Pokemon Stadium 2: Full Analysis, Gameplay Implications, and a really fair stage

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Electric has a quite a few platforms as well.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

*cracks knuckles, cranks up "Rain of a Thousand Flames"*

Finally, some discussion on a topic I can succinctly destroy people on! Let's get to work.

There really isn't anything wrong with PS2, folks.

It just doesn't bring anything new to the table that doesn't help characters who don't need the help.

Citation needed. Which top tiers actually like this stage? You presented the assertion, now present actual evidence, or at least good theorycraft. Also, refer to TBlock's post.

And yes, the steg list is used to balance characters, or Temple / Pork City wouldn't be banned. Let's be serious.

You mean like how we only have the stages that most of A tier enjoys legal? You mean how the best stages that could be legal for characters like Pikachu, G&W, or DK are banned, while the best stages that could be legal for MK aren't?

The fact of the matter is, you're flat-out wrong. The stagelist never has been and never should be used to balance the game out. What you're referring to is the removal of broken tactics and strategies. You know, like every game will do when presented with one. Temple enables circle camping, so it is banned. Eldin enables walkoff camping, so it's banned. Et cetera. This shows on basically every stage that has ever been banned; the question on the "questionable" ones is "is this broken".

But beyond that point, even if you are right, the only characters that the stage really seems to help are low tiers. TBlock mentioned two; sonic is supposedly very good on the stage as well. Whereas most of top tier does about as well here as they do on most average stages.

<legit info >

<great data>

<3 you T-block. Smart people ahoy!

Let's rock !

...I retract that previous statement.

I don't see why I should give reasons to this kind of arguments when you don't bring data to support your claims. All you have is inputs of people saying "PS2 should be starter" or "PS2 is neutral".
How is that different from the bazillion people saying the contrary ?

They actually tested it. As in, they had PS2 legal at their tournaments, tested it, found it to be immensely balanced, applied a functional theory of starter stage selection (this is the breaking point where most people fail, by the way–they don't understand the theory behind what makes a stage a starter).

*sigh* I feel the need to go off on a slight tangent here.
[collapse=slight, relevant tangent]You'll notice a common theme in most of these discussions, one that I find quite telling.
When speaking about stages that are borderline banned, most people who oppose the stage belong to regions who either banned the stage in 2008/early 2009 for ridiculous reasons (example: morons johned about not being able to avoid the cars on PTAD, or jigglypuff's planking on Norfair, and their TO agreed with them), or never tried it in the first place. Most of the support comes from people who decided to learn the stage, who still play on it regularly, and have not found issue with it. They are the people who learned how to beat stalling tactics on Norfair, learned how to avoid the cars (or memorize them) on PTAD, and learned how to beat MK's tornado spam on Luigi's Mansion.
When talking about making a stage a starter or not, most of the opposition comes from people who either have flat-out banned the stage (hello Alex Strife, how does it feel to know that the most influential brawl TO in the world is very wrong about PS2 and additionally holds a very scrubby philosophy regarding stages? And that that person is you?), or haven't considered what makes a starter stage a starter stage, and keep using the same old boring rhetoric, "being static makes a stage neutral/starter material", when it really doesn't (again, read the article).

It really is kind of like the evolution debate–most opposition either has no idea what they are talking about or are intentionally dishonest to serve their own interests (people who want to get conservative stagelists because they don't like MK, or because they just don't like moving stages). The comparison is stunningly accurate.[/collapse]

Quite simply, I'm going with the input of the educated few who spent time playtesting the stage above the uneducated masses who have no idea what they are talking about, for the most part. That's usually how science works, and science seems to do wonders for our modern world.

Again, the only data you provide is your own input of your own point of view, talk about objectivity.

Yes, because logical reasoning and actual playtesting never counted against swaths of theorycraft. Look, remember how people kept on accusing me of "theorycrafting"? Well, now it's your turn. I have the data, the vids, the articles with the logic, the evidence. You have... ****ty theorycrafting and appeals to popularity on an issue where the general populace is incredibly undereducated.

Now you think you're Charles Darwin. OK.

It'd be an accurate comparison if "Discovering the correct ruleset for a video game" was as important as "laying the basic stones for virtually all modern biology and most modern medicine".

It's not about the amount of work you provide, it's about how it's done.

Let's see here... How would you go about doing it?
I've:

• Provided a conclusive and so far unrefuted theory for how to determine the competitive value of a game/ruleset, and therefore a metric to measure the BEST ruleset
• Spoken to the very few TOs who actually took this stage seriously and got their testimony that yes, the stage is amazingly balanced, along with gameplay videos.
• Created a logical explanation for the starter list and why this stage belongs on it, backed it up and defended it on the public forum

You've:

• Said "not good enough"
• Ignored my articles
• Appealed to the fact that a majority of the populace do not like this (faulty view, generally fallacious debate tactic, not competitive)
• Offered no actual refutation to my points!

