Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
It appears that you are using ad block :'(
Hey, we get it. However this website is run by and for the community... and it needs ads in order to keep running.
Please disable your adblock on Smashboards, or go premium to hide all advertisements and this notice. Alternatively, this ad may have just failed to load. Woops!
I'd just like to point out that your logic for why Peach is okay can equally apply to say that tripping is fine, because it doesn't happen every match.
What I'm getting at is that I think you have it backwards: Less frequent random events are worse than more frequent ones (As long as none are way-too-strong) because you can't plan ahead for them at all, you can only control damage when they unexpectedly fire off (And your "always happen" randoms are relatively predictable for when they're going to occur, even if the exact "what it is" isn't as predictable).
1. Actually, my logic doesn't say tripping is ok. Everyone can trip, everyone can't pull turnips.
2. That's not entirely what i'm getting at. You can't always prepare for something ridiculous to hit you at the moment, especially when your focus is on the person you are playing against. Unless you're some kind of prophet you can't always predict where something will spawn or who the claw/laser on halberd will hit.
Like I said, there is a time and place for everything, and no one wants some silly bs to screw someone out of money.
Yes, I did understood the reference. I apologize for saying something so obvious. But like I said, there are people treating this as if the game was meant to be targeted towards the competitive scene. People need to let that aspect go, and be prepared to only play 1/3rd of the game competitively.
It was just sounding like people were trying to prepare to keep the majority of the stages, which isn't going to happen.
I'm pretty sure Sakurai said that he intended to make 4 half way between Melee and Brawl, so both the competitive and casual players be happy, or, at least, not feel rejected.
While there will be at least a few stages that will absolutely need banning, what the liberals want is to maximize the amount of not banned stages through testing, rather than calling it dumb and moving on. While I'm sure that conservatives will ban 4/5 of the stage roster at least, I don't think that some, or even most of them really need banning.
1. Actually, my logic doesn't say tripping is ok. Everyone can trip, everyone can't pull turnips.
2. That's not entirely what i'm getting at. You can't always prepare for something ridiculous to hit you at the moment, especially when your focus is on the person you are playing against. Unless you're some kind of prophet you can't always predict where something will spawn or who the claw/laser on halberd will hit.
Like I said, there is a time and place for everything, and no one wants some silly bs to screw someone out of money.
So, let me get this straight:
Randomness that effects both players = Unfair
Randomness that only effects one player = Fair
Is that right? It appears to be what you are saying.
This game may not come out of the box ready to play competitively, but if you apply the same standards you use in other games to smash it can produce a competitive results.
The result though, isn't what certain people in this thread like for their own reasons. I doubt anyone will convince anyone in this thread about which is "right" because there isn't one right way.
Well, tourney goers for Smash in general are always under the butt of "Tiers are for queers" and "Smash is not a real fighter" jokes all the damn time but do you see the TO's and passionate community getting depressed and shying away from what they like? No. There's always going to be those close minded fools and trolls out there having no idea what they're talking about. At least with us, we prove those fools wrong, especially with the strong performance at EVO.
To me, it just seems like you're just coming up with the typical "those mean bullies "insert action here___" excuse just for a rebuttal against Quilt's reply. Just do what you want. If you have a strong following, why the heck are you worrying about a close minded minority on the internet's thought? Host your own tourney. It's been said many times before in this very thread.
How often does your own community go out of their way to do these things to itself though? (Yes, that sentence is confusing, read it over a few times.)
People in this thread saying "majority rules!" need to realize that if that were the case, they should have went with the majority back then. That's not a good arguing point, yet people are using it here. "You're stupid!" is also a bad arguing point, yet it's been used here and other places quite a bit. I know you yourself haven't said this, but it's very relevant to the problem.
If I got the largest following Smash has ever seen in tournaments, but because I ran a more liberal ruleset no one would listen to me in any discussions here ever again, THAT is a problem. People get dismissed just because of things like this. When everyone on the non liberal side tells anyone and their dog that those people are stupid and doing it wrong, it's VERY hard to build that scene. There's another problem. You ask me to do something but others are going to go out of their way to see it not be successful JUST LIKE THEY DID IN THE PAST.
This is why I would ask for coexistence, it's annoying to be discredited and shunned by your own community for doing what they asked you to do, and unless there is something to change that, it will continue happening.
This game may not come out of the box ready to play competitively, but if you apply the same standards you use in other games to smash it can produce a competitive results.
The result though, isn't what certain people in this thread like for their own reasons. I doubt anyone will convince anyone in this thread about which is "right" because there isn't one right way.
Anyways...
