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!
It appears that you are using ad block :'(
Hey, we get it. However this website is run by and for the community... and it needs ads in order to keep running.
Please disable your adblock on Smashboards, or go premium to hide all advertisements and this notice. Alternatively, this ad may have just failed to load. Woops!
wtf josh why are you arrogant
yeah you're better than peef that doesn't mean what you want is what should happen, he's running this tourney and he's making the rules. if you don't like it don't come.
just allow wobbling. It's really not a big deal.
no one in the midwest is gay enough to do it anyways
also dart, i can see peef taking you out very soon with that attitude you're holding
no hate or anything, but your mindset is often pretty skewed and it affects your gameplay.
i dont like the argument that you should be able to ban the moving stage and not have to play a moving stage
i think you need to use criteria to determine what makes a stage worthy of being legal and what makes a stage worthy of being banned, and apply it absolutely
yoshis and battlefield are even more similar than cruise and floats, and yet you cant ban both of those.
cruise and floats didnt cause most of the top spots at smym to be fox; they all probably only used those levels vs trail and he still got 3rd.
Yeah, I forgot to mention it, but yeah I'm fine with wobbling either way as long as it's on for both pools and brackets or off entirely.
As far as payouts go, I'll just leave some %'s and see what you like and what others think.
(for singles)
Top 4 Payout: 55%/30%/10%/5%
55%/25%/15%/5%
50%/25%/15%/10%
60%/25%/10%/5%
Top 6 Payout:
40%/25%/15%/10%/5%/5% 48%/24%/12%/8%/4%/4%
50%/25%/13%/8%/2%/2% (at 50 entrants, 2% would be money back)
50%/25%/13%/6%/3%/3%
50%/25%/12.5%/7.5%/2.5%/2.5%
About the stages: even if you can't ban all moving stages (because either you or your character(s) do worse on them), you're only stuck playing on 1 per set (if they CP it). If you're losing the random, you should come prepared with a secondary to use for CP's anyway.
The stage benefits primarially a certain few characters. Those are Fox, Falco, Falcon, and Puff in many circumstances (Chexr CPs Floats with his puff.) Mid tier characters are totally rocked by this stage. It is dumb, you can fall through any converging segment. Yoshis and Battlefield are somewhat similar, but serve totally different purposes. Hbox for example bans Yoshis and CP's Battlefield vs many characters. Know anyone who bans RC but CP's Floats?
What if grand finals match 5 was at pokefloats? Not at my tournament.
The purpose of stage banning is covering a character or player weakness. If there is another stage (RC) that intensifies the same weaknesses, the purpose of stage banning is lost.
I propose a generic thought experiment. Let's say there were two stages, Pokefloats and FloatsPoke. Pokefloats is exactly as we know it. In this experiment, Pokefloats was determined to be a legal but controversial CP. FloatsPoke is identical to Pokefloats, except it runs backwards. Each map is in essence the same, although because the maps run backwards, there are slightly different techniques, tricks, and so on. However, nobody in their right minds would expect both of these maps to be on a CP list with only one ban, because if you ban PokeFloats, the other person will just pick FloatsPoke, and the purpose of the ban was lost entirely. So BigD, I hope this is at least a somewhat convincing argument that obscure, moving CPs that benefit top-tier characters because of their obscure movement should be limited to one, solely because of their similarity. Even if two stages meet the same (in this case exact same) FRINGE legality qualifications, banning one of the stages is completely acceptable to preserve the institution of stage banning.
well the basis of keeping floats and cruise on is that they serve separate purposes and are both viable stages that tend to benefit certain characters. the same can be said of brinstar and mute city, except these two stages are much better for countering a different variety of characters. for example, a fox could counter a marth or a sheik on mute, but would never choose brinstar for the same matchup.
advocating more stages than the pound 4 set is just a slippery slope argument anyways. We might as well keep all the stages on like the original midwest stagelist, and continue losing to other regions because we can't CP them to gayneria or floatespoke or silencecity.
what if we had "generic floaty CP", and "generic spacy CP", where the stage could either be brinstar/mute city or floats/cruise. A ban of floaty CP means both mute and brinstar are banned, and a ban of spacy CP means both floats and cruise are banned. Not banning means the CPer can choose either stage.
The purpose of stage banning is covering a character or player weakness. If there is another stage (RC) that intensifies the same weaknesses, the purpose of stage banning is lost.
I propose a generic thought experiment. Let's say there were two stages, Pokefloats and FloatsPoke. Pokefloats is exactly as we know it. In this experiment, Pokefloats was determined to be a legal but controversial CP. FloatsPoke is identical to Pokefloats, except it runs backwards. Each map is in essence the same, although because the maps run backwards, there are slightly different techniques, tricks, and so on. However, nobody in their right minds would expect both of these maps to be on a CP list with only one ban, because if you ban PokeFloats, the other person will just pick FloatsPoke, and the purpose of the ban was lost entirely. So BigD, I hope this is at least a somewhat convincing argument that obscure, moving CPs that benefit top-tier characters because of their obscure movement should be limited to one, solely because of their similarity. Even if two stages meet the same (in this case exact same) FRINGE legality qualifications, banning one of the stages is completely acceptable to preserve the institution of stage banning.
against sveet and bzoo I do just that, I know I'm no big name or anything, but some people do realize the difference between the two.