Damn, if I'm Darwin, you're Hovind or Behe!

Right now all you have is your capacity to convince people they are wrong because all your OP and responses and blog and whatever are built on nothing but your beliefs.
No data = no objectivity = no credibility.

Let's see here... I have data. I have logical backing. I have testimony from TOs who have actually looked into the subject. Yet, no credibility. You want to talk credibility? All right, fine. Why should PS2 not be on the starter list?

There's a thing that you don't understand about this community : people are a lot less dumb than you make it look like.

...At least, than they make themselves look on the forums. I've spoken with people (for example Lord Chair) who, judging from their appearance on the forum, appeared online to be mongoloid ****** trolls (And I still love you anyways. HYPED for DS?), but offline were really cool, and very smart as it turns out.
But I'm not making them out to be idiots. When I decry that someone (say, Jebus) is a moron, then it's because their posts made it out to be factual. When I declare someone to be a scrub (ccst or xzx on AiB) then it's because their posts have shown that it's the case.

A lot of people would like to have data under their eyes and make the decision by themselves, but all you have to offer is a weak "after a lot of test it's ok, everyone that says it isn't is a scrub.".

Well, let's see here... What are the problems with this part of the post?

• Most players do not know how PS2 WORKS. Some still believe ridiculous crap like that G&W's uair is a OHKO on everyone on air; that's ridiculously conditional and still only works on the floatiest, lightest chars
• Most players do not understand what makes a stage a good starter. These are the same players who argue things like a 3-stage starter list, or claim that I'm advocating Brinstar/RC as starters (I'm not)
• We're talking about entire regions testing the stage as a starter, having no trouble, and CONFIRMING what theorycraft already suggested, that being that PS2 is ridiculously well-balanced.
• Most players are not even willing to look at the stage seriously. It's almost never taken as a counterpick (because, you know, it's really balanced), so actually collecting data like this is borderline impossible unless the TO sets it as a starter.

Essentially, I've brought literally all the evidence that my position enables me to bring (it's been fairly conclusive), and enough theorycraft to help. Most of the opposition to this stage being a starter comes from people who don't understand why stages should be starters in the first place. So now it's your turn. Why should this stage not be a starter?

I am NOT talking out of my ***, and I don't know how much more often I have to say this ****.

TL;DR
CP : yes.
Starter : bring data if you want people to ever consider it.

Done. Now can Alex please stop shooting reasonable rulesets in the foot here?

BPC tries to listen to people, sometimes.

BPC doesn't do this, imo. He's forceful of his opinion, but he's not ignorant of everything and everyone around him.

Sometimes? I do listen. I'll hear the other side of the argument. I will admit that I'm wrong. I just happen to have the quality of being very, very rarely wrong when I put the effort into something like this! I think my **** through!

I'm gonna spare BPC a fit of frothing at the mouth by telling you to

<3
...But I did it anyways. And with fairly little spittle.

MK does belong in the 2nd List. Its pretty awkward trying to use glide as a dive attack. It belongs under limited mobility. Ofcourse MK won't ever be the worst in any situation, but he doesn't really excel well on this stage. Other characters with faster more controlled ways to dive will do better at fighting here as opposed to just avoiding the juggle.

I'm with tesh on this one. Getting grounded as MK is very, very awkward. Trust me-I counterpick this stage in Bo3 sets. I've been looking into it. It'll work if your opponent is very slow, but against someone like Snake or Wario? Good luck.

Snake and Falco are pretty much hopeless here if they wind up leaving the ground (and part of falco's gameplan is leaving the ground over and over).

Disagree with snake. Snake has so many projectiles to throw at the opponent, it's flat-out ridiculous. He's bad, but definitely not hopeless. Plus, he's absolutely amazing at staying grounded, remember?.

The only problems I see with it is the fact that every time the stage transforms there's a 3/4 chance of a generally stally 50-100 seconds on air, electric, or ground transformation. Now stalling may not be the only take on all of these transformations, but it is definitely the safest and most reliable route to take on most of them.

...No? 30-40 seconds. Check your data.

You control the center of electricity and your opponent is on the ledge. Your opponent is at a greatly disadvantaged position no matter what they do. If they stay on the ledge they put themselves in a position where you can force their ledge grab count up to merit a DQ.

Nope. You can hang around on the ledge for quite a while without racking up ledge grabs. If your opponent runs out to try and hit you, he puts himself in a dangerous position. If he doesn't, then you can usually get back on stage and either get on the platform on the left side, or get around the top of the stage (yes, every top tier can do this fairly safely) to get to it. And at that point he has to approach you to get at you.

In theory, it's a strong position. In practice, it's not half as good as you make it out to be. Really.

If they try to do ledge attacks>aerials like shaya said, well all you're trying to do is force ledge grabs anyways, so its not like they have any choice but to react to your Dtilt above them. And considering most characters can simply roll backwards after forcing the ledge release your opponent is really left optionless unless they want to attempt an approach against an opponent who is protected by, and I quote: " strong defensive positions for both players, in which regaining a lead is simply not feasible against a strong and smart camper." BPC, unless your opinion has shockingly changed about this, then you can't argue that approaching from the ledge is a good idea at all.

