On vertical spacing, bubbles & the second-most-punishing character (European Social)

[Marc]

We have, but at the same time I don't really have a problem with the status quo. I notice that there is a constant tendency towards innovation in the Brawl community as opposed to changes in bursts for Melee, but I'm personally a fan of stability. We're three years into the game, several systems are adequate and at some point we shouldn't be trying to fix what isn't broken. That's not to say I'm not willing to give anything new a shot, but I sometimes feel people are doing it for the wrong reasons.

As for PS2, I'm kind of conflicted. I think it's generally neutral matchupwise and in that sense odd as a CP because most characters, if not all, have better options at that point. At the same time it's generally disliked and I don't see too many people wanting to play there in the first place. It's not inconsistent, but the same applies to several other banned stages and I do think that changing physics is huge, even if it's only temporary. I'm not always one for catering to the masses, but this stage seems really gray area and when I polled it it was so unpopular that the call wasn't hard to make.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Oh, I'm no longer on the "if it's not broken don't ban it" train when it comes to stages. That left the station a long time ago essentially everywhere in the world beyond Nova Scotia, and they banned a character who wasn't broken. But that doesn't mean I won't actively fight misinformation and bull****.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

As for PS2, I'm kind of conflicted. I think it's generally neutral matchupwise and in that sense odd as a CP because most characters, if not all, have better options at that point. At the same time it's generally disliked and I don't see too many people wanting to play there in the first place. It's not inconsistent, but the same applies to several other banned stages and I do think that changing physics is huge, even if it's only temporary.

Sounds a lot like Castle Siege.

 

[Orion*]

no it's not D:

Then why do you only gimp my marth if I majorly **** up or get hard read :|
Don't get me wrong, it's definitely good. But it's not spammable LOL

Sounds a lot like Castle Siege.

Castle siege doesn't change physics. It's just gay :|

 

[Laem]

Why did BPC get unbanned D:
o hi bpc

full list striking is dumb
full legal list striking b4 every match is pro
trufax

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Castle siege doesn't change physics. It's just gay :|

You can't die via the bottom blast zone on the 2nd stage because there is none. That's technically a change of physics - a influential one at that.

 

[Marc]

That's more of a layout thing, it's the same for some parts of Delfino. Walkoffs are another debate altogether, but the ones we have still legal are temporary in nature. If this were Melee those stages would be banned too, but whatever.

If we were to create a European ruleset, PS2 would probably be the biggest obstacle to compromise on.

 

[xDD-Master]

Delphino's water can also be interpreted as physic change...

I can understand, when someone does want PS2 to be banned. But I can also understand people that want to keep it legal.



@Cadet:
Yeah as Gheb already said, we were pretty long pro-full-legal-stage-striking for first match!

I would LOVE to test out the following ruleset changes btw.:

11 Stages:
• Battlefield
• Final Destination
• Lylat Cruise
• Smashville
• Yoshi’s Island (Brawl)
• Castle Siege
• Delfino Plaza
• Frigate Orpheon
• Halberd
• Pokémon Stadium 1
• Pokémon Stadium 2

Do 1-1-1-2-2-2-2-2-1-1 Striking for the first stage.
10 Minutes timer.
No Bans, no DSR.
EVERY Set Bo3.
Winner of the last match is Character Locked.
Loser can chose EITHER Character OR Stage.


@Tonie: Yeah that might work too!

But one thing is bad about this, we will very likely NEVER see stages like FD or DP/FO anymore, because they will be stroke away pretty much everytime, and therefore we could probably ban them right away, which is bad D:

If we were to create a European ruleset, PS2 would probably be the biggest obstacle to compromise on.

Yeah.

I'm pretty sure we (everyone) could agree to use the 10 Stages list, NL uses atm, with 5 Starters and 5 CPs. Bad thing about 10 Stages is the fact, that we cant use Full-Legal-Stage-Striking anymore xD

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Why did BPC get unbanned D:
o hi bpc

****s. The lot of ya.

full list striking is dumb
full legal list striking b4 every match is pro
trufax

By full list I mean full legal list; i.e. what we have now (which is like 11 cps).

That's more of a layout thing, it's the same for some parts of Delfino. Walkoffs are another debate altogether, but the ones we have still legal are temporary in nature. If this were Melee those stages would be banned too, but whatever.

