Proposed Ruleset for Smash 4 Tournaments

[BaPr]

If Rainbow Cruise is banned because of MK. Why not just ban MK on RC? Keep the stage, but don't let that character on the stage unless both players agree. The only reason for banning RC that I know of is because of MK. If there are other reasons, I would like to hear it.

 

[Overswarm]

No there's a difference between winning by timeout and completely stalling the match. First off, its unappealing to watch a match where both players stick on ledge to ledge for a whole minute waiting for a hazard to go away. Which is the problem with Nofair. Those matches with Wong and Chris G were them constantly fighting non-stop, that is a legit win by timeout, no one was purposely stalling, until maybe the last 10-15 seconds. Those matches that OS linked were matches where they waited and waited and waited until the hazard gave them the advantage. There really is no hype in these circumstances because everyone will just play by time. That's fun? That's considered competitive? Usually time is there to prevent stalling and put pressure on both players. You make time a benefactor of complete gameplay and people will just stall the game for the 8 mins to win a match. Sorry, but I don't think I want to be part of a competitive scene where watching a match for 8 mins where both players sit on opposite sides of the screen spamming projectiles is considered hype.

Here's another thing though, in tournament gameplay, counter-picks will be the deciding factor of the games. People will choose a counter-pick to completely stump the character. Think of that MK and Olimar set with M2K. First match is a neutral random and ends up being Smashville. M2K wins. Olimar then tries to find a specific stage to completely counter MK. MK loses. MK then chooses a stage that completely counters Olimar......see where I'm going with this? This is stupid...

We give them 8 minutes. What they do in those 8 minutes is up to them. Seriously.

"Stalling" is the act of making the game unplayable. "Camping" is making the game difficult for the opponent. It is incredibly competitive and pretty noobish to think otherwise. We don't make rulesets to make the game look more "appealing". If we did, there'd be no timer at all.

As for your second paragraph... that's the entire point of the CP system. We have a "starter" list which is SUPPOSED to have stages that can be struck down until netiher character has much, if any, advantage over the other. The other two are "get as much of an advantage as you can". The idea is for whoever wins the first match to have a large advantage, with the opponent having to win on both his CP and his opponent's CP. This encourages a secondary (to prevent your character's weaknesses from becoming a crutch) and allows for secondary to be used for CPing only. Someone like Fox in Brawl is awful, but not necessarily a bad counter-pick character on the right stage vs. the right opponent.

Holy crap, are you serious? Stalling is a win based purely on how agile one character can be than the other. It isn't a win based on fighting skill. The player purposefully didn't complete the match. The player got ahead in stocks and called it a day when they didn't meet the number of kills people consider an actual win. Not only that, it's a waste of everyone's time. The Marvel timer is also significantly shorter than the standard Smash tournament timer, about less than half.

You're referring to camping, not stalling. Not only is it legal, it HAS to be legal or we don't have a game. Wario on Norfair is just bouncing around the stage attempting to dodge Luigi or Snake or whomever, and you want to say "Hey, that's too hard for Luigi/Snake, stop donig that"? That's about as dumb as the anime convention kids saying "edgeguarding is unfair, NO EDGEGUARDING. If they're off the stage yuo CANNOT HIT THEM until they hit the ground!"

Because they're using the same reasoning you are. It's not fun, it's not fair (why does he have such a good recovery but Link's is so awful?), and no one there enjoys watching it.

So why not ban edgeguarding? It IS unfairly balanced and if the crowd doesn't wanna see it, they don't wanna see it.

So why not?

Because it'd be stupid to do so, that's why! If you can't make it back to the stage because your character has a crappy recovery pick a better character. If a Wario takes you to Norfair and you're not good enough to stop him with Luigi, pick a faster character. That's all there is to it.

Wanting only to have flashy, in-your-face sets is fine as long as it doesn't touch a ruleset. We don't make rulesets to appease whatever people want to see that day, we make them to get the most skilled players to the top of the bracket. It takes skill to time people out. Not only that, it takes specific characters, specific matchups, specific stages, and a whole lot of spacing knowledge to do so. If you don't think it's hard, try timing some people out in tournament. You will fail because you don't know how and you would need to practice.

The rules are set in place for a reason and people can abuse them however they want. If it became overcentralizing or random, then you've got an argument. Until then, go sit with the kids at anime conventions that want to ban edgeguarding.

 

[salaboB]

Actually the latter is what is being mentioned in almost every post.

Stages like RC provide a massive unavoidable advantage to certain characters who adjust to a certain playstyle while on the stage.

The scope of my post was entirely PS2 being banned, so RC is not relevant to it.

 

[Chiroz]

If Rainbow Cruise is banned because of MK. Why not just ban MK on RC? Keep the stage, but don't let that character on the stage unless both players agree. The only reason for banning RC that I know of is because of MK. If there are other reasons, I would like to hear it.

Not only MK can abuse it.

Technically, fast characters with great aerial mobility will rule RC when paired with opponents of the same skill level, but if the player with the faster character and greater air mobility learns the stage, he will soon discover that when he has character superiority on RC (he has a better character than his opponent for that stage) then the most optimal strategy is to just camp and stall the stage out.

Basically said player can just wait for the worst transition for the opponents character, the one which forces the opponents character into a horrible position or even forces him to use his Up-B (Triple Jump) and he can then get a few free hits and then go back to camp and stall strategy as the stage loops all over again. It basically allows him to have very little interaction with the opponent while retaining an almost impenetrable wall, as approaching on almost any stage transition that is not the boat will almost certainly always be worse off for the character that has the worse aerial mobility/overall speed.

This type of gameplay is what conservatives are saying they don't like and thus the stage should be banned. Others are saying to just pick a better character or just learn to adapt and beat your opponent even though he can have such a huge advantage if he so desires to. The latter would involve massive amounts of outplaying from the campee or critical errors from the camper.

 

[Overswarm]

My big worry too is top level players of TOs making decisions and NOT knowing the stage. I remember a haunting post where it was mentioned during BBR voting on stages, many members admitted they knew NOTHING on some of the stages they voted on, while others said they voted fr ban only because they didn't have it legal in their region, or voted ban because they didn't know about it. People need to know the stage if they want to talk about it, it's scary to think what happens if they don't.

You're telling me. I had to actually educate people on the stages every time and most people wouldn't even watch the videos I made.

People thought the strangest things. They just never played on them and had no idea what they were talking about 90% of the time. There were maybe half a dozen people that would know what they were talking about at any given time. It was pretty sad.

 

[Chiroz]

The scope of my post was entirely PS2 being banned, so RC is not relevant to it.