It has, if only slightly (your opponent falling offstage all the time really helps you get back on the ledge). But your theory of forcing the opponent to rack up ledgegrabs to go for the DQ is really bad theorycraft, that's the issue.

TL;DR: Electric transformation is a stage that encourages unpunishable camping and abuse of the LGL for 50-100 seconds per match.

Try 30-40 or 60-80, depending on repetition, if one player is forced into a bad position.

Now for the air transformation...
Well if you're trying to approach you're basically trying to get your opponent into the air so you can punish them hard. But it works both ways. If you get hit into the air what are you gonna do? Aggressively attempt to get back to the stage with Dairs or stall-fall aerials? Most likely not since your opponent has the advantage of being below you where their tilts and aerials can easily out-range your options in most cases. No, a much more reliable method of getting back onto the stage would be simply air camping until the stage switches back or move to the ledge and camp the entire 50-100 seconds. Is there any reason to put yourself in a position where you might get wind gayed? If you feel approaching is a better option because there's high risk-high reward going on then by all means approach. I'm just putting out my opinion on the stage, and I don't expect anyone to strictly adhere to my beliefs.

TL;DR: Approaching is possible, but is a high risk-high reward situation and simple camping is a more reliable strategy.

Again, theorycraft. This is simply not how it works, normally. Approaching on the segment is hard, but you can do it. Assuming your opponent is the kind of character like Fox who can basically spend the whole transformation above the upper blastzone, then yes, he can stall out the transformation. But afterwards, he's still above you... And stalling it out from the ledge is doubly hard, because you're so damn floaty.

And ground transformation arguably suffers from the same problems as PS1 fire transformation, but to a lesser extent. Regardless, approaching an opponent on the side of the wall sets you up to get shut down since spacing yourself the right distance from the wall can completely shut down your opponent's ability to move out of the way of your juggling. The platforms aren't a problem since they actually give you more options while approaching. I'd say camping is a better option on ground than approaching, but both are viable options imo. But in case you're at high percent or can't afford the momentum loss that a failed approach can net you...

"Lesser" is a slight understatement. Claiming that approaching is hard here? Yeah, you can have that. Claiming that it's nigh-impossible (on fire, if you approach, you will get ***** every single time? Not so much. And again, it's either around 35, or around 65-70.

Up until this point, the post has consisted mostly on information drawn from false conclusions, so before I turn on my "Ooh, now you've done it" mode, I'll just enlighten you a little bit.

The "high end" value of 60-80 seconds comes from the fact that over the course of the match, the stage has 6 transformations total, and goes through 2 different ones twice. So while the camping on Electricity or Ground may take up 30 seconds total of the match, in a different match it could take up closer to 60-70. (I do not have exact second values for the transformations). AFAIK, they last between 30 and 40 seconds.
So let's do a little math... Assuming the low end (mostly because in getting to 40 I counted large portions of the transformation animation), you have:
-30 seconds of electricity
-30 seconds of air
-30 seconds of ground
-30 seconds of ice
-30 more seconds of one of the above four
-30 more seconds of one of the above four not chosen by the last one.

Assuming the worst case scenario (double electricity, double ground), and assuming that approaching on ground, air and electricity really is as impossible as you claim, you have 2:30. Absolute maximum: 3:00 assuming that the camping is really so unbeatable and that it's 40 instead of 30 seconds.

Before you say, "holy **** that's almost half the match", consider the following:

• That's the absolute maximum. As in, **** rounded up heavily, assuming that you cannot approach on certain segments, AND presuming that you don't get Ice twice. Using a more reasonable estimate, you get closer to 2:00 or so of debatably unbeatable camping. Whoops.
  
  Now on to the part of the post that makes my blood boil, the "personal attacks hour".
  
  

  "I really suggest that you stop acting like you care about more than your own personal bias."
  
  ^^^Pretty much sums up how I feel about all this. imo this thread doesn't need to exist since PS2 is legal anyways. I think BPC just wants to prove he's better than all the "scrubs" he sees on SWF by making a big counter-argument thread against them. :/

  First off, right off the bat, what does this even have to do with the argument? Does the term "Ad Hominem" mean anything to you? It's a completely pointless piece of crap intended to make me look like some form of lifeless troll. And you know what? Even if it were accurate, it would not matter for a single instant. Why? Because it's not attacking my arguments at all. It's simply a personal attack against me.
  
  Now, the courtesy period over, my opinion to that opinion?
  
  100% pure steaming bull****.
  