How often does your own community go out of their way to do these things to itself though? (Yes, that sentence is confusing, read it over a few times.)
People in this thread saying "majority rules!" need to realize that if that were the case, they should have went with the majority back then. That's not a good arguing point, yet people are using it here. "You're stupid!" is also a bad arguing point, yet it's been used here and other places quite a bit. I know you yourself haven't said this, but it's very relevant to the problem.
If I got the largest following Smash has ever seen in tournaments, but because I ran a more liberal ruleset no one would listen to me in any discussions here ever again, THAT is a problem. People get dismissed just because of things like this. When everyone on the non liberal side tells anyone and their dog that those people are stupid and doing it wrong, it's VERY hard to build that scene. There's another problem. You ask me to do something but others are going to go out of their way to see it not be successful JUST LIKE THEY DID IN THE PAST.
This is why I would ask for coexistence, it's annoying to be discredited and shunned by your own community for doing what they asked you to do, and unless there is something to change that, it will continue happening.
Ok, we've established that we used to be the majority, and that now we get shunned for trying to do as we did before. We've also established that, no matter what, we probably can't change the scene, even if that scene is coexistence. What do you recommend? I think support from conservatives would be highly beneficial if it's sincere, but I am not sure how we could get that to happen. Any ideas?
(Side note: When I say "we," I mean "You all.")
If I got the largest following Smash has ever seen in tournaments, but because I ran a more liberal ruleset no one would listen to me in any discussions here ever again, THAT is a problem. People get dismissed just because of things like this. When everyone on the non liberal side tells anyone and their dog that those people are stupid and doing it wrong, it's VERY hard to build that scene. There's another problem. You ask me to do something but others are going to go out of their way to see it not be successful JUST LIKE THEY DID IN THE PAST.
A.) Who shows up to your massive tournament(s). If M2K, ADHD, Dr. PP, or other big names in Smash come, you might have some credibility among the traditional tournament style players. If you have a lot of guys who aren't popular or known in the "conservative" realm and they get good using items and making use of tough stages, no conservative would see it as a legitimate, serious tournament to see who's the best.
B.) If the contestants are actually serious when they show up, and it's not deemed a joke tournament that isn't indicative of skill. Even if you get top tier players as mentioned above, if they don't see it as a tournament just as competitive as a traditional one, no one else will see it as a viable option.
C.) The conservative side probably doesn't want to have it built in the way you are leaning towards. You can't just add a liberal stage list and still say it's within the confines of what most conservative players want in competitive play. Because it's not building up that scene, it's going a different way. Similar to adding new positions or aspects to a sports game.
This is why I would ask for coexistence, it's annoying to be discredited and shunned by your own community for doing what they asked you to do, and unless there is something to change that, it will continue happening.
Then hold your own tournaments. But, the Smashboard community and a large portion of the competitive scene won't see it as very competitive. If they don't see your tournaments as legitimate, then you probably won't be welcome in their competitive community. You may just have to make your own, separate one.
A.) Who shows up to your massive tournament(s). If M2K, ADHD, Dr. PP, or other big names in Smash come, you might have some credibility among the traditional tournament style players. If you have a lot of guys who aren't popular or known in the "conservative" realm and they get good using items and making use of tough stages, no conservative would see it as a legitimate, serious tournament to see who's the best.
B.) If the contestants are actually serious when they show up, and it's not deemed a joke tournament that isn't indicative of skill. Even if you get top tier players as mentioned above, if they don't see it as a tournament just as competitive as a traditional one, no one else will see it as a viable option.
C.) The conservative side probably doesn't want to have it built in the way you are leaning towards. You can't just add a liberal stage list and still say it's within the confines of what most conservative players want in competitive play. Because it's not building up that scene, it's going a different way. Similar to adding new positions or aspects to a sports game.
Then hold your own tournaments. But, the Smashboard community and a large portion of the competitive scene won't see it as very competitive. If they don't see your tournaments as legitimate, then you probably won't be welcome in their competitive community. You may just have to make your own, separate one.
There we go! That side says "host your own events" but makes them doomed from the start. A lot of these top players wont show up to a tournament like that simple because it's not the game they what to play or are used to.
The biggest grip is those who would ask you to go host liberal stage list events so we can have them to look at for rule considerations, then go and say "this guy isn't a legit source of information, look at what tournaments he's hosting." It's happened often, even the region you live in effects your credibility for no real reason.
I'd prefer not to have to make a site separate from Smashboards just in the hopes of garnering a scene. Why can't both sides just get along so Smashboards can be an awesome central hub instead of splitting the community up as far as possible?