Well, I do not know PS2 that well so I cannot comment on it. But the fact that it started out as legal, then it was banned, then unbanned and then banned again might suggest that there was actual playing and testing on the stage and it wasn't just banned on a whim.

Also my post is not only about RC, it's about the gameplay that certain stages promote, so in a way it does relate to PS2. PS2 might just promote a type of gameplay which is considered stale or degenerative, but I do not have the experience to tell you if it does.

 

[Overswarm]

Not only MK can abuse it.

Technically, fast characters with great aerial mobility will rule RC when paired with opponents of the same skill level, but if the player with the faster character and greater air mobility learns the stage, he will soon discover that when he has character superiority on RC (he has a better character than his opponent for that stage) then the most optimal strategy is to just camp and stall the stage out.

Basically said player can just wait for the worst transition for the opponents character, the one which forces the opponents character into a horrible position or even forces him to use his Up-B (Triple Jump) and he can then get a few free hits and then go back to camp and stall strategy as the stage loops all over again. It basically allows him to have very little interaction with the opponent while retaining an almost impenetrable wall, as approaching on almost any stage transition that is not the boat will almost certainly always be worse off for the character that has the worse aerial mobility/overall speed.

This type of gameplay is what conservatives are saying they don't like and thus the stage should be banned. Others are saying to just pick a better character or just learn to adapt and beat your opponent even though he can have such a huge advantage if he so desires to. The latter would involve massive amounts of outplaying from the campee or critical errors from the camper.

Where are you getting the idea that the "status quo" is "whatever is good for flat/plat characters"?

The status quo is "every stage in the game". We eliminate stages based off of whether or not they are overcentralizing or produce random results, period. If Marth gets owned by G&W and MK on Rainbow Cruise, then he gets owned.

Should we ban Smashville because Snake can destroy Peach there? How about banning FD because of how "different" ROB has to play against Olimar and how much of an advantage Olimar gets?



This all reminds me of the Monopoly study. They had a normal game of Monopoly but gave one player an advantage; he started with properties and houses on them. They then played the game all the way through and, at the end, were questioned on the games events. Without fail, every single player who was given an advantage both acted like they deserved it, admonished the other players for not being skilled enough, and assumed they would have done better if they just played better. This is in a game predominantly focused on the roll of dice.

Now we've got people saying "Okay, yeah, Rainbow Cruise is good for MK, but it's BAD for other characters. Why not ban it so these other characters don't get beaten so badly?" without a hint of shame.

I've got a better idea: How about we ban every single flat/plat stage and play only on counterpicks and watch the tier list morph before our eyes until you go "ohhhhhh, I get it now".

 

[BaPr]

Not only MK can abuse it.

Technically, fast characters with great aerial mobility will rule RC when paired with opponents of the same skill level, but if the player with the faster character and greater air mobility learns the stage, he will soon discover that when he has character superiority on RC (he has a better character than his opponent for that stage) then the most optimal strategy is to just camp and stall the stage out.

Basically said player can just wait for the worst transition for the opponents character, the one which forces the opponents character into a horrible position or even forces him to use his Up-B (Triple Jump) and he can then get a few free hits and then go back to camp and stall strategy as the stage loops all over again. It basically allows him to have very little interaction with the opponent while retaining an almost impenetrable wall, as approaching on almost any stage transition that is not the boat will almost certainly always be worse off for the character that has the worse aerial mobility/overall speed.

This type of gameplay is what conservatives are saying they don't like and thus the stage should be banned. Others are saying to just pick a better character or just learn to adapt and beat your opponent even though he can have such a huge advantage if he so desires to. The latter would involve massive amounts of outplaying from the campee or critical errors from the camper.

So, instead of banning the stage, I think it would be better to ban certain characters that have a major advantage (depending on how much of an advantage). Also, if two people choose Metaknight, they would both be on equal ground and can use it. And if one uses the best for the stage, and someone uses the worst, the best one can choose that stage, but only if the other agrees.

Basically, I don't see why the stage should be banned, instead of the character(s) banned from that stage. I have never been to a tournament, so how do counterpicks work? If you could give me a link for it, that would be even better.

 

[[Corn]]

Not being able to just "play as normal" for a small window of time is not adequate reason to ban the stage. If it were unfair because it caused random screw or a massive unavoidable advantage to a specific character that would be a different story, but nobody's mentioned that being the case at all here.

Raykz explained what I mean quite nicely with this statement

Actually the latter is what is being mentioned in almost every post.

Stages like RC provide a massive unavoidable advantage to certain characters who adjust to a certain playstyle while on the stage.

Its not the stage itself, its the format of the stage or the changes it makes putting players in situations in which they are always in an highly advantageous or disadvantageous state. Olimar&IC compared to MK on RC for a large example. The general populace would rather have stages play a minor role in determining the victor in battles compared to characters as well. In most cases of stages that have transitions or hazards, the most logical thing to do is simply wait it out while shooting any projectiles or camping. This is not exactly preferred in most players eyes as well as spectators nor is it a skill many people consider beneficial. Some characters may benefit from such a playstyle, but a stage increasing a characters ability to do so is not a skill.


You see it all the time on stages like Halberd/PKMS/Smash, its just that other stages elaborate it to the point of it being ridiculous to both parties.

Playing as normal is subjective. What I mean by normal is voluntary control over my character that can be altered willingly based on decisions, tactics, and stage layout. For example, I can be agrresive when the claw on Halberd is targeting me and each result I can atribute to me being overly agressive, whether it work or not in my favor. When a transitional stage happens I can plan for the terrain and adapt accoring. PK2 transitions arent stage transitions, they are basically new games in themselves. It isnt even the same gametype when I am physically incapable of short hopping or fast falling beneficially during the air phase of PK2.

Im going to try an analogy here with a matchup:
In the Ganon vs IC matchup it is basically entirely in ICs favor. Not because of the grab, but due to the fact that properly desynced blizzards limits Ganons options to such an extent that he either has to run away or jump over and attempts an attack. Both options, though usable, are very unsafe or offer more reward in ICs favor if punished. In essence, a Ganons chance at remotely damaging an IC depends on if they decide to press Down B.

Stages that have a large constant presence and effect, like RC, are like that IC v Ganon.


Stages that limit your options to such a degree that the most beneficial thing to do for both parties is wait them out is like playing in a 3 player FFA with items. Suddennly one player get a star and the other two vulnerable ones form a temporary truce because either of them could be understandingly punished by the others if they attempted an actual playstyle during the event.

 

[Chiroz]

So, instead of banning the stage, I think it would be better to ban certain characters that have a major advantage (depending on how much of an advantage). Also, if two people choose Metaknight, they would both be on equal ground and can use it. And if one uses the best for the stage, and someone uses the worst, the best one can choose that stage, but only if the other agrees.