  I'll be honest-I have a bias. But it's not towards PS2. I enjoy playing on PS2, but I wouldn't stake my reputation on it because it's not the end of the world. No, my bias is towards PTAD, Norfair, Green Greens, and (if APEX is any sign of a trend) Brinstar. I ****ing LOVE playing on PTAD, Green Greens, and Norfair. They are three of my favorite stages. Brinstar is probably my character's best stage. But PTAD will never see play again. Never mind that it's a completely legitimate competitive stage with no overcentralizing tactics, and was pretty much banned out of hand by scrubby players who refused to deal with the cars. It will not see play until the Brawl community overthrows this mentality of "The ruleset is whatever the hell I want it to be, screw what the most competitive option is!" and outgrows its pure, unadulterated, selfish scrubby urges. My bias is against those who consider stages a detractor from what this game is "actually about". My bias is against the douchebags who ensured that my favorite stages literally all got banned. And you know what? If acting on your personal bias to make brawl a better competitive game makes you a bad person, then I'm a bad person. **** it.
  
  PS2 is not legal everywhere, or even a majority of places. APEX still bans it, for one, as do most AN tournaments. It belongs solidly in the starter list next to Battlefield and Smashville for every tournament.
  
  And I don't have to prove that I'm better than the scrubs. That's not worthwhile at all. An ego boost like that is not worth my time. What I'm after is being right. That's what I care about. I care about going against the public opinion with brutal facts and logic and showing others that I am right.
  
  ...A worthless pursuit, I know, but hey-if Catharsis was good enough for Goethe, Schiller, and the entire enlightenment, then it's good enough for me.

 

[!!!RM!!!]

I didn't mean to **** with you so don't hate me.<3 I just really hate the unwillingness to listen to others' opinions going on here is all. Say someone is wrong, hell, say they have no idea what they're talking about. They're still part of the community and are entitled to their opinion. Not everyone sees the same competitive potential in a stage despite facts or statistics about it. Providing even perfect, unarguable evidence that a stage should be a neutral doesn't mean everyone has to follow you. If it is absolutely true then they have to believe it, but they don't have to follow it. Everyone has their own preference of stages and whether or not they think certain stages will actually improve the metagame as a neutral.

Not everyone who disagrees with you is a scrub either. Everyone just has different opinions is all. Everyone can solidly argue their beliefs as much as they want, but it doesn't mean they are necessarily the best options out of the sea of opinions in the world.

BPC, what is it you see in a Neutral PS2 that improves the metagame enough to fight so hard for it?

I just want to see why you feel PS2 improves the metagame more as a Neutral over a Counterpick.

 

[Tesh]

I don't think PS2 is " neutral" but I also don't think PS1 or FD or BF or YI are neutral. I feel like we need a bigger starter list to strike from (7 or 9). I think it favors ground characters to a certain extent. Considering it gives you actual warning time before transformations, a character like Snake, Olimar or Falco could take control of the middle during electric phase and be tough to dethrone (though if you just ledge camp, they can't really approach you without falling offstage.

Air can be pretty awkward for aerial characters without great vertical and horizontal mobility and ground characters can still set up shop and juggle for the advantage with their normal gameplans.

Ground isn't a major campfest like PS1 because the wall isn't as tall, characters with arcing projectiles can camp one side and get a bit of free pressure from a safe position. The shape of the wall actually makes some wall related issues less of an issue when the occur.

Ice I feel favors grounded characters that understand their ice options. Being able to to do retreating jabs, tilts, smashes and specials is pretty useful in the same way aerial character retain some mobility during their endlag. Sliding shield is GREAT if you do it right.


For people that think its not worth it because MK isn't horrible here, he won't suddenly lose to everyone just because of a stage. If you look at all the things he excels at, there isn't a stage in the game that will hard counter him without hard countering everyone else worse.

I think PS2 is a decent starter though. I definitely wouldn't strike it on any starter list against any character. And I mean while playing as any character against any character. And I can't even say that about Smashville.

I'm glad its legal, but I don't think thats the right place for it really. Its never going to see much play because its not really that good or that bad for anyone. I wouldn't mind going there for game 1, but I could do better for a cp and my opponent could do better for a cp when it comes down to it.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I didn't mean to **** with you so don't hate me.<3 I just really hate the unwillingness to listen to others' opinions going on here is all. Say someone is wrong, hell, say they have no idea what they're talking about. They're still part of the community and are entitled to their opinion. Not everyone sees the same competitive potential in a stage despite facts or statistics about it. Providing even perfect, unarguable evidence that a stage should be a neutral doesn't mean everyone has to follow you. If it is absolutely true then they have to believe it, but they don't have to follow it. Everyone has their own preference of stages and whether or not they think certain stages will actually improve the metagame as a neutral.

Not everyone who disagrees with you is a scrub either. Everyone just has different opinions is all. Everyone can solidly argue their beliefs as much as they want, but it doesn't mean they are necessarily the best options out of the sea of opinions in the world.

BPC, what is it you see in a Neutral PS2 that improves the metagame enough to fight so hard for it?

I just want to see why you feel PS2 improves the metagame more as a Neutral over a Counterpick.

