks voting for stuff on Smash is a good idea is a total freaking moron. A stupid, illogical opinion isn't any less stupid or illogical because 14 different people have it.*celebrates about Pirate Ship*
It even got one less vote for being banned. XD
Cornera shouldn't of been banned in IMO though.
Just because their opinion isn't the same as yours doesn't mean the opinion is illogical. A lot of us conservative people are too lazy to actually provide evidence for what we say because of any combination of the following:Anyone that thinks voting for stuff on Smash is a good idea is a total freaking moron. A stupid, illogical opinion isn't any less stupid or illogical because 14 different people have it.
God, I ****ing hate this voting bull****.
It's on CP / Banned, which means that every TO will ban it, most likely.port town is on the list? *fears*
Don't put ****ing words in my mouth. Their opinions are illogical because they don't actually do any research on the stages they're banning. They base their opinions off of their ASSUMPTIONS on how a stage works, and based off of anecdotal information they get from other people.Just because their opinion isn't the same as yours doesn't mean the opinion is illogical.
Ah, yes. The "I just know," argument. Tell me... what methodology of data analysis does that apply to again? If you "know" something is the case, you should be able to explain it, or at least give a viable synopsis.A lot of us conservative people are too lazy to actually provide evidence for what we say because of any combination of the following:
1) We already know it, and thus find it pointless to make other people know because we are arrogant.
If you have knowledge and you keep it to yourself, your knowledge profits no one, including yourself. If you share your wisdom, everyone benefits. You could even learn something new yourself.2) We gain nothing by convincing you.
I'll buy this one.3) We are lazy.
What the hell does this even mean? If you get a hundred people to vote that 2 + 2 = 5, it doesn't make it any more logical. People are voting based off of ignorance and laziness, as you yourself admitted. Their votes are therefore invalidated in my eyes.Also: Lawl, would fascism be a better method of stage ban status?
Oh, bull. SBRB already knows who they will and won't allow into their club. And I have no respect whatsoever for their standing as authority figures in Brawl. They have not presented me with one iota of evidence that their knowledge of the metagame is any more impressive than that of non-members. And the fact that they keep all discussions behind closed doors where no one else can correct their mistakes or make observations is a testament to this.If you think you're smarter than the people in the SBR, apply next time the apps are opened, get in, and prove people wrong about stuff so they vote with you.
Don't put ****ing words in my mouth. Their opinions are illogical because they don't actually do any research on the stages they're banning. They base their opinions off of their ASSUMPTIONS on how a stage works, and based off of anecdotal information they get from other people.
Don't believe me? Then where is their research? How many times have they actually sat down and played seriously on these stages? For crying out loud, people are STILL saying that if a level has certain things in it, it automatically should be banned, no questions asked.
Quoting for massive irony. You're criticizing their methods but yet you don't even know what they are.They have not presented me with one iota of evidence that their knowledge of the metagame is any more impressive than that of non-members. And the fact that they keep all discussions behind closed doors where no one else can correct their mistakes or make observations is a testament to this.
I didn't say I didn't have reasons to back it up. I might not have them readily available and you are not important enough for me to make an effort to get them up and ready. Kinda ties in with number three, actually.Ah, yes. The "I just know," argument. Tell me... what methodology of data analysis does that apply to again? If you "know" something is the case, you should be able to explain it, or at least give a viable synopsis.
Say you go to the doctor, and without running any tests whatsoever, he says to you, "You've got a stomach ulcer." When you ask how he knows, he says "I just know." The guy is either psychic or a ****ing whack job.
The EXACT SAME THING applies here. Don't hand me "I just know," because that's just another way of saying "I really WANT this to be true, but I can't back it up, so please stop asking challenging questions."
It's benefitting the people who already know what I'm talking about, and doing so rather nicely, might I add.If you have knowledge and you keep it to yourself, your knowledge profits no one, including yourself. If you share your wisdom, everyone benefits. You could even learn something new yourself.
As shown above, you can't prove this. In fact, it's extremely ironic contrasted with your response to my first reason. Hypocrisy's a *****.What the hell does this even mean? If you get a hundred people to vote that 2 + 2 = 5, it doesn't make it any more logical. People are voting based off of ignorance and laziness, as you yourself admitted. Their votes are therefore invalidated in my eyes.