Basically, I don't see why the stage should be banned, instead of the character(s) banned from that stage. I have never been to a tournament, so how do counterpicks work? If you could give me a link for it, that would be even better.

In my opinion (which is not based on fact, it is only based on what I believe to be the most logical explanation) it is to simplify rulesets.

It is much easier to say RC and Pokefloats are banned than saying:

Fox, MK, Falco, Jiggs, Wario, Squirtle, etc, etc. are banned on RC
Fox, Sheik, Samus, etc, are banned on Pokefloats
....
And so on and so forth.


It is easier for people to remember. That's what I think.

 

[Chiroz]

Where are you getting the idea that the "status quo" is "whatever is good for flat/plat characters"?

The status quo is "every stage in the game". We eliminate stages based off of whether or not they are overcentralizing or produce random results, period. If Marth gets owned by G&W and MK on Rainbow Cruise, then he gets owned.

Should we ban Smashville because Snake can destroy Peach there? How about banning FD because of how "different" ROB has to play against Olimar and how much of an advantage Olimar gets?



This all reminds me of the Monopoly study. They had a normal game of Monopoly but gave one player an advantage; he started with properties and houses on them. They then played the game all the way through and, at the end, were questioned on the games events. Without fail, every single player who was given an advantage both acted like they deserved it, admonished the other players for not being skilled enough, and assumed they would have done better if they just played better. This is in a game predominantly focused on the roll of dice.

Now we've got people saying "Okay, yeah, Rainbow Cruise is good for MK, but it's BAD for other characters. Why not ban it so these other characters don't get beaten so badly?" without a hint of shame.

I've got a better idea: How about we ban every single flat/plat stage and play only on counterpicks and watch the tier list morph before our eyes until you go "ohhhhhh, I get it now".

How about you actually read and understand what I wrote until you say: "ooh, I get it now".

You keep talking about over-centralization and what not. Stages like RC cause the most major of overcentralization, it means only characters that can abuse the stage would be viable on it. But that isn't the problem, the problem is how bad (subjectively speaking) the gameplay it produces is. Not only that but the skills it does emphasize are skills unrelated to the second player, making the game less interactive which would be considered less competitive by most.

Your posts seem so arrogant all the time, you should step it down.

 

[BaPr]

In my opinion (which is not based on fact, it is only based on what I believe to be the most logical explanation) it is to simplify rulesets.

It is much easier to say RC and Pokefloats are banned than saying:

Fox, MK, Falco, Jiggs, Wario, Squirtle, etc, etc. are banned on RC
Fox, Sheik, Samus, etc, are banned on Pokefloats
....
And so on and so forth.


It is easier for people to remember. That's what I think.

This is my opinion, but can't low tiers at least be allowed in that stage? Jigglypuff seems okay seeing how far low it is. This is my opinion though. Also, I guess it would depend on how many people are banned. If it is only Fox, Sheik, and Samus (you did say etc., but I am assuming it is only two more people), it shouldn't be that hard to remember. RC might have too much, but I don't think it should be that hard to remember.

 

[MopedOfJustice]

Conservatiste: These stages cause gameplay to become campy, stale, boring. It makes gameplay emphasize more on timing and memory than on reading or outmaneuvering. It makes players change their game mentality to an abusive one where interaction with other players matter little, it is more about memorization of certain aspects of the game and less about the actual dynamic aspects involved in playing against an opponent.

I would say this is not an accurate representation (though I edited a large portion of the quote out, to make room for OS's, Jack's and AA's novels).
I'm surprised that you would say conservative play has less timing, as I always thought it to be major, no matter what play style (timing is everything, right?).
More to the point, you said that playing on more liberal stages lessens the "reading and outmaneuvering" aspects of the game, as well as taking away from the "actual dynamic aspects involved in fighting an opponent."
Would you like to explain to me how outmaneuvering your opponent is more of a factor on FD than RC? Or how a static stage has more "actual dynamic aspects" than a stage that is actually dynamic? I also think it's fair to say that you still need to read your opponent on a stage with a moving camera or events that give clear warning (DP or Toon Link's stage), which is not to say you need to read your opponent more, but there are new things to be read. Maybe I'm being an a****** with wording, but I don't entirely get what you're saying.

 

[nat pagle]

New idea: We only hold tournaments where every stage you don't want banned is allowed and see how it goes for a year. If the competitive community doesn't turn to crap, then we don't think about stage bans.

 

[BaPr]

New idea: We only hold tournaments where every stage you don't want banned is allowed and see how it goes for a year. If the competitive community doesn't turn to crap, then we don't think about stage bans.

So, if I want FD and someone else doesn't, we still get FD? Seems okay to me.

 

[Chiroz]

I would say this is not an accurate representation (though I edited a large portion of the quote out, to make room for OS's, Jack's and AA's novels).
I'm surprised that you would say conservative play has less timing, as I always thought it to be major, no matter what play style (timing is everything, right?).
More to the point, you said that playing on more liberal stages lessens the "reading and outmaneuvering" aspects of the game, as well as taking away from the "actual dynamic aspects involved in fighting an opponent."
Would you like to explain to me how outmaneuvering your opponent is more of a factor on FD than RC? Or how a static stage has more "actual dynamic aspects" than a stage that is actually dynamic? I also think it's fair to say that you still need to read your opponent on a stage with a moving camera or events that give clear warning (DP or Toon Link's stage), which is not to say you need to read your opponent more, but there are new things to be read. Maybe I'm being an a****** with wording, but I don't entirely get what you're saying.

I didn't mean there was more timing, I meant there was more importance on timing because there is less importance of actually reading your opponent, I'll explain why now.

It depends on the stage to be quite honest. Let's create hypothetical scenarios for the sake of argument.

FD gives an advantage to people who have great ground game and various mobility options. This is because not having platforms takes away many different approach possibilities and mobility options and also creates an emphasis on grounded play.

Let's say 2 people have played very extensively on FD and one of them has IC. The other player has a much harder time fighting IC as this stage cuts away most of his "grab-safe" approaches and also takes away some of his mobility options such as landing on platforms, thus causing him to approach in other ways that give ICs a higher probability of grabbing and giving them a higher advantage. Still said player has some other options he can use and these options completely depend on what character he is playing and how he approaches.



RC give an advantage to characters with a high aerial mobility and good speed. This in itself isn't a problem, the problem is the following. The way RC transitions entails that almost every character on the game will have to enter a bad if not horrible position at some point in the stage, even worse, at most times, stages such as this cut down your options much more drastically than FD basically only allowing you to choose the "timing" of your second jump or which platform to land on out of 2 platforms. Basically, if you viewed the map as a series of options as it transitions then you will notice that certain parts of the stage will cut down your mobility options extremely.