It represents what a neutral should be–****ing neutral.

 

[fkacyan]

BPC,

Why would I contribute solid theorycraft to back up my **** when there is absolutely no reason to?

Nothing will happen regardless. I don't care if people think I'm right, and nobody important bases decisions on this thread, or will.

I have more enjoyable, rewarding things to invest my time in.

 

[-LzR-]

"Not caring", the most used, most pathetic excuse for giving up an argument you clearly cannot win.

 

[fkacyan]

"Not caring", the most used, most pathetic excuse for giving up an argument you clearly cannot win.

Are you trying to goad me? That's not going to work.

There's no point in proving a stone wall wrong if he's not going to listen and nobody else will either. It's a complete and utter waste of time and effort spent on my part when I could be doing something more enjoyable and rewarding.

Maybe you'd like to view it as you put it. OK, great. The opinion of somebody on Smashboards doesn't really matter that much.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

"Not going to listen"? Give me a break. There's a difference between not listening to someone and refuting all of their points. Thio, you're choosing the coward's way out, and I applaud you for being such a douchebag. It means I don't have to deal with you any more.

 

[Dre89]

BPC can I ask what argument against your opinion would not invoke an avalanche of insults from you?

If there isn't an argument that you would take nicely to, then you're just narrow-minded.

And competitive is subjective. The competitive ruleset is not the way the game is played without alterations (items etc.), it is an arbitrary alteration.

The competitive rules could have been to play stamina mode, lower gravity, giant mode in Melee, etc. it just so happens that of all the possibilities, no-items 3 stock was favoured.

I find it funny you compare your opposition's knowledge to that of a Biblical fundamentalist on evolution theory, and you constantly refer to religion, yet your knowledge of religion itself is literally on that level. I remember that debate last year where you actually thought the Christian God was a guy in the coulds with a beard. That is the equivalent of thinking that Ganondorf is a high tier character, so you're not in a position to take the aggressive attitude that you do.

The game is played for fun, it's played competitively in as far as it makes it more fun. When you get to the point where you're sacrificing fun (it appears many people don't want this stage legal due to that reason) for competitiveness, not only are your priorities mixed up, but you're taking a video game too seriously.

You seem to assume that you're entitled to have the right to change the way people want to play. You don't. People can play however they want. It's not as if you paid a fee to play the game, and signed a contract which said the game was to be played the way you want it to be. You don't have to play. People have heard your opinion and don't want to change the way they play.

Your attitude is the equivalent of me joining a pre-established group of casual park footballers, and forcing them to change the way they've always played to suit my idea of cometitiveness.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Are you trying to goad me? That's not going to work.

There's no point in proving a stone wall wrong if he's not going to listen and nobody else will either. It's a complete and utter waste of time and effort spent on my part when I could be doing something more enjoyable and rewarding.

Maybe you'd like to view it as you put it. OK, great. The opinion of somebody on Smashboards doesn't really matter that much.

I generally work toward staying on people's good sides so I can talk to them better if a problem occurs.

There are exceptions of course where the person is just so off putting I don't care to put any effort towards it. Thank fully no one here is like that.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

BPC can I ask what argument against your opinion would not invoke an avalanche of insults from you?

One that is correct. Or at the very least, one that I haven't had to refute over and over and over again (see also: my response to !!!RM!!! which was a perfectly civil refutation).

If there isn't an argument that you would take nicely to, then you're just narrow-minded.

No, I'm sick of repeating myself. Believe it or not, there is a difference. I'm sick and tired of responding to every idiot who brings up an argument that has been mentioned god knows how many times, and I do it anyways, hoping that in the future people will see that and learn. But they don't. They never do. Case in point:

And competitive is subjective.

I think this earns me at least one solid block of "**** yous" towards you, right? It damn well is not and it's time for people to stop making that claim! I keep on asserting this with the help of my logical thesis, and people keep on ignoring me and claiming something which is flat-out false.

Let me make it very, very clear.


COMPETITION IS NOT SUBJECTIVE.

[collapse=what I really wanted to say:]
COMPETITION IS NOT ****ING SUBJECTIVE YOU MORONS, HOW MANY MORE TIMES DO I ****ING HAVE TO SAY IT?[/collapse]

The competitive ruleset is not the way the game is played without alterations (items etc.), it is an arbitrary alteration.

It also, for the most part, can be judged in said alterations.

The competitive rules could have been to play stamina mode, lower gravity, giant mode in Melee, etc. it just so happens that of all the possibilities, no-items 3 stock was favoured.

It just so happens that between these modes, it was not ****ing arbitrary. People were looking in to this. Originally, people played time.

I find it funny you compare your opposition's knowledge to that of a Biblical fundamentalist on evolution theory, and you constantly refer to religion, yet your knowledge of religion itself is literally on that level. I remember that debate last year where you actually thought the Christian God was a guy in the coulds with a beard. That is the equivalent of thinking that Ganondorf is a high tier character, so you're not in a position to take the aggressive attitude that you do.