This is the equivalent of going into a debate club, stating "God does exist; I have proof," and then when asked for the proof, saying "Well, I don't care enough to justify it to you; I know, and that's all that matters." And then proceeding to hang around the club and interject your claim wherever you can fit it in while still never proving it.I didn't say I didn't have reasons to back it up. I might not have them readily available and you are not important enough for me to make an effort to get them up and ready. Kinda ties in with number three, actually.
You're right. I haven't posted my findings yet. I know it's an excuse, but I'm having technical problems that prevent me from doing so. As such, until I can actually provide the videos, accounts, and data I've been documenting - specifically regarding Rumble Falls - I have no choice but to concede this specific part of what you say. As of this moment, I don't have anything more concrete to show than they do.Quoting for massive irony. You're criticizing their methods but yet you don't even know what they are.
Yeah, and I've got a million dollars in my house, but I'd rather not show it to you. You can simply take my word for it that it's there, though.I didn't say I didn't have reasons to back it up. I might not have them readily available and you are not important enough for me to make an effort to get them up and ready. Kinda ties in with number three, actually.
In other words, the people that agree with you. Got it.It's benefitting the people who already know what I'm talking about, and doing so rather nicely, might I add.
In your rush to hurl meaningless insults, you've completely missed the crux of my argument. The only thing we know is that they voted on the stages. We don't know what methods they had to arriving at their votes, we only know that the actual process of voting was used to arrive at these decisions.As shown above, you can't prove this. In fact, it's extremely ironic contrasted with your response to my first reason. Hypocrisy's a *****.
Perhaps, but I'm not taking issue with their rule set. You can go through the wrong process and stumble upon correct answers from time to time just the same.I don't like the SBR much either, but then I don't really use their stageset. Their ruleset is pretty baseline, though.
I never said I was bad on the levels.You put "We're at a disadvantage" as a "valid" reason? Shameful!
You're at a disadvantage because your "distaste" is outweighing the common sense of getting better on the level so you're not at the disadvantage. That's like saying "We should ban Meta Knight because I don't like him as a character and thusly never have him used on my Wii. If people use him in a tournament, I'm at a disadvantage for not knowing how he works."
That's the concept I got. Correct me, please.
No. God, what a gigantic ego.This is something I realized as I mulled it over waking up this morning
Linkshot and myself have been the only ones to actually play people on the stages we've been arguing about in the course of this thread
Don't put ****ing words in my mouth. Their opinions are illogical because they don't actually do any research on the stages they're banning. They base their opinions off of their ASSUMPTIONS on how a stage works, and based off of anecdotal information they get from other people.
Don't believe me? Then where is their research? How many times have they actually sat down and played seriously on these stages? For crying out loud, people are STILL saying that if a level has certain things in it, it automatically should be banned, no questions asked.
No, it doesn't. "They" is a general term. Just because you show me the exceptions that prove the rule doesn't make my observation less valid.OS and Kel testing things.
Watch what you say when you say they, because that means ALL of them.
Really? So far me and Linkshot are the only people I've seen who've played matches and then reported about how they went.No. God, what a gigantic ego.
there's a point where one specific feature (walls, walkoff ledges, being able to travel in a circle) have been proven to be so broken (if permanently available) that no matter what the other redeeming features, it just isn't ever going to be worth itFor crying out loud, people are STILL saying that if a level has certain things in it, it automatically should be banned, no questions asked.
Two words:I know a local person that doesn't believe in "starters", and that every legal stage should be available during the stage striking process.
Thoughts on this?
So basically I see these arguments:You may be a fan of a rule Australia used a while back in which several stages were legal counterpicks but if you picked them you weren't allowed to also select King Dedede (or something to that effect; it was basically a rule that meant you couldn't force your opponent to fight King Dedede on those stages). On an intuitive level that seems bad to me since it makes the rules more complicated and isn't particularly fair to King Dedede that his "advantage" of being able to abuse those stages actually results in him having fewer options. Maybe it's worth it though; it never really was explored beyond Australia and probably never will be.