The biggest grip is those who would ask you to go host liberal stage list events so we can have them to look at for rule considerations, then go and say "this guy isn't a legit source of information, look at what tournaments he's hosting." It's happened often, even the region you live in effects your credibility for no real reason.
Those guys aren't the audience you're looking at. It's the people who want a liberal stage list. It's just not going to be in the same realm of competition if you have items on or a liberal stage list. No one faithful to the traditional tournament scene sees it as viable or relevant to their respective competitive scene.
You aren't in a sense, building on the traditional competitive style. You're branching off to a new one without the support of the old.
I'd prefer not to have to make a site separate from Smashboards just in the hopes of garnering a scene. Why can't both sides just get along so Smashboards can be an awesome central hub instead of splitting the community up as far as possible?
Because the competitive boards are by far not supportive of a liberal stage list. The best you could do is make another sub forum outside of the competitive ones. You could in theory do it on our competitive board, but since it takes up space and is present to the traditionalists, there's nothing restricting them from not supporting it.
Those guys aren't the audience you're looking at. It's the people who want a liberal stage list. It's just not going to be in the same realm of competition if you have items on or a liberal stage list. No one faithful to the traditional tournament scene sees it as viable or relevant to their respective competitive scene.
You aren't in a sense, building on the traditional competitive style. You're branching off to a new one without the support of the old.
Because the competitive boards are by far not supportive of a liberal stage list. The best you could do is make another sub forum outside of the competitive ones. You could in theory do it on our competitive board, but since it takes up space and is present to the traditionalists, there's nothing restricting them from not supporting it.
That's the kicker. If this is the case "go host your own stuff and we'll listen to you" shouldn't be the answer people give, the "we'll listen to you" should be cut.
Well like I said, no one is safe from contrarians. It's not like your side is so innocent, either. I've, and I'm sure you and pretty much anyone who follows Smash, seen years worth of "Real men play with items" and "FD ONLY HUR HUR!" etc, etc, without even having a clue of what Smash can be all about. You just gotta shrug off the ******* and just do what you want.
And while I'm not trying to put words in people's mouths, I think the people in this thread are just arguing for the fact that they just don't want pro item/ all stage smashers to invade their tourneys and unnecessarily change already established rule sets, which is why they rather not even deal with items and random detrimental stage influences to begin with. I mean, there's been 3 Smash games and it works for them, so why try to fix what's not broken? I don't think anyone here particularly cares if you or anyone who shares your ideals to go out and make your own tourney scene as a nice alternative, which is what people here have been saying.
That's the kicker. If this is the case "go host your own stuff and we'll listen to you" shouldn't be the answer people give, the "we'll listen to you" should be cut.
Well, at least we dispelled the lies told on one side maybe. If there really was no way for it to be possibly accepted no matter what, should have been said from the start
Well, at least we dispelled the lies told on one side maybe. If there really was no way for it to be possibly accepted no matter what, should have been said from the start
That's because people were fighting, and still are, to have their way as the overall competitive Smash framework.
You can have the liberal stage list if you want, but you're going to have to pray that it gets a decent following. And I can guarantee you a lot of people won't take it seriously and trash talk it.
That's because people were fighting, and still are, to have their way as the overall competitive Smash framework.
You can have the liberal stage list if you want, but you're going to have to pray that it gets a decent following. And I can guarantee you a lot of people won't take it seriously and trash talk it.
If everyone promises not to label me as not worth listening to for life for doing so, I'll give up changing status quo and I'll go 100% coexistence 24/7. I just don't see it happening if the past is any indicator.
There we go! That side says "host your own events" but makes them doomed from the start. A lot of these top players wont show up to a tournament like that simple because it's not the game they what to play or are used to.
I bet even if you got them to admit they aren't trying to change the traditional format, many of them will still blame it for holding their preferences back.
I wanted 100% coexistence as you quoted. Not able to happen at this rate. Normally, this wouldn't be a problem, but the side doing this now once was the one in the majority shouting out for change. It was okay for them, but not okay for people doing it now? What?
Though I will agree with Quilt here T0mmy:
Your standard is based on Sirlin's writings, basing our ruleset on those principles was even brought up in this thread, it was shot down. So matter what standard you create, if people don't like it they wont use it even if it was a one true standard to rule them all.
Scrubs shoot down Sirlin's writings, it's to be expected. If one is to attempt to please everyone all the time they will end in failure. My proposal has always been built on creating a strong argument based on definition and adhering to the principle set. Present the conclusion and if someone wants to use items and random characters on Summit then they can adhere to a different standard. That's the beauty of my proposal, it is intended for competitive play (and expected to be rejected by scrubs/casuals).