A character that has both the aerial mobility and the speed to always outrun you on said stage can theoretically always be in front of you (assuming same skill level on both players). As such it is possible to always outrun your opponent and compeletely run out the clock in every transition except for the boat.

Now because of how this stage is, we already discussed that there are parts on the stage were your options are severely limited, such as a single part of the stage where you must do a triple jump or you must land on one specific platform. Because this is a must-do action your opponent also already knows your options are severely limited thus meaning he doesn't need to read between 6 different approaches, but only between 2.

Not only that but because of the nature of these approaches your opponent would be completely safe from punish, so he gets a fairly easy read which has no actual risk involved. (He doesn't need to actually outmaneuver you).

So now, what if, your opponent only attacks you in the different parts of the stage where he knows he gets these free no-risk hits and just runs on every single other part of the stage? What counter-play does a low mobility character actually have against that? What about a character with bad vertical mobility? What about characters who have average aerial mobility and yet have slow aerial speed?

If the opposing player knows your character and the stage fully he will know when and how to punish and there is very little counterplay involved. The game becomes more about knowledge, memorization and correct timing than it is about reading or outmaneuvering.

 

[[Corn]]

So, if I want FD and someone else doesn't, we still get FD? Seems okay to me.

All Items
Rainbow Cruise
Ganon Only

 

[MargnetMan23]

All Items
Rainbow Cruise
Ganon Only

Aww but I like 75 M ;-;

 

[[Corn]]

Aww but I like 75 M ;-;

Itl be a counterpick/neutral, along with New Pork City, Summit, Warioware, and various others.

 

[BaPr]

All Items
Rainbow Cruise
Ganon Only

Not sure what you mean

 

[MopedOfJustice]

Preemptive EDIT: I apologize for the unnecessary length, I just wanted to get a point across. If you really feel it should be cut down/out, I will happily do so.
Just a matter of semantics, but:
If we do go with the "Ban all stages we aren't sure about until we are sure of where they belong" approach, we should consider them "pending" (or something to that effect) not "banned."
There is a difference in the meaning of the words, and a difference in how they will likely be treated. Maybe that's just me, but I think that it makes a difference when you think about how it would play out.

TO: Okay everyone! let's kick it off with a match between PsychoVillager and PlayerMan... whoops, this one doesn't have the stage switch set right, let me just fix that...hey! Could someone get me a list? Let's see
...
...
...
TO: Ok, just need to check off PS3, and it's all set!
*ashton182002 bursts through the door*
ashton: STOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooOOOOOOOOPpP! Results are in from Smashboards! PS3 should be unbanned!
TO: It's too late now, besides it was banned for a reason, right?
*Vague murmurs of agreement*
ashton: But it was never shown to--
TO: Look, just because some nerd posing as a two wheeled Italian vehicle with an engine under 50cc says the stage is safe, doesn't mean it's viable. I'm sure that it would over centralize gameplay, or have a wall or --
(Random Competitor): IT'S TOTALLY GAY!
TO: See? That's it. It has homosexual tendencies, which drastically interferes with the normal play style, and gives Kirby a distinct advantage.
ashton: But...b-but...
TO: Sorry kid, maybe next time.
*Tourney continues*

*7 years pass*

TO: Okay everyone! let's kick it off with a match between MacroRidely and ManlyMan... whoops, this one doesn't have the stage switch set right, let me just fix that...hey! Could someone get me a list? Let's see
...
...
...
TO: Ok, just need to check off PS3, and it's all set!
*ashton182002 bursts through the door*
ashton: STOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooOOOOOOOOPpP! I have--
TO: What is it this time ashton?
ashton: I've been studying PS3 (on and off) for the past 7 years, along with a dedicated group of nerds posing as various slow-but-economic Italian vehicles! After 7 years, I--
TO: Want that gay stage to be unbanned?
ashton: Yes! Exactly! I have studied the stage second-by-second, frame-by-frame. I know exactly when a stage will transform, and exactly when their respective effects kick in! I have a 70-page power point presentation onn how each stype effects any possible matchup of any character, even in 2v2. The same presentation also demonstrates why there matchups are -- while not even -- completely balanced by the standards of a CP. I--
TO: Let me just stop you right there. I'm sure you worked very hard making your little collection of anecdotes on a *snicker* PowerPoint presentation, but until you can present to me hard facts on a Prezi, there is no way I'll allow a stage that has been objectively proven to be...uh...what was it again?
(The Same Guy as Before): GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY
TO: Ah, yes, that's what it was. You see? Until you can be objective like us, you'll never understand the inherent homosexuality of the PlayStation3.
ashton: But that's not even what it--
TO: PEER PRESSURE!
ashton: ok...
*Tourney continues*

Meanwhile, in a parallel universe:

TO: Okay everyone! let's kick it off with a match between Geno-cide and PacMan... whoops, this one doesn't have the stage switch set right, let me just fix that...hey! Could someone get me a list? Let's see
...
...
...
TO: Ok, just need to check off PS3, and it's all set!
*Ash Catch'em bursts through the door*
Ash: STOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooOOOOOOOOPpP! Results are in from Smashboards! PS3 went from Pending to Legal!
TO: Ok, sure, I like that stage.
(Randon Audino): YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY
*Tourney continues*

 

[Overswarm]

Complaining that you get put into a bad position on Rainbow Cruise is like complaining that your opponent survived because the Smashville platform just happened to be on that side.

You know what's coming. If you get put into a bad position, you've either messed up yourself or your opponent put you there.

 

[Ghostbone]

Iirc if MK gets a dash grab on the ice portion he gets a free shuttle loop out of the grab break when they slide off stage.
It's pretty gay >.>
MK has gay stuff on every stage though so it's not like you'd ban the stage over that.

The main issue would be the electric portion which puts people without good aerial mobility/attacks in a really bad position trying to stay on stage if they didn't have control of the centre right before it transformed.

You know what's coming. If you get put into a bad position, you've either messed up yourself or your opponent put you there.

"You know what's coming"
That doesn't make it not a problem

Oh I'm olimar and I have to jump onto the see-saw through MK.
No amount of foresight will make that situation any easier, it's just a free juggle/gimp for MK that olimar can do nothing about.

I'm going to compare this to a theoretical stage.

Say there's a battlefield clone, except every 20 seconds, the heavier character gets ported to the top platform (an easily abusable position)
Just because they know it's coming, doesn't make it not an unfair disadvantage. It's a free punish their opponent did nothing to earn.
And that's what most moving camera stages are like.