In that argument. I've picked up quite a bit since then, but how is that relevant at all? Fine, you could just as easily compare it to my knowledge of the history of the christian doctrines circa 2 years ago. It's still a valid comparison. Essentially what I'm saying when I point that out is that, what a coincidence, the people advocating the stages being legal know way more about them than the people advocating their banning! That's the point. This entire paragraph is pointless.

The game is played for fun, it's played competitively in as far as it makes it more fun. When you get to the point where you're sacrificing fun (it appears many people don't want this stage legal due to that reason) for competitiveness, not only are your priorities mixed up, but you're taking a video game too seriously.

I'm sorry, but when several thousand dollars are on the line (MLG, APEX, pretty much any major national), then this sentence is hard to take seriously. Sure, for ****ty local tournaments with 20 people and a casual environment, this logic is spot-on. For major tournaments with 150+ people and massive cash prizes for the winners? Just to put this in perspective for a moment. MLG Dallas gave Gnes $12,500. That's what, 4-6 months of minimum wage labor in the states?

You seem to assume that you're entitled to have the right to change the way people want to play. You don't. People can play however they want. It's not as if you paid a fee to play the game, and signed a contract which said the game was to be played the way you want it to be. You don't have to play. People have heard your opinion and don't want to change the way they play.

Funny that you mention it, you actually do have to sign up via a contract in many high-level tournaments. And again, not a good argument.

Your attitude is the equivalent of me joining a pre-established group of casual park footballers, and forcing them to change the way they've always played to suit my idea of cometitiveness.

No, mine is like pointing out that the honor system is a lousy idea in the NFL.

 

[fkacyan]

"Not going to listen"? Give me a break. There's a difference between not listening to someone and refuting all of their points. Thio, you're choosing the coward's way out, and I applaud you for being such a douchebag. It means I don't have to deal with you any more.

I'm not necessarily referring to you, my friend.

Let's say I convince you I'm right, somehow.

Then what?

What does that change?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I'm convinced, one more person stops being blatantly wrong.

However, you're not even thinking about the possibility that you are wrong. You're not looking at this with an open mind. If I am wrong, then I will admit it and change my stance to converge with reality. I'm aiming for a paradigm shift here, in case you haven't noticed.

 

[Tesh]

I'm not necessarily referring to you, my friend.

Let's say I convince you I'm right, somehow.

Then what?

What does that change?

I don't get why you refuse you support your claims based on the idea that posting here is a waste of time because no one important will read it or care. You are still wasting as much time constantly responding to BPC. Why not just toss in you POV and be done with it? Its not like anyone would put in more work insulting you than BPC has.

 

[fkacyan]

I don't get why you refuse you support your claims based on the idea that posting here is a waste of time because no one important will read it or care. You are still wasting as much time constantly responding to BPC. Why not just toss in you POV and be done with it? Its not like anyone would put in more work insulting you than BPC has.

I don't care about being insulted. I care about the LoL time I would lose writing a post.

 

[Tesh]

Yet you keep posting about how you aren't going to post?

 

[ADHD]

No one wants to play here, so it's banned, lol.

Hardtruth.

 

[fkacyan]

Yet you keep posting about how you aren't going to post?

About how I'm not going to make a long-*** post, actually.

I'm bored at work, sue me.

 

[Dre89]

BPC you still couldn't provide an opposing argument that you wouldn't insult. You just said an argument that's right, but of course the only argument you think is right is your own.

If you think any opinion other than you're own is worthy of insult, then that's being narrow-minded.

Again, no one is being forced into paying fees or signing contracts to play Brawl. Besides, the point is that the majority of people paying these fees prefer the way the game is now, as opposed to the way you want it to be. The argument actually
works against you, because you would be making tons of people
pay money to play the game a way they didn't want to play.


You don't have a right to go to tournies, it's a privellage. You're not entitled to being provided with a service. The competitive scene is run by the community, so they can do what they want. Seeing as the reason why people play a video game competitively is for fun, it makes no sense to make the entire community play the game in a way one person wants to, when no one else wants to play that way.

The game is competitive as it is, and even if your alterations made it more competitive, there's no point making something more competitive if no one is going to want to play it that way.

 

[Tesh]

About how I'm not going to make a long-*** post, actually.

I'm bored at work, sue me.

Go to youtube/wikipedia/cnn/google. Entertainment without a fight (as long as u dont read the comments on cnn and youtube).

I understand your position though. Its not really "worth it" to try to conform everything into a some perfect competitive ideal. If you feel the game is better played a different way, you could host a tournament (or side event) with different rules or stagelists and see if anyone else likes playing that way as well. But, when it comes down to it, there are ALOT of ways to play brawl (thats what makes the smash series so great) and I don't think anyone sees the usual way as the absolute perfect most fun way to play it. But if we all want to get along and play the game together its a bit of give and take so everyone can enjoy it. If you can't see the reason in that, you are always welcome to set the rules however you like and go play alone.