I even made a thread suggesting these people be allowed some space on the boards to develop their own scene and ruleset, but has anyone, in the past, then, or since taken any significant initiative to create their own scene?
Elements are smallest parts that compose the matter of a standard.
Anyway, I'll humor you with a response that Capps didn't bother to answer: If the ruleset is always going to boil down to what we prefer in a game, what good is setting a standard?
It acts as a beacon and support for competition, helps speed up the process of where it's going to get to with the added protection of not stepping on casual players' toes - a TO can say "Hey, I advertised this as a COMPETITIVE tournament, I am just adhering to the Competitive Standard, so don't whine to me about not having Items on."
There's a wealth of reasons how this can be a great support to a TO, yet the best thing about a standard is it doesn't force anything on anyone, and by free market model it will have the strongest standard in use (given it's quality and accessibility to demand).
How can you possibly get unanimous consent on what that standard should be?
Unanimous is not needed. Once someone tries it out and sees they like it they will use it and others follow suit. It's the long and difficult path I took for promoting competitive rules when Brawl came out.
If you did, how could you distinguish between standards and mutual preferences?
Not sure how you are using mutual preferences here. My best answer at this point is that standards will stay, preferences are dynamic and won't ever take hold.
Even if you did define a set of principals for a competitive standard, how can you adequately show when the standard is met?
It should be drawn up so anyone with any intelligence could see the differences, if any, between their event's rules and the standard.
If you illustrate your elements or standards with in-game examples (and all good models for anything have to), at some point the lines are going to get blurred between the standards and a ruleset itself
Very good point, but a flexible ruleset that promotes competition without being so strict it breaks when "blurred" will be more readily acceptable. For instance, referring to stages as toggled ON instead of "banned" (stages obviously not aligned with the principles like Flatzone would need OK'd by both the players involved and a referee/TO). Blurry areas can be unblurred by agreements.
All one can do is say what one prefers, rationalize the preference, and try to keep it consistent with the game's rules.
I think that's what I've been promoting here. And reading some posts of yours, it seems we would be seeking the same conclusion. Except I just a few key words like "standard" instead of "preference".
That not only is to be expected, but should be accepted and embraced.
Opinion is opinion, it does not go anywhere.
Premises that hold true to validate a sound conclusion will stand strong and has swaying power. Ultimately when competitive play is defined people can just say "no it isn't" and be forgotten.
So, let me get this straight:
Randomness that effects both players = Unfair
Randomness that only effects one player = Fair
Is that right? It appears to be what you are saying.
Yeah, that is what i'm saying. It's easy to make what i'm saying seem bad when you take them out of context without examining what the randomness does in each situation. Peach's powers are random, yet, they are completely visible to the player and the opponent, giving you a chance to react accordingly. You can't see a trip coming, and when it happens it puts you in a bad position to where it interrupts the momentum of the match or give your opponent a get-out-of-jail free card.
I would rather KNOW I can get hit by a Stitch Face than be unwillingly FORCED to trip into a Falcon Punch.
Yeah, that is what i'm saying. It's easy to make what i'm saying seem bad when you take them out of context without examining what the randomness does in each situation. Peach's powers are random, yet, they are completely visible to the player and the opponent, giving you a chance to react accordingly. You can't see a trip coming, and when it happens it puts you in a bad position to where it interrupts the momentum of the match or give your opponent a get-out-of-jail free card.
I would rather KNOW I can get hit by a Stitch Face than be unwillingly FORCED to trip into a Falcon Punch.
Yeah, that is what i'm saying. It's easy to make what i'm saying seem bad when you take them out of context without examining what the randomness does in each situation.
Unfair is the antonym of "fair". Fair is 1) free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice; 2) legitimately sought, pursued, done, given; 3) Proper under the rules.
Given that we want a "fair fight", the 3rd definition is in the context we are looking for. To say something is "fair" or "unfair" is only referring to the rules (which would be the Standard).
Which Standard are you saying this is fair or not fair under?
My tournaments I host adhere to the Competitive Standard.
Competitive Standard states that (random) environmental damage is fair.
It is fair because there is no bias towards one player over another (it is random!)
However, by that same standard, environmental damage is a direct violation of the principle of Skill. Competitive Standard promotes skill over luck. Therefore any stage with (random) environmental damage is not aligned with this standard and would utilize the in-game mechanic of being toggled "OFF".
To translate this to laymen's terms: Stages with environmental damage should be "banned", not because it is unfair, but because they would promote luck over skill (and impedes competition).