 

[Chiroz]

Preemptive EDIT: I apologize for the unnecessary length, I just wanted to get a point across. If you really feel it should be cut down/out, I will happily do so.
Just a matter of semantics, but:
If we do go with the "Ban all stages we aren't sure about until we are sure of where they belong" approach, we should consider them "pending" (or something to that effect) not "banned."
There is a difference in the meaning of the words, and a difference in how they will likely be treated. Maybe that's just me, but I think that it makes a difference when you think about how it would play out.

TO: Okay everyone! let's kick it off with a match between PsychoVillager and PlayerMan... whoops, this one doesn't have the stage switch set right, let me just fix that...hey! Could someone get me a list? Let's see
...
...
...
TO: Ok, just need to check off PS3, and it's all set!
*ashton182002 bursts through the door*
ashton: STOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooOOOOOOOOPpP! Results are in from Smashboards! PS3 should be unbanned!
TO: It's too late now, besides it was banned for a reason, right?
*Vague murmurs of agreement*
ashton: But it was never shown to--
TO: Look, just because some nerd posing as a two wheeled Italian vehicle with an engine under 50cc says the stage is safe, doesn't mean it's viable. I'm sure that it would over centralize gameplay, or have a wall or --
(Random Competitor): IT'S TOTALLY GAY!
TO: See? That's it. It has homosexual tendencies, which drastically interferes with the normal play style, and gives Kirby a distinct advantage.
ashton: But...b-but...
TO: Sorry kid, maybe next time.
*Tourney continues*

*7 years pass*

TO: Okay everyone! let's kick it off with a match between MacroRidely and ManlyMan... whoops, this one doesn't have the stage switch set right, let me just fix that...hey! Could someone get me a list? Let's see
...
...
...
TO: Ok, just need to check off PS3, and it's all set!
*ashton182002 bursts through the door*
ashton: STOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooOOOOOOOOPpP! I have--
TO: What is it this time ashton?
ashton: I've been studying PS3 (on and off) for the past 7 years, along with a dedicated group of nerds posing as various slow-but-economic Italian vehicles! After 7 years, I--
TO: Want that gay stage to be unbanned?
ashton: Yes! Exactly! I have studied the stage second-by-second, frame-by-frame. I know exactly when a stage will transform, and exactly when their respective effects kick in! I have a 70-page power point presentation onn how each stype effects any possible matchup of any character, even in 2v2. The same presentation also demonstrates why there matchups are -- while not even -- completely balanced by the standards of a CP. I--
TO: Let me just stop you right there. I'm sure you worked very hard making your little collection of anecdotes on a *snicker* PowerPoint presentation, but until you can present to me hard facts on a Prezi, there is no way I'll allow a stage that has been objectively proven to be...uh...what was it again?
(The Same Guy as Before): GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY
TO: Ah, yes, that's what it was. You see? Until you can be objective like us, you'll never understand the inherent homosexuality of the PlayStation3.
ashton: But that's not even what it--
TO: PEER PRESSURE!
ashton: ok...
*Tourney continues*

Meanwhile, in a parallel universe:

TO: Okay everyone! let's kick it off with a match between Geno-cide and PacMan... whoops, this one doesn't have the stage switch set right, let me just fix that...hey! Could someone get me a list? Let's see
...
...
...
TO: Ok, just need to check off PS3, and it's all set!
*Ash Catch'em bursts through the door*
Ash: STOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooOOOOOOOOPpP! Results are in from Smashboards! PS3 went from Pending to Legal!
TO: Ok, sure, I like that stage.
*Tourney continues*

That sounds like an OK idea to me.

We could have a set of outright banned stages (walk-offs, gigantic stages, cave of life, stages that allow a certain character or character sub-class to completely dominate with little to no counter-play) and then we could create a set for all moving camera, transforming, hazard and/or random elements stages which we could call pending.

These stages could be reviewed one by one outside of tournaments or on small scale tournaments and theorycrafted by all the people who have the time and conviction to do all those calculations. They would then be banned or unbanned on an individual status, banning the stage itself and not all the stages that share its attributes (as some could be discovered to have something that drastically change its "similar nature" and thus not share its attibute at all).

Basically these stages would remain out of big scale tournaments while they were being reviewed so as to diminish possible side effects but would be introduced when saw fit.

 

[[Corn]]

People not understanding RC lol

 

[Chiroz]

Complaining that you get put into a bad position on Rainbow Cruise is like complaining that your opponent survived because the Smashville platform just happened to be on that side.

You know what's coming. If you get put into a bad position, you've either messed up yourself or your opponent put you there.

You obviously don't know what a dynamic stage is. The platform on Smashville can add/detract options, but only a few. RC can severely detract options to the point where you only have one or 2 options available.

You yourself have been discussing that FD is overcentralizing? What do you think is the difference between FD and stages such as BF? Care to wonder? The only difference is lack of platforms and a horizontally longer main platform.

What does this actually do? It cuts your mobility options, it also limits your approaches which in turn favors a certain subset of characters that do well on the mobility options that are left present. The less mobility options and the leas approaches the more a certain subset is favored.

So what about RC which literally takes away almost every single option yo have (you don't even have the option to wait or stay put!). What about the parts of the stage where most characters, yes it isn't only Ganon it is almost every single character, is placed in a situation where they must mandatorily use their second jump (some even their Up-B) and have to mandatorily land on a given platform?

No, your opponent did not place in a bad position, the stage did.

 

[MopedOfJustice]

That sounds like an OK idea to me.

We could have a set of outright banned stages (walk-offs, gigantic stages, cave of life, stages that allow a certain character or character sub-class to completely dominate with little to no counter-play) and then we could create a set for all moving camera, transforming, hazard and/or random elements stages which we could call pending.

These stages could be reviewed one by one outside of tournaments or on small scale tournaments and theorycrafted by all the people who have the time and conviction to do all those calculations. They would then be banned or unbanned on an individual status, banning the stage itself and not all the stages that share its attributes (as some could be discovered to have something that drastically change its "similar nature" and thus not share its attibute at all).

Basically these stages would remain out of big scale tournaments while they were being reviewed so as to diminish possible side effects but would be introduced when saw fit.

Yep, I thought that that procedure was a given. Like I said before, it's just a matter of semantics and multiple lists. I'm not sure about the outright ban on caves-of-life, and we don't have confirmation on chain grabs, so walk-offs maybe not either and we should test a gigantic stage if it doesn't have a circle-camping set up. The unconditional drastic advantage/disadvantage would also need to be verified, with the possibility of work around ruled out.
I know it sound like I can't compromise, but when the situation is you saying "We absolutely get rid of this, this and this, and maybe you can use some of these later," I don't want to do something drastic. What say we list all stages as pending, but have the less likely ones put as lowest priority? Still won't hurt tourneys, but gives a fair chance for stages that may otherwise be ruled out unfairly.