And although both rainbow cruise and poke floats require a charachter with descent mobility, there are definitely some differences in what weaknesses they exploit. Like in RC, you have like 1/3 of the time where a laggy up b won't be as exploited, in pokefloats, laggy up Bs are always exploited, and this is why I would rather take a shiek to floats, or atleast part of the reason. And in RC, 1/3 of the time, exagerates the effectiveness of vertical speed, where pokefloats doesn't really exagerate the need for any particular type of speed, you just gotta be mobile.
And I get what your trying to say about floats poke, but that wouldn't be much different, where RC is quite different. I have had many people ban floats against me, cause they know I'll prolly take them there seeing me play others, but I don't take them to rainbow cruise, cause I'm just straight up not good on that map.
like its not my tourney, I just thought I'd give some input on what I feel, and I don't feel you should change your ruleset to how I feel, I trust you will do what you feel is fair, but do you think you could take a vote on either PF or RC if you do decide on only one of them?
Real(ly poorly constructed, but) simple argument against [Any stage, ever].
This (and every, counterpick) stage benefits a few characters over others. Those are: [Character 1], [Character 2], [Character 3], and to a lesser extent, [Character 4]. In-region [Player X] CP's [this stage] with his [Character 4], so I mentioned him and his character, even though it's usually considered a poor stage for [Character 4]. Mid tier characters are totally rocked by this stage (because they are mid tier and would be expected to do worse regardless, but other than that, I really don't have any basis to make this claim). It is dumb, you can fall through any converging segment (trust me,itnever happensanywhere else). It's not like it's only limited to one character ([Character 1]) on one platform (Seel), where it's simple enough to: slow down, cross the platform above, or jump over the problem. Back to complaining: "relatively balanced" [Stage 1] and [Stage 2] are somewhat similar, but serve totally different purposes. For example, nationally-known [Player Y] bans [Stage 1], yet CP's [Stage 2] vs many characters. There's no way that [Stage 1] could be less advantageous for [Player Y]'s [character] in any way, shape, or form. It's not like [Stage 1] has a wall that can aid recovery (wall jumps, pros only) or that it has a platform that moves on a set path that could potentially interfere with an otherwise successful edgeguard. I'm also positive that [Stage 2] could not have a higher ceiling and wider blast zones which would benefit [Player Y]'s [character]'s survival, while hurting other characters' chances due to their less reliable recoveries (I'm very positive of this). Do you know anyone who bans "less balanced" [Stage 3] but instead CP's the "less balanced" [Stage 4]? I don't.
What if grand finals match 5 was at [Stage 4]? In terms of stage legality, would the significance of the match change how I should perceive it? Since that wasn't a rhetorical question, I'll answer it for you: yes, it entirely would. Thus, I would never permit that stage at my tournament, because that would be silly.
The purpose of stage banning is covering either a character's or player's weakness. If there is another stage (#3) that covers the same weaknesses, the purpose of stage banning is lost. Stage banning should not be used to remove your single least-preferred stage, it should remove every stage that creates a disadvantage for my character(s). It's not like we will only have to play on "less fair" stages once a set or anything like that, amirite? There's also no way that we would have already proven we can beat our opponent on a stage that is either considered "more fair" or a stage of our choice by this point. I would also never believe that some characters are not as proficient on every stage in the game as the high tiers. Recovery or being forced to approach occasionally as a character's flaw? I laugh at the concept. Why would anyone bother learning another character to make up for a notable matchup or stage weakness?
I propose a generic thought experiment. Let's say there were two stages, [Stage 1] and [1 Stage]. [Stage 1] is exactly as we know it. In this experiment, [Stage 1] was determined to be a legal, but controversial CP. [1 Stage] is identical to [Stage 1], except it runs backwards. Each map is in essence the same, although because the maps run backwards, there are slightly different techniques, tricks, and so on. However, nobody in their right minds would expect both of these maps to be on a CP list with only one ban, because if you ban [Stage 1], the other person will just pick [1 Stage], and the purpose of the ban was lost entirely. Despite both stages in this experiment having already been considered legal (but somewhat controversial, remember?), we should ban both! This would result in no player ever playing on a stage that would benefit their opponent's character more than their own. So, [Reader of this post], I hope this is at least a somewhat convincing argument that previously common, moving CP's that benefit top/high tier characters because of their set, looping movement (which is thus totally unpredictable) should be limited to only one, solely because of their similarity to another legal stage. Remember, there's no reason to assume that a character's tier placement is a result of its universal strengths (that's another laughable thought). Even if two stages meet the same "fringe" legality qualifications, banning one of the stages is completely acceptable to preserve the institution of stage banning, if for no other reason. In this case, they are somewhat similar but reversed stages, aka totally the same. Actually, now that I think of it, banning both stages, along with any other similar stage, sounds like a great idea, too.