If we were to create a European ruleset, PS2 would probably be the biggest obstacle to compromise on.

European ruleset is, IMO, overrated. There's not enough intermingling for it to be necessary. I'm with Chair on this one, tbh.

@Akuma: I dunno, I still think one ban would be really helpful. But character locking... Interesting idea, but may lead to some nasty consequences.

 

[Flayl]

I'd like to try that ruleset out. If I could anyway... Why did you take out Dave's Stupid Rule?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I'd like to try that ruleset out. If I could anyway... Why did you take out Dave's Stupid Rule?

I think because it's irrelevant. Every set is Bo3, so if you're going back to a stage you lost on, it's either because you wanted to go there after losing G2 to prove yourself or despite the fact that it's the most balanced stage in the list for the matchup, in which case you wasted your CP.

Although one thing: I think it'd be far better if you could opt for character switch + return to G1 stage, rather than character switch + return to last stage; otherwise if I want to switch it up on game 3, I'm stuck with my opponent's CP.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

I've always thought it's a good compromise solution to add bans to handle "semi-broken" stages based on a players decision. While that's the usus in the current american ruleset I don't like their approach and I'm 99% sure that they lack just as much logic here as they do everywhere else. What I'd think would be the best ruleset in regards to stages:

The "core" stages are: FD, BF, SV, PS1, Lylat, Yoshi's, Delphino, Frigate, Halberd, Castle Siege, PS2

Then come the "borderline" stage tiers; if you add +1 tier you should also add +1 stage ban...

Tier 1: Rainbow Cruise, Jungle Japes
Tier 2: Norfair, Pirate Ship
Tier 3: Distant Planet, Port Town
[Tiers are ordered in what I think should be the priority; Rudder camping on Pirate Ship is easily detectable and can be banned without much trouble]

For any tier you add to the "core" stages, one stage ban has to be added. I think it gives the TO the freedom to use stages he thinks are viable while also compromising with the players that disagree with him. Stage striking is done out of the entire legal stage list, no matter how many tiers you've added to the core stage selection.

I'm personally open to using certain custom stages in competitive although that's probably never going to happen.
[In addition to what I've posted above I'd also use a "3 minutes for each stock"-rule instead of dictating 3 stocks + 8 minutes as the arbitrary standard and I'd make re-match <+some modifications probably> instead of % in case of a time-out]

Edit @ above. Character locking is an idea worth thinking about. I think being able to CP stage AND character is too much and that only one or the other should be done but not both at the same time.

 

[xDD-Master]

I'd like to try that ruleset out. If I could anyway... Why did you take out Dave's Stupid Rule?

DSR for what?...

First Match: MK vs Snake on CS [MK win]
Second Match: MK vs ICs on FD [ICs win]
Third Match (The only one where DSR could make any difference): Why should CS not be allowed anymore?

Most sets will look like that anyway:
First Match: SV, BF, CS, PS1, PS2 or LC
Match 2: FD/DP/FO/YI/Halberd
Match 3: Same

So DSR is bot really needed at all.

I think because it's irrelevant. Every set is Bo3, so if you're going back to a stage you lost on, it's either because you wanted to go there after losing G2 to prove yourself or despite the fact that it's the most balanced stage in the list for the matchup, in which case you wasted your CP.

Although one thing: I think it'd be far better if you could opt for character switch + return to G1 stage, rather than character switch + return to last stage; otherwise if I want to switch it up on game 3, I'm stuck with my opponent's CP.

Well, you can stay characters and change stages?

M1: MK vs Snake on CS
M2: MK vs Snake on FD
M3: MK vs Snake on DP

Character+Stage is really strong... especially when M1 was played on a potentially CP (For example, some Match Ups are pretty even/fair on FD maybe and would end on FD)

Why should you get a better Counterpick than your oppenant before?

Edit @ above. Character locking is an idea worth thinking about. I think being able to CP stage AND character is too much and that only one or the other should be done but not both at the same time.

Thats how it is in my ruleset idea.

@Yours: Well... you could say, for every 2 Stages added to the normal 11 Stages, you have to add 1 Ban.
That would also give some freedom in stage choice.