With that said, I don't feel like indifference is a good reason for the stage to get pushed off to the side. I don't think alot of people would really care if Halberd wasn't legal. I think a alot of stages would be in the same boat as PS2 if we hadn't given them a chance. Would anyone feel like CPing to Halberd, FD, Battlefield or PS1 if they hadn't gotten some practice there and noticed things they liked and could use to their advantage?

I guess it is kind of late in the game to make changes though. If you try to change anything now, ALOT of people are going to complain. And it will be seen as evidence for naysayers.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Yet you keep posting about how you aren't going to post?

This confuse me about him as well.

BPC you still couldn't provide an opposing argument that you wouldn't insult. You just said an argument that's right, but of course the only argument you think is right is your own.

If you think any opinion other than you're own is worthy of insult, then that's being narrow-minded.

Again, no one is being forced into paying fees or signing contracts to play Brawl. Besides, the point is that the majority of people paying these fees prefer the way the game is now, as opposed to the way you want it to be. The argument actually
works against you, because you would be making tons of people
pay money to play the game a way they didn't want to play.


You don't have a right to go to tournies, it's a privellage. You're not entitled to being provided with a service. The competitive scene is run by the community, so they can do what they want. Seeing as the reason why people play a video game competitively is for fun, it makes no sense to make the entire community play the game in a way one person wants to, when no one else wants to play that way.

The game is competitive as it is, and even if your alterations made it more competitive, there's no point making something more competitive if no one is going to want to play it that way.

The only thing I see that works is people don't want the stage, which works if a majority doesn't want it. The question I ask is.

Do people truely not want this stage, and if so why don't they want it?

If I can refute why and show people that the stage is not bad, then it will change the status quo.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

BPC you still couldn't provide an opposing argument that you wouldn't insult. You just said an argument that's right, but of course the only argument you think is right is your own.

I didn't provide one because I can't think of one. Do you think I would be stumping this hard for the stage otherwise? I have simply not been presented with a valid argument to ban the stage in the high-level competitive arena.

If you think any opinion other than you're own is worthy of insult, then that's being narrow-minded.

Or sick of repeating myse-wait a minute. We've been here before. You know, I somehow get the feeling you just did not read my last post.

Again, no one is being forced into paying fees or signing contracts to play Brawl. Besides, the point is that the majority of people paying these fees prefer the way the game is now, as opposed to the way you want it to be. The argument actually
works against you, because you would be making tons of people
pay money to play the game a way they didn't want to play.

1. Personal preference is no replacement for competitive depth
2. Personal preference more often than not detrimental for competitive depth
3. We are the competitive community and should act like it, not a bunch of scrubby kids who won't play the game the way it's best for competition!

You don't have a right to go to tournies, it's a privellage. You're not entitled to being provided with a service. The competitive scene is run by the community, so they can do what they want. Seeing as the reason why people play a video game competitively is for fun, it makes no sense to make the entire community play the game in a way one person wants to, when no one else wants to play that way.

Yes, because M2K definitely plays brawl for fun. At a certain level, it goes beyond fun.

The game is competitive as it is, and even if your alterations made it more competitive, there's no point making something more competitive if no one is going to want to play it that way.

I can't help but disagree with this.
EDIT: Oh wait and it doesn't matter. Maybe if we were stumping for a stage like Skyworld or Luigi's Mansion that would often be CP'd and everyone hates. But PS2 is rarely used, only considered a useful counterpick for a few characters (mostly low tiers), and generally is met with "meh", not "ew". So even if you were right, that's simply not how **** works with regards to this stage.

 

[Dre89]

You seem to assume that because people still disagree with you, people don't understand what you're saying, they understand you're argument.

The problem is you're prioritising the means over the end. I'm not contesting that your alterations make it more more competitive, the point is the only reason why the competitive scene was established was for fun. Competitive depth is for fun. It doesn't matter if people started playing only for money, the majority of the communtiy are there for fun.

Professional athletes didn't start playing sports at 5 years old because they realised they could make money, they played it because they enjoyed it, and realised they could make money off it. Sports and video games exist primarily as ways to have fun (as well as exercise for sport), the competitive aspect is an extension of that. If sports weren't enjoyable, they wouldn't exist, and if it wasn't watchable, professional sport wouldn't exist especially.

By your logic, we should enhance the competitive depth of a sport even if it means the sport will no longer be fun, and removes the health benefits from it. That defeats the purpose of the sport in the first place, just as how sacrificing fun for competitive depth defeats the purpose of the video game in the first place.

Again, you don't have any right to tell people how to play a game. What you're doing is the equivalent of me chiming in on a group of gamers and telling them to change the way they play the game to accommodate my personal philosophies on the game, but just on a much larger scale, which makes it even worse.

Let people play their games how they want, you don't have to play it with them if you don't want.