(the above was a goofy waste of 10 minutes, imo)
Honestly, the point I was trying to prove was that it's ridiculous to ever assume that we should ban a stage because some characters are better than others. It's also a poor decision to ban one stage because it fills the role of another. If we did, shouldn't we also ban any similar stages that give an advantage to a certain character? This imbalance (toward some characters over others) happens on every stage (including the ones that are perceived to be the most balanced: Battlefield, Dreamland 64, Final Destination, Fountain of Dreams, Kongo Jungle 64, Pokémon Stadium, & Yoshi's Story). If the stage isn't so harshly favoring a small group of characters that choosing outside of that group should result in a loss a significant majority of the time, it's probably not detrimental to tournament play. Then again, if you truly think that only Fox, Falco, Falcon, & Jigglypuff can compete there, I could better understand why you would keep it banned.
Regardless of your opinion on who can compete on what stage, it's your own tournament and your own set of rules. Sorry if the post sounds a bit harsh at times, but somebody had to point out that some of the justifications are silly.
OK, because I don't have mod pr0ns, I can't make polls, so just choose from these 2 options, and give a reason. You can copy paste someone elses reason if you want. Just add onto the tally at the bottom.
for the record, i couldnt care less if floats was on, i just think that looking at character benefits as a basis for banning stages is a flawed system, as it is based mainly on the fact that good characters are really good. mute city turns peach, who, according to many peach players, cant win on the neutrals, into a really good character. that is a pretty tangible demonstration of why that level does not represent the gameplay we have accepted as tournament viable.
i understand the ban argument, but i dont think that is how levels should be chosen. if you dont want to play on one and think that you should be able to ban the moving level and not have to play on it, then i should be able to ban fountain of dreams and yoshi's story vs sheik. i dont want to play on a small, cramped level, so i shouldnt have to. if i ban story, they take me to FoD, if i ban FoD, they take me to story. same idea.
if we're only gonna have 9 stages, we might as well strike with all of them. that would be cool.
i know right? the point of differentiating between neutrals and cp's was that you shouldnt have to worry about unexpectedly getting a lame level, but now everything is completely in our control with stage striking. if a level is good enough to be chosen and played on, then its good enough to be chosen and played on for the first match.
also the mbr has a bunch of people in it that really shouldnt be in it so it doesnt matter what they say at all
DO EEEETT PEEF. Big D sums it up perfectly, stage striking eliminates the need for a "Counter-Pick" Set of stages. you have 1/2 the influence on what stage is played first. striking 3-5 extra stages wont take more than 2 minutes tops and that will only be in high-pressure matches.
i dont think it will take much more time, if anything in 90% of the sets people will just strike all the counterpicks right off the bat and it wont add more than a couple seconds
wtf is going on in this thread? don't listen to big D, he'll convince you to play on any stage and sell you a dead baby at the same time. that dude is comfortable on EVERY stage. and matt takes this game seriously as tink after 10 blunts
if you really want to include DK64 in the strikes then whatever. screw floats, keep cruise
i'd prefer that too honestly, but at the same time its tough because i dont think brinstar and cruise are much worse than dk64. the only reason theyre seen as worse is because space animal players freak out when they take 25% bouncing off lava and dont realize theyre impossible to catch on dk64
ray chun, im not saying that i want these stages to be legal because i want to play on them. i just think that floats is no less fair than cruise, so banning one and not the other opens up a precedent that we let specific matchups determine what makes stages viable
i'd prefer that too honestly, but at the same time its tough because i dont think brinstar and cruise are much worse than dk64. the only reason theyre seen as worse is because space animal players freak out when they take 25% bouncing off lava and dont realize theyre impossible to catch on dk64
Yeah i def agree. dk64 is pretty lopsided towards spacies, i think that or stadium is their best stage if you only use 7 stages. marth gets pretty disadvantaged against spacies on kj64 because its alot harder to edgeguard them, and the moving platforms mess up follow ups. and, as you mentioned, that they can just run away the whole time.
Another good point is that spacies can shine stall for along time on brinstar and floats/cruise. Big d you showed me that in tournament at jab 0 when i took you to floats haha
actually 5150 and i ran i think huge johnz 2 with only 6 stages, 3 neutrals and 3 cp's with no bans
jiano and tink were the best players there, and jiano beat tink in winners but then lost 2 sets in grand finals. this is what happened to jiano at like 50 tournaments that year, so turns out the stages didnt affect results at all
also for the record chill out about stages. its not the biggest deal. Someone said "and the mw continues to lose to toehr regions" talking about stages.
ROFLL the mw loses cuz we dont play on ANY stages, aka we don't play enough. there arent as many tournies to get a lot of diversity in your game and we are just generally spread further apart. I've said it before i'll say it a thousand times...
om nom nom nom. troll hungry.