But tbh, I dont really like this idea. You know why? Because stages are either good or bad, or in other words: Fit for competitive play or not.
Of course there are some grey-area stages, but really, we should stick to the stages we think that are viable for competitive gameplay.
Why should the people have the options to strike stages? When the stages are "so bad" that we have to give the people the choice to ban them, why dont we ban them right away in the beginning?
Oh and another Side-Effect I dont really like about this, if a host decides to use Tier 3, then one person could potentially strike SV/BF/LC which we already accepted as good/viable/balanced stages!

I think personal Bans are bad, and we should aim for a ruleset that doesnt include such contraversial thing.
If we choose to use Stage Bans, we could as well include EVERYTHING and give the people the choice to ban it.
Add 10 Items, and give both players 5 Item-Bans before the match.
People that like to play with Items wont use their Ban, people that dont like them, can ban at least 5, leadin to a happy medium (?kinda?).
Or Character Bans... but I dont want to talk about that lol.

 

[Flayl]

DSR for what?...

First Match: MK vs Snake on CS [MK win]
Second Match: MK vs ICs on FD [ICs win]
Third Match (The only one where DSR could make any difference): Why should CS not be allowed anymore?

You forgot the option counterpick here (IC or FD). But aside from that the point of DSR would be to introduce more depth to the game and give a pretty small advantage to characters that have more than one good stage.

Assuming there's character lock and option counterpicking:

Game 1: Bowser VS Sonic on Delphino (Sonic wins)
Game 2: Dedede VS Sonic on Delphino (Dedede wins)
Game 3: Dedede VS Meta Knight on Delphino

Hrmm I just realized for option counterpicking to work properly with DSR you would need to FLSS every time someone changed character... so nevermind lol

 

[Greward]

distant planet is a good stage, i know u all will just keep on screwing around saying it's unplayable without even thinking about it but it's good
though i wouldnt add it at our stage list

 

[xDD-Master]

Ehm my example was just for Full-Legal-Stage-Striking without the Character-Lock and StageORCharacter thing ^^

But you showed another reason why DSR is not working at all in this ruleset XD
Thx for that xd

If I host BiB3 I will try that out... even though the chances for another BiB are very low =_="

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I've always thought it's a good compromise solution to add bans to handle "semi-broken" stages based on a players decision. While that's the usus in the current american ruleset I don't like their approach and I'm 99% sure that they lack just as much logic here as they do everywhere else. What I'd think would be the best ruleset in regards to stages:

The "core" stages are: FD, BF, SV, PS1, Lylat, Yoshi's, Delphino, Frigate, Halberd, Castle Siege, PS2

Then come the "borderline" stage tiers; if you add +1 tier you should also add +1 stage ban...

Tier 1: Rainbow Cruise, Jungle Japes
Tier 2: Norfair, Pirate Ship
Tier 3: Distant Planet, Port Town
[Tiers are ordered in what I think should be the priority; Rudder camping on Pirate Ship is easily detectable and can be banned without much trouble]

For any tier you add to the "core" stages, one stage ban has to be added. I think it gives the TO the freedom to use stages he thinks are viable while also compromising with the players that disagree with him. Stage striking is done out of the entire legal stage list, no matter how many tiers you've added to the core stage selection.

I'm personally open to using certain custom stages in competitive although that's probably never going to happen.
[In addition to what I've posted above I'd also use a "3 minutes for each stock"-rule instead of dictating 3 stocks + 8 minutes as the arbitrary standard and I'd make re-match <+some modifications probably> instead of % in case of a time-out]

Edit @ above. Character locking is an idea worth thinking about. I think being able to CP stage AND character is too much and that only one or the other should be done but not both at the same time.

Imma gonna rob parts of this for Oktoberfest Reloaded. **** I meant to make that alternative ruleset for Raven like... two days ago. ****. I really have to do that...

Also, lol@complete lack of Brinstar. You really hate that stage, don't you. Also, I really think YI(M) is missing; the stage is not only totally playable (it's only really amazing for DDD against like 5 chars that he wrecks anyways, and Falco and Pika have weaknesses there), but it's also a really good counterpick against MK due to the effective lack of lower blastzones, low ceilings, semi-cave of life against horizontal attacks, and the like.

distant planet is a good stage, i know u all will just keep on screwing around saying it's unplayable without even thinking about it but it's good
though i wouldnt add it at our stage list

It never really got the chance it deserves.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

I don't hate Brinstar. The stage just happens to have absolutely no place in competitive play but that has nothing to do with my personal opinion.