 

[Yikarur]

BPC you're whole concept is your personal preference, your "against subjectivy" thread is trash too.
you suck

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

EDIT: Oh wait and it doesn't matter. Maybe if we were stumping for a stage like Skyworld or Luigi's Mansion that would often be CP'd and everyone hates. But PS2 is rarely used, only considered a useful counterpick for a few characters (mostly low tiers), and generally is met with "meh", not "ew". So even if you were right, that's simply not how **** works with regards to this stage.

@Yika: don't you start.

 

[Ghostbone]

The for fun argument is stupid.

Why not have items on?

 

[Yikarur]

fun is subjective, I have more fun playing without items

 

[Ghostbone]

fun is subjective, I have more fun playing without items

Yet the vast majority of brawl players (e.g. casuals) would prefer items

 

[Dre89]

The for fun argument is stupid.

Why not have items on?

Because then the game loses so much competitiveness that they've lost the fun that came from competitiveness.

I don't understand why people seem to think competitive players don't play for fun. They obviously find competitive play more fun than item play.

 

[Ghostbone]

Because then the game loses so much competitiveness that they've lost the fun that came from competitiveness.

How so?

Item play can be competitive.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

You seem to assume that because people still disagree with you, people don't understand what you're saying, they understand you're argument.

The problem is you're prioritising the means over the end. I'm not contesting that your alterations make it more more competitive, the point is the only reason why the competitive scene was established was for fun. Competitive depth is for fun. It doesn't matter if people started playing only for money, the majority of the communtiy are there for fun.

Professional athletes didn't start playing sports at 5 years old because they realised they could make money, they played it because they enjoyed it, and realised they could make money off it. Sports and video games exist primarily as ways to have fun (as well as exercise for sport), the competitive aspect is an extension of that. If sports weren't enjoyable, they wouldn't exist, and if it wasn't watchable, professional sport wouldn't exist especially.

By your logic, we should enhance the competitive depth of a sport even if it means the sport will no longer be fun, and removes the health benefits from it. That defeats the purpose of the sport in the first place, just as how sacrificing fun for competitive depth defeats the purpose of the video game in the first place.

Again, you don't have any right to tell people how to play a game. What you're doing is the equivalent of me chiming in on a group of gamers and telling them to change the way they play the game to accommodate my personal philosophies on the game, but just on a much larger scale, which makes it even worse.

Let people play their games how they want, you don't have to play it with them if you don't want.

Wait...

Because then the game loses so much competitiveness that they've lost the fun that came from competitiveness.

I don't understand why people seem to think competitive players don't play for fun. They obviously find competitive play more fun than item play.

Ok you say fun is part of it them you say this.

Your saying fun over competitive, then your trying to defend competitiveness

While I think is merit to saying fun is a part of competitive, if a game is not fun your not gonna get people to play it therefore not competitive, in truth it is exclusive based on the communities stance on it.

I still ask the question, do people really hate it that much that they think removing is it better for the community.

I feel like all the hate at this stage is misplaced.

 

[Tesh]

I see how people pinpoint the change in physics as a problem for them but.....

Is this stage REALLY more annoying than a 24/7 sharkfest on Brinstar or trying to safely keep up with Rainbow Cruise against MK?

I can respect that people don't like certain things, but I don't see how this stage is worse for competition than Brinstar,Japes, RC.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Isn't this stage legal?

 

[fkacyan]

I see how people pinpoint the change in physics as a problem for them but.....

Is this stage REALLY more annoying than a 24/7 sharkfest on Brinstar or trying to safely keep up with Rainbow Cruise against MK?

I can respect that people don't like certain things, but I don't see how this stage is worse for competition than Brinstar,Japes, RC.

Most stages shouldn't be legal under the current CP system.

 

[Tesh]

Most stages shouldn't be legal under the current CP system.

Ah, so thats how you see it. What would be your stagelist then?

 

[ADHD]

Most stages shouldn't be legal under the current CP system.

The only reason that could be the case is because of Metaknight. We've been building our entire ruleset around Metaknight right now, so we should just ban him.

 

[fkacyan]

Ah, so thats how you see it. What would be your stagelist then?

This is why I don't write long posts anymore.

There's a giant post linked in my sig on my opinion on CPs and the current system.

@Wyatt: Or we could just use a system that doesn't give him so many great stages as guaranteed cps.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I'm still a strong advocate of the "create stagelist, then set bans accordingly"; i.e. if there are 3 stages where a certain character is overpowered in most matchups, 3 stage bans, etc.

 

[fkacyan]

I'm still a strong advocate of the "create stagelist, then set bans accordingly"; i.e. if there are 3 stages where a certain character is overpowered in most matchups, 3 stage bans, etc.

RC, Brinstar, Halberd, Delfino - Four stages where MK can shark a lot of the time, and on Delfino he gains a lot of stupid tricks.

Are you saying we need four bans?

Also, keep in mind that for some characters 4 bans would make them non-viable post match one.