 

[Chiroz]

Yep, I thought that that procedure was a given. Like I said before, it's just a matter of semantics and multiple lists. I'm not sure about the outright ban on caves-of-life, and we don't have confirmation on chain grabs, so walk-offs maybe not either and we should test a gigantic stage if it doesn't have a circle-camping set up. The unconditional drastic advantage/disadvantage would also need to be verified, with the possibility of work around ruled out.
I know it sound like I can't compromise, but when the situation is you saying "We absolutely get rid of this, this and this, and maybe you can use some of these later," I don't want to do something drastic. What say we list all stages as pending, but have the less likely ones put as lowest priority? Still won't hurt tourneys, but gives a fair chance for stages that may otherwise be ruled out unfairly.

Well quite honestly, the only reason I prefer to ban those stages is because of the gameplay they cause, I wouldn't be able to have an actual argument with factual basis against them except for the fact that gigantic stages and walk-off's encourage camping in an extremely drastic way. Most games on a walk-off stage revolve around one player standing on the edge and going for a high risk-high reward strategy of trying to get a back throw. This in itself is not unbalanced and is not game breaking, but in my own opinion it leads to incredibly boring play.

Anyways, I would be okay with leaving everything in Pending, but it might confuse player's into thinking Pending is equivalent to banned with a new name. If there were some banned stages it would set a clear idea that Pending stages are different to banned stages. It would allow players to differentiate them and know that Pending stages are to be tested for competitive validity and do not share the status banned stages hold currently (which is that it is really hard to unban any stage because of popular opinion that things should stay banned)

 

[LiteralGrill]

Story

That sounds like an OK idea to me.

We could have a set of outright banned stages (walk-offs, gigantic stages, cave of life, stages that allow a certain character or character sub-class to completely dominate with little to no counter-play) and then we could create a set for all moving camera, transforming, hazard and/or random elements stages which we could call pending.

These stages could be reviewed one by one outside of tournaments or on small scale tournaments and theorycrafted by all the people who have the time and conviction to do all those calculations. They would then be banned or unbanned on an individual status, banning the stage itself and not all the stages that share its attributes (as some could be discovered to have something that drastically change its "similar nature" and thus not share its attibute at all).

Basically these stages would remain out of big scale tournaments while they were being reviewed so as to diminish possible side effects but would be introduced when saw fit.

This is a great idea, if it worked. There's a GIANT thread of people explaining stages, and many stage guides out there explaining everything imaginable, yet many stages that never should have been still were left banned. Even when the BBR would say a bunch of top players did look at a stage and say it was possibly okay, or even totally okay, TOs didn't change.

It's sad, but people more then likely will just do what they want and not subscribe to logic. Or we could have a fiasco like Unity all over again, where while the idea was good the execution was terrible and ended up with some terrible tastes left in mouths. Unless you "force" people, a lot of the time all the study and logic is ignored.

It's one of the reasons why I plan on going crazy on guides for EVERY stage first thing for smash. Hopefully if lots of info is out right away, it may help avoid knee jerk reactions. It's the best I can do.

 

[BaPr]

This is a great idea, if it worked. There's a GIANT thread of people explaining stages, and many stage guides out there explaining everything imaginable, yet many stages that never should have been still were left banned. Even when the BBR would say a bunch of top players did look at a stage and say it was possibly okay, or even totally okay, TOs didn't change.

It's sad, but people more then likely will just do what they want and not subscribe to logic. Or we could have a fiasco like Unity all over again, where while the idea was good the execution was terrible and ended up with some terrible tastes left in mouths. Unless you "force" people, a lot of the time all the study and logic is ignored.

It's one of the reasons why I plan on going crazy on guides for EVERY stage first thing for smash. Hopefully if lots of info is out right away, it may help avoid knee jerk reactions. It's the best I can do.

Even though my dad doesn't like the idea, he agreed to let me buy the game right when it comes out (he is helping me manage my money, so I have a chance at life). After that, I am gonna test all the stages and give my idea of how to use certain techniques for certain characters. Also, I'm gonna list what I think should be banned and shouldn't, and then PM others on their thoughts (posting it publicly will cause to many problems).

If I can get a good camera, I can even post those techniques on Youtube.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

This is part of the restrictive attitude -- the idea that if something forces you to temporarily change how you play, it's bad.

Did you read his first sentence? I hope you are not actually implying that we think all changes are bad. Assuming you didn't read it, let me quote it again for you:

It also promotes players not to jump, because the person on the ground has a huge advantage.

Would you care to explain how it isn't bad? It's not a matter that there are changes to how you play but the fact that there are changes that don't give the player meaningful choices. Almost always, you have to be on the ground or you will be at a disadvantage. There is no real choice. Mr. Showtime says promotes, but I prefer the term forces. It's a lot like on Norfair; There is a change when the background lava wall spawns, and you either dodge it or get hit. That isn't a meaningful choice. It doesn't add any meaningful complexity to the game. It isn't a change that adds any options to deliberate on (unless you're the ICs and you're in the middle of a chain grab and you want to sustain it until the wall hits for some maniacal reason.) The essence of the change is that the stage becomes the obstacle instead of your opponent. Forced changes don't necessarily diversify our skillsets. We don't "just think forced changes are bad." To imply we don't have a reason for not liking some changes would be an embarrassing ignorance on your part.

Not being able to just "play as normal" for a small window of time is not adequate reason to ban the stage.

That's great, salaboB, but I don't recall [Corn] ever suggesting the stage be banned. I mean, hell, he did like a post where someone said PS2 was a valid counterpick (#351). He did suggest we ban questionable upcoming stages, however.

"Stalling" is the act of making the game unplayable. "Camping" is making the game difficult for the opponent.

You seem to have a tenuous grasp of what these words mean, or at least defining them. Stalling is more than the act of making the game unplayable. In competitive play, it's about avoiding the fight with the other player in order to win the match (by whatever margin). Camping is not only making the game difficult for the opponent. If we stripped other essential aspects of another concept, edgeguarding could be defined as making the game difficult for your opponent, or even just slapping the controller. Camping is isolating yourself from the other player while still preserving the fight (such as firing at the other player.)

You're referring to camping, not stalling.

Given the above definitions, I have no doubts when I say I am referring to stalling:

Stalling is a win based purely on how agile one character can be than the other. It isn't a win based on fighting skill. The player purposefully didn't complete the match.

...

That's about as dumb as the anime convention kids saying "edgeguarding is unfair, NO EDGEGUARDING. If they're off the stage yuo CANNOT HIT THEM until they hit the ground!" Because they're using the same reasoning you are. It's not fun, it's not fair (why does he have such a good recovery but Link's is so awful?), and no one there enjoys watching it.