 

[Laem]

@Tonie: Yeah that might work too!

But one thing is bad about this, we will very likely NEVER see stages like FD or DP/FO anymore, because they will be stroke away pretty much everytime, and therefore we could probably ban them right away, which is bad D:

I actually made a (for my standards) big *** post in the NL BR about this system and honestly it's great. Stage for every match is decided through mutual agreement (which is what stagestriking is to me anyway) and that sounds optimal to me. Characters are chosen b4 stage. No stage CP's (character CP remains), no stage bans, no DSR. Semi conservative stagelist to prevent MK abuse. Loser gets striking advantage. It works. Shed a tear if you consider stage CP'ing a fundemental part of competitive smash, though.

++ lol gheb, i dont like brinstar but it's not worse than port town LOL

 

[xDD-Master]

Stage for every match is decided through mutual agreement (which is what stagestriking is to me anyway) and that sounds optimal to me.

Mutual Agreement?
You mean, like, "SV?" "OK!" ?

Characters are chosen b4 stage.

Yeah I also think its better this way (http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=309419)

No stage CP's (character CP remains), no stage bans, no DSR.

I already explained why I dont like Stage Bans. (DSR is stupid because it gives different results depending on Bo3 or Bo5... either do ALL Bo3, or use a system that doesnt give different results in a Bo5/7)

Semi conservative stagelist to prevent MK abuse.

Stage List please

Loser gets striking advantage.

How? Explain the system to me ^^
Because I'm actually interested in it

It works. Shed a tear if you consider stage CP'ing a fundemental part of competitive smash, though.

Never said that.
But it would be kinda bad to see good stages never played on, just because they arent neutral :x
I agree that Characters >>>>>>>>> Stages, but that doesnt mean that we should only play on 3 Stages (BF/SV/PS1 for example)

 

[Marc]

You can strike with 10 stages, it just means one person gets one more strike. I would suggest having the person who strikes first also strike last regardless and give him the extra strike because he has a higher chance of striking something the opponent would. If that's unsatisfactory, PS2 or Brinstar is probably the most obvious stage to add. Gheb's tiered system is pretty close to the BBR's 3.1 recommendation in a way.

Either way I wanna see if the Brawl tier list can work out first.

 

[xDD-Master]

Either way I wanna see if the Brawl tier list can work out first.

It would make more sense to establish an european Ruleset first, so we can link that as our "base" for our discussions and our tier list.
You know... like the introduction: "Europe has a metagame and uses a different Ruleset (add link) which is why we decided to create a representative Tier List [...]"
I think you get my point.

 

[Marc]

Well, we already established that our rulesets aren't that drastically different. By that logic we would also have to wait a while till everyone gets used to the standard, which won't be much different from everyone's individual current standard anyway... provided we are even able to get a consensus. All in all I think we can safely make a tier list as is, though we could make it a point to assume the most common stage list (that's how the BBR does it too).

 

[xDD-Master]

Well, OK, thats true, most of the things are the same anyway, and PS2 doesnt make that much of a difference ^^"

 

[Orion*]

You can't die via the bottom blast zone on the 2nd stage because there is none. That's technically a change of physics - a influential one at that.

More on marc it's like a layout change

Delphino's water can also be interpreted as physic change...

True I can see this. It's never really been a big deal though, it's always resembled kind of an edge/offstage anyway in terms of positional advantage. It sucks to be there but whatever...

PS2 has air/belts that legitimately force you from neutral positions into gay situations

 

[-Jumpman-]

What's the problem atm? Just ban PS2, problem solved?

 

[teluoborg]

I like your idea gheb but you should add another tier made of brinstar and GG, because those stages are as omcpetitive as DP and PTAD (if not more).

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I like your idea gheb but you should add another tier made of brinstar and GG, because those stages are as omcpetitive as DP and PTAD (if not more).

Actually, PTAD is really good. IMO, it's the most underrated stage in brawl, from a purely objectively competitive standpoint. It's really not half as bad as most would claim.

 

[xDD-Master]

What's the problem atm? Just ban PS2, problem solved?

Hahaha u funny

@Orion: I think, the biggest "difference" in PS2 and Delfino physic changes is the fact, that Water is present on 4 Stages (Delfino, Pirate Ship, Summit and Japes iirc) while the other physic changes are only on PS2 (Air Transf.) or on PS2 & Summit (Ice).

I really wonder, if people would still argue that much about it, if the Air Transf. would happen on more stages... but we dont know... so idc, I can understand both sides as I already said

@Marc again (I forgot to reply to that):

You can strike with 10 stages, it just means one person gets one more strike. I would suggest having the person who strikes first also strike last regardless and give him the extra strike because he has a higher chance of striking something the opponent would. If that's unsatisfactory, PS2 or Brinstar is probably the most obvious stage to add. Gheb's tiered system is pretty close to the BBR's 3.1 recommendation in a way.

10 Stages is... well... as you already said, kinda unsatisfactory.

I tried it with a 111112222 System but got inconsistant results depending on which player is which one. (I wonder if that would happen too for our 5 starter system - never tried xD)
Maybe I did it poorly, maybe I just suck, idk. I would be willing to test this of course, as well as 11 Stages full striking (PS2 > Brinstar IMO).
Of course inconsistency depends a lot on players, and its more their faults, than the one of ruleset, even though its obv. that in an optimal world (Where everyone strikes at his best) a striking system with an even number of stages is unfair for the player that has less strikes.
But ofc we live in the real world anyway, were no one is perfect, so maybe it would work xD
We could as well, just strike a last stage (Dunno which one, probably FO), so we could do 9 Starter Full Stage Striking xD
But maybe we should just do 9 Starters and 1 CP (Hi FD u so polar).
Well just some unorganized ideas you can respond to if you want x)

 

[-Jumpman-]

I was serious, just ban PS2.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

More on marc it's like a layout change

Where do you draw the line between "layout" and "physics"? If you change the layout of a stage, you might change the physics in the process. If you add a ceiling onto a stage you've not only changed the layout of the stage but you've also changed the physic that causes you to die through the top.
The solid, consistent ground on the 2nd stage of Castle Siege is a layout change to most other stages yet it's also a physical change of gameplay as there's nowhere you can drop through during that part. Calling it a "change of layout" doesn't mean that it doesn't change the physics and mechanics as well and in case of Castle Siege there's not really a difference.

 

[Lord Chair]

Actually, PTAD is really good. IMO, it's the most underrated stage in brawl, from a purely objectively competitive standpoint. It's really not half as bad as most would claim.

It's probably half as bad as everyone claims it to be, and that still makes it really really really really bad.

 

[Yikarur]

removing "off-stage" cannot be considered a physic change. you don't alter physics at all.

Lylat could also consideres "semi-broken", it changes the physics of sweetspotting the ledge :D (and kills you in the process)

I'm for a 9 minute timer (3 minutes per stock)
This could also lead to custom stock events (1 Stock 3 minutes, 2 stock 3 minutes, we already have 1 stock 3 minutes in the tie-rematch)
As example doing Pools with 2 stocks to safe time (I don't like playing with custom stocks but this is still a good idea itself)
That way we have a fair base to determine the timer for these kind of "events". (I find 10 minutes way to arbitrary and the jump from 8 to 10 is way too much imo)

Brinstar should be banned with MK allowed. Brinstar is "borderline" without MK and "broken" with MK.
It destroys the whole counterpick system, Brinstar does not serve any purpose on a Stagelist with MK allowed because Brinstar will almost always be banned and and you can't counterpick Brinstar to force ordinary MUs because at least one of the participants will change to MK because he's the absolutely best choice there.
Brinstar should be allowed for MK Banned tourneys imo because outside of the the stage is really playable and I already played a lot of matches on that stages and there is really nothing really wrong with it beside of biased whine opinions.

PS2 should always be allowed, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that stage and I played this stage A LOT.
It's a fair and established counterpick here in germany and it would make no sense to ban this stage ever.


and Tier List is so unnecessary

 

[xDD-Master]

Brinstar is on the same level as PTAD if you ask me. Allow one, allow the other.

I can also say that I played a lot on PTAD, and it's totally fine. I played on pretty much every stage A LOT, to claim that they can be fit for competitive play.
I still think its a stupid stage just like brinstar.
And I dont think its an obvious ban, like temple for example, but its in the grey area like every stage outside of "the 10 stages" and the ultimatily obvious banned ones.