So why not ban edgeguarding? ...It IS unfairly balanced and if the crowd doesn't wanna see it, they don't wanna see it.

Once again I get a notification from someone who didn't read my post. I don't recall ever saying I think stalling is not fun or unfair, though I admit to some degree I do. However, I do remember saying stalling is bad gameplay because it makes the game no longer becomes a fighting competition, but a cat and mouse one.

Stalling is a win based purely on how agile one character can be than the other. It isn't a win based on fighting skill. The player purposefully didn't complete the match.

I would agree on a minimal level the anime fans are using the same reasoning as I am, in that we're both using preferences to guide what we think should be legal. However, those preferences are greatly different. I think the competition should be almost strictly between the two players. I am not sure exactly what their guiding preference is, but if they also think that the competition should be between two players, then I am not sure how allowing the opponent to recover is competitive.

I guess it isn't inaccurate to say that if the crowd doesn't want to see edgeguarding, it will probably be banned. With that being said, I don't see how your reasoning follows:

1. Quilt believes stalling removes the aspect of fighting between the players, but I, OverSwarm, am going to disregard that and say he doesn't like it because it isn't fun or fair.
2. Some anime fans think edgeguarding isn't fun or fair.
3. Quilt and the anime fans don't think something is fun or fair.
4. Therefore, we (?) should ban edgeguarding.

Wario on Norfair is just bouncing around the stage attempting to dodge Luigi or Snake or whomever, and you want to say "Hey, that's too hard for Luigi/Snake, stop donig that"? That's about as dumb as the anime convention kids saying "edgeguarding is unfair, NO EDGEGUARDING. If they're off the stage yuo CANNOT HIT THEM until they hit the ground!"

There are forms of stalling that can sometimes be dealt with, but they are still a significant detraction from the match, making the time a benefactor rather than your ability to approach or at least KO the other player. I don't think stalling is good for the game for stated reasons, but I never said stop stalling, and you are making a bad comparison when you put my stance on the same level as someone that wants something removed (especially altogether!) I really believe that certain forms of stalling are hard or impossible to penalize (perhaps due to being able to recognize intention), so making them illegal would have little consequence.

We don't make rulesets to appease whatever people want to see that day, we make them to get the most skilled players to the top of the bracket.

Actually, we more often than not do make rulesets that appease people (the success of this varies.) The latter in your statement is usually a result of the former.

It takes skill to time people out. Not only that, it takes specific characters, specific matchups, specific stages, and a whole lot of spacing knowledge to do so. If you don't think it's hard, try timing some people out in tournament.

I never once said that some stalling is unskillful, I said it is a win that isn't based on fighting skill, and most competitive players in any fighting game are only interested in fighting skills.

P.S. This thread makes me sad

 

[salaboB]

Would you care to explain how it isn't bad? It's not a matter that there are changes to how you play but the fact that there are changes that don't give the player meaningful choices. Almost always, you have to be on the ground or you will be at a disadvantage. There is no real choice.

So when you're on the ground you ... can't play the game?

There are still choices to be made on the ground. The phase is not permanent on the level, you can survive it. It doesn't break character balance on that level. It just makes you have to adapt.

This actually raises the skill ceiling, because it means you don't just have to know your character's options and your opponent's options, but also what the best thing to do in situations like PS2's transformations are. The better players have even more room to demonstrate their skill in this situation, not less -- so it shouldn't be banned just for "being different".

Would you care to explain how it is bad enough to warrant banning the stage? As I just explained, temporarily limiting your options to ground based maneuvers is not actually a problem. And if it's not bad, then there's no problem with the stage being unbanned and you're not in disagreement with me at all.

People not bothering to understand what's being said make me sad.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

So when you're on the ground you ... can't play the game?

I suggested being on the ground gives the player in the air phase of PS2 an advantage and that it doesn't meaningfully add to the diversity of our skillsets. Then you, either by yourself or through or a gravely mistaken impression, in turn deduce that when one is on the ground, one cannot play the game.

I'm appalled, salaboB.

There are still choices to be made on the ground... This actually raises the skill ceiling, because it means you don't just have to know your character's options and your opponent's options, but also what the best thing to do in situations like PS2's transformations are.

I think you missed the entire notion of what I said. Many players are more interested in fighting the other player and not the stage. So far the mentioned stages force players into situations that actually don't add a meaningful complexity to the game where we agree that it should that the outcome should be decided between the players and not the stage. Perhaps we do have some options on the ground, but it severely limits the ways we can approach and they approach us. Is that meaningful complexity? The mentioned stages introduce a specific kind interference where are actually not given meaningful options. They are no-brainers, do or die. You say we should adapt, but that's a given. That's the only option, and it has strictly to do with the stage and not the characters. Maybe it does raise the skill ceiling, but not for the kind of things we're usually interested in (player vs. player). It is much like how balancing ourselves on a boogie board while playing would raise the overall skill ceiling, but not in a meaningful way.

... it shouldn't be banned just for "being different". Would you care to explain how it is bad enough to warrant banning the stage?

I don't know who is banning something just because something is different. I am? Is [Corn]? I don't recall ever suggesting PS2 specifically to be banned. People not bothering to understand what's being said makes me sad, and that's not all:

P.S. This thread makes me sad

 

[Grim Tuesday]

You're referring to camping, not stalling. Not only is it legal, it HAS to be legal or we don't have a game. Wario on Norfair is just bouncing around the stage attempting to dodge Luigi or Snake or whomever, and you want to say "Hey, that's too hard for Luigi/Snake, stop donig that"? That's about as dumb as the anime convention kids saying "edgeguarding is unfair, NO EDGEGUARDING. If they're off the stage yuo CANNOT HIT THEM until they hit the ground!"

Which is, in turn, as dumb as saying "Temple is way too strong for fast characters like Fox and Sonic, I can't catch them once they have the lead even if I'm using the same character!" That is to say, not dumb at all.

We are all scrubs, Overswarm and Jack Keiser included, just to varying degrees. If we were to start with Brawl as it comes out of its packaging, follow completely logical steps in ruleset creation based only on competitive values and avoided all double standards, we'd end up with a game that no one would want to play (trust me, I've crunched the numbers and analyzed competitive ruleset design more than everyone else in this thread, anyone who used to follow the Stage Discussion boards in it's prime would be hard-pressed to dispute that).