And of course you think PS2 is fine, when you played A LOT on it. Thats normal, adaption all day, thats exactly BPC kind of argumentation. And with that in mind, pretty much every grey area stage could be called "legit".

I agree on the "Thats a change of layout, not physic change", and that is what happens to CS/LC imo.
Physic Changes in brawl happen when "the fundamentals" get screwed around (Ice, Air, Water).
Therefore only PS2 and debatable Delfino are changing the physics.
But thats kinda subject of definition. So whatever, I'm pretty sure most people dont mean blastzone changes, when they talk about physic changes


As for the timer, I still dont see why you shouldnt be able to run 2 stocks 6 minutes even though you have 3 Stocks 10 Mins as standard xD
I can see, how this "makes more logic", but tbh, that doesnt matter at all, if we wanna create a standard, which is, what will be used, and the other potential options, wont be used, so we can ignore them.

Thats like you'd say we should include a rule for rudder camping, even though its banned, just in case the host decides to put it on the list...

 

[Lord Chair]

How is 3 minutes per stock less arbitrary than 3 minutes and 20 seconds?

PS2 is a 'fair and established counterpick in Germany', yet I have never seen it being played further in the bracket? In all honestly, I've never seen the stages being played at all. No, I don't watch all the matches, I only watch the ones between good players and they never seem to play on the stage, get@me.

 

[xDD-Master]

Yeah it gets played a lot on higher mid level, like the level of the guys below the PR guys, mostly.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

How is 3 minutes per stock less arbitrary than 3 minutes and 20 seconds?

I mean if you consider 3 stocks the only "real" way to play this game then it shouldn't matter to you but I am personally very open to using 1 or 2 stocks and then I'd like to have some consistency with the timer when I switch from a 1 stock event to a 3 stock event.

 

[Marc]

I do agree that 9 or 11 stages would be better for full stage list striking, but there are probably ways to strike with an even number that aren't that bad.

Also, I've been to two German tournaments and I'm pretty sure I only saw PS2 once in pools. I can't say I see Castle Siege that much more often, but I also can't help but wonder how much sleep people would lose over either.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Brinstar should be banned with MK allowed. Brinstar is "borderline" without MK and "broken" with MK.
It destroys the whole counterpick system, Brinstar does not serve any purpose on a Stagelist with MK banned because Brinstar will almost always be banned and and you can't counterpick Brinstar to force ordinary MUs because at least one of the participants will change to MK because he's the absolutely best choice there.
Brinstar should be allowed for MK Banned tourneys imo because outside of the the stage is really playable and I already played a lot of matches on that stages and there is really nothing really wrong with it beside of biased whine opinions.

PS2 should always be allowed, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that stage and I played this stage A LOT.
It's a fair and established counterpick here in germany and it would make no sense to ban this stage ever.

Such a good few paragraphs. Seriously.

Brinstar is on the same level as PTAD if you ask me. Allow one, allow the other.

I can also say that I played a lot on PTAD, and it's totally fine. I played on pretty much every stage A LOT, to claim that they can be fit for competitive play.
I still think its a stupid stage just like brinstar.

I loved this post until this last line. ;_;

And of course you think PS2 is fine, when you played A LOT on it. Thats normal, adaption all day, thats exactly BPC kind of argumentation. And with that in mind, pretty much every grey area stage could be called "legit".

Well... no. When you finish adapting to a stage like Brinstar, or RC, or Jungle Japes, it's still going to have issues: powerful counterpicking, random hazards, etc.
Adapt to PS2, and you suddenly have an almost dead-even stage with fairly unintrusive hazards. It's almost hilariously good.

Thats like you'd say we should include a rule for rudder camping, even though its banned, just in case the host decides to put it on the list...

Just FYI, rudder camping was kinda "fixed". If you jump on the mast, your opponent not only can no longer see where he is (making dying or surfacing, both terrible options, more likely), but he will also take bubble damage up to 150%. Not perfect, but it works AFAIK.

Also, for those wondering, PS2 doesn't see much play. It's a ****ty counterpick. a few obscure characters do slightly better than usual there, and they usually have better options anyways.

 

[Lord Chair]

What the point in overcomplicating the game by adding PS2 if it doesn't add anything from a competitive perspective >.>

No, other stages aren't comparable because they are actually viable counterpicks, lol.