Anybody here advocating a liberal stage lists should stop this process of starting with every stage legal, and then taking away the stages that don't match your personal idea of how competitive Smash should pan out (which are usually elevated to the level of objective axioms that "you'd be a fool to dispute"). Instead, give 'conservatives' reasons to like the stage. This insistence on objectivity and misguided belief that all liberal-stage list supporters are 'in the right', but an oppressed minority, and that conservative stage-list supporters are uneducated "scrubs" is absurd - and arguing with such a mentality is about as effective as beating a student over the head with a brick to convince them to become a landscaper when they leave school.

 

[Ghostbone]

We are all scrubs

This is true
Under Sirlin's definition, even banning Akuma in SFII Turbo could be considered scrubby (akuma dittos are still a playable matchup, and in HD remix other characters can outplay the akuma and win).
When you apply the whole "Make no arbitrary changes or ban things that don't completely break the game" to smash, you realise how impossible that is.

We're not playing the base game, but we don't want to, since smash isn't a competitive game out of the box (well technically it is, you can compete in FFAs with items on, but not very well, it's not conducive to a growing competitive metagame and community)

 

[salaboB]

Under Sirlin's definition, even banning Akuma in SFII Turbo could be considered scrubby (akuma dittos are still a playable matchup, and in HD remix other characters can outplay the akuma and win).

No, it's not. Sirlin's definition is only if the TO is banning something that they personally can't handle, if they're banning it because they have good reasons to (Health of the game, etc.) then it can be done.

Note that there is a difference between "being a scrub" (Only players get this one) and "having a scrubby mindset" (TOs can be this), but banning something that can be beaten by mirrors but nothing else is not scrubby for a TO.

 

[Ghostbone]

No, it's not. Sirlin's definition is only if the TO is banning something that they personally can't handle, if they're banning it because they have good reasons to (Health of the game, etc.) then it can be done.

Note that there is a difference between "being a scrub" (Only players get this one) and "having a scrubby mindset" (TOs can be this), but banning something that can be beaten by mirrors but nothing else is not scrubby for a TO.

You can handle Akuma
With Akuma
That's the point, technically whoever's best at the game is whoever's best at akuma, not whoever's best at other characters.

When you ban him, you're not determining who's the best at SFII turbo anymore, because Akuma's too cheap or difficult to deal with, that's essentially what the whole scrub mentality encompasses.
Instead, you're determining who's the best at SFII turbo sans Akuma. That's likely a much better competitive game, but it's still technically a scrubby decision to make.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

No, it's not. Sirlin's definition is only if the TO is banning something that they personally can't handle, if they're banning it because they have good reasons to (Health of the game, etc.) then it can be done.

Note that there is a difference between "being a scrub" (Only players get this one) and "having a scrubby mindset" (TOs can be this), but banning something that can be beaten by mirrors but nothing else is not scrubby for a TO.

A scrub would have a scrubby mindset, wouldn't they? And wouldn't it make sense to call someone with a scrubby mindset... a scrub? Just because Sirlin defines a scrub in terms of an attitude towards playing the game (rather than creating rulesets for it), doesn't mean we should be wading in the kiddie pool of semantics here - the intent of my post (and Ghost's) was obvious.

A TO with a scrub mentality would ban things because they don't like them - can you think of any reason to ban a tactic that can only be beaten by mirrors (like picking Akuma) other than disliking it? Is there anything objectively wrong with such a tactic?

 

[salaboB]

A TO with a scrub mentality would ban things because they don't like them - can you think of any reason to ban a tactic that can only be beaten by mirrors (like picking Akuma) other than disliking it? Is there anything objectively wrong with such a tactic?

From the TO's perspective there's many things wrong with that tactic. Incredible overcentralization and a stagnant metagame with no reasonable expectation that a counter can be found, to begin with.

If a player were to participate in an Akuma-allowed tournament, not pick Akuma, then whine about losing because their opponents used a cheesy character? That's scrubby. But the TO banning Akuma because he's the only viable choice and that's not a fun tournament? That's not scrubby.

A tournament in Smash that had "Only flat non-walkoff stages" wouldn't be scrubby if it was being done because the TO wanted to have it specifically test character vs character with nothing interfering (Note: Not player vs player. That happens even with stage hazards/items/whatever). A tournament in Smash that had "only flat non-walkoff stages" because the TO thinks stage hazards are "gay" and doesn't like to take a moment to not step onto the bomb that was just telegraphed? That's scrubby. You'll note that a lot of whether it's scrubby or not is based on the motivation, which is important -- because it's reflective of the mindset behind the decision (Scrubby or not).

The justification being used in the ruleset here is that allowing stages with stage hazards tests player skill less effectively. That's scrubby because it's been explained many times why stage hazards don't reduce the skill cap -- leaving it as "I don't like to deal with it so I want it banned".

 

[Mr.Showtime]

Complaining that you get put into a bad position on Rainbow Cruise is like complaining that your opponent survived because the Smashville platform just happened to be on that side.

You know what's coming. If you get put into a bad position, you've either messed up yourself or your opponent put you there.

Oh ok. So in that wonderful video that was linked in this thread before with MK and Olimar, please....PLEASE tell me....

How in the world could Olimar get into those positions where MK was?

People have one thing in mind, and that's to win. They'll use any cheap trick in the book to win matches regardless of how appealing it is. You give these people more of a reason to play dirty. Sorry its not fun by playing against someone who sits on the opposite side of the map while a scrolling screen becomes the bane of my existence. If you truly believe its fun, you are either a sadist (if you are a victim of it) or a masochist.

By the way...why the heck does a tier list matter to you so much? I've never let a tier list decide the fate of me picking a character in any game. You're probably going to look under my profile and say "Oh ahaha ya sure buddy, you play as MK in Brawl". I choose characters based on my personality or taste. Meta Knight was always my favorite Nintendo character back in the SNES days, and seeing him as a playable character instantly made me want to play as him.

You analogy is also insane. Smashville has no scrolling mechanics that forces players into positions that they can't do anything in. There is no gaps and deformed walls to hide yourself in as you wait for your opponent to inch his / her way across to their doom (because there is no where else to go). Sure a platform just so happened to be there, but its just bad timing or good luck. Its not a random factor and the platform is always moving. Also its really rare for players to be hit in the top left or right hand corner of the screens to use that platform as a recovery tool. Usually if they are hit that far out, they are usually dead, unless they have really great DI, and even still, probably will not be able to land on the platform in time.

But whatever man, believe what you want. Nothing anyone says is going to change your mind. We gave reasons, you're just not listening to them. I'll say the same thing to you as I said to Jack, have fun playing with the minority of campy, spammy games. If that's what you enjoy, create your own scene and play the way you want to. No one is forcing it upon you. If these rules are set in stone as the meta for rules, deal with it. If not, don't play in them.

P.S. I like how you ignore everything else I say, guess you couldn't find anything to argue against those points.