You could say that any random item spawn is unfair as it spawns closer to one player.
When a giant wall of lava comes from your side rather than your opponent's, that's also unfair.
(we'd be looking at fairness in terms of bias, giving advantages to one player over another).
I mean you can try and define fairness in some way that hazards don't defy, but you'd just be going against how the word's commonly used in the english language.
Oh and T0MMY, I find it funny you're going on about how luck is bad for competition, yet you're promoting using random stage selection.
You know, the selection process that promotes getting lucky and having the stage favour you over your opponent.
Oh and T0MMY, I find it funny you're going on about how luck is bad for competition, yet you're promoting using random stage selection.
You know, the selection process that promotes getting lucky and having the stage favour you over your opponent.
Don't think I haven't formulated the reasoning of a "random" stage select into the standard.
First off, it is an event that happens outside the round of play. Additionally I am NOT promoting a random stage select first and foremost - I am promoting STAGE AGREEMENT.
A random choice is the ONLY candid option for a referee to determine which stage will be used, whether it's a G&W hammer decision or the in-game random stage.
Additionally the stages that can only be random'd are Neutral stages (aligned with competitive standard).
This entire process happens when players cannot agree to a stage (whether through simple OK's or a Stage Strike Method, or whatever they choose).
Again, I am not promoting it as the only choice, I am decisively illustrating how it is the final call in a decision for a referee.
Don't think I haven't formulated the reasoning of a "random" stage select into the standard.
First off, it is an event that happens outside the round of play. Additionally I am NOT promoting a random stage select first and foremost - I am promoting STAGE AGREEMENT.
A random choice is the ONLY candid option for a referee to determine which stage will be used, whether it's a G&W hammer decision or the in-game random stage.
Additionally the stages that can only be random'd are Neutral stages (aligned with competitive standard).
This entire process happens when players cannot agree to a stage (whether through simple OK's or a Stage Strike Method, or whatever they choose).
Again, I am not promoting it as the only choice, I am decisively illustrating how it is the final call in a decision for a referee.
It's already been explained to you why agreeing to a stage won't always happen. Which is why we have the striking method employed at pretty much every tournament, so we don't have random stage select.
(and players agreeing to use a strike method is far different from players using the strike method because that's the tournament standard, in your system anyone can just refuse to agree to a stage and hope they get a favourable random stage for them, that's not competitive)
And you haven't explained why FD/BF/SV are the only competitive stages (and if they're the only competitive stages people shouldn't be allowed to go to other stages)
I mean Smashville has a moving platform that gets in the way and the balloon can refresh moves changing gameplay.
Why is Smashville competitive and not Lylat? Or PS1? etc.
And btw FD/SV/BF are not neutral, they often heavily favour certain characters in certain matchups, idk what definition of neutral you're trying to use but it's not one that anyone else uses.
Like your arguments make no sense and I feel the need to point that out.
It's already been explained to you why agreeing to a stage won't always happen. Which is why we have the striking method employed at pretty much every tournament, so we don't have random stage select.
Your confusion stems from overlooking what the Rules of Agreement actually details: The Stage Strike Method is agreement.
If players are not using the SSM to agree to a stage your same argument can be used against practically any set of rules!
Whether it's the SSM, random stage, or whoever can best tapdance to the tune of Good Ship Lollipop - it doesn't matter, players MUST agree to stage or competition cannot proceed!
When players refuse to use any and all methods the competition would end. A referee is called forth and makes an impartial decision. The most candid and efficient decision I have found is using the in-game random stage choice (pressing the Start Button on the stage screen).
Want to hear some first-hand experience? Please read the following collapsed text.
Now you wanna hear something outstanding? In all my time hosting, I have NEVER had players not agree to a stage. I have not once as a referee had to push that start button to use a random stage. Most people are happy to play on Battlefield or Smashville. And it takes almost no time at all getting the round of play going, which, as a TO under stress of time when the venue kicks people out, is very helpful.
And you haven't explained why FD/BF/SV are the only competitive stages (and if they're the only competitive stages people shouldn't be allowed to go to other stages)
You may not be asking the proper question - I do not believe I ever labeled them as "competitive stages", rather I label them as "Neutral Stages" due to their qualities.
Details of these stages may not have been posted in this thread specifically, but I have posted details elsewhere.
For your convenience:
Stages which are labeled "Neutral" are toggled ON (all other stages are toggled OFF). Neutral Stages have definitive design which is to align with competitive values (skill, fairness, and non-impeding).
Starting stages should be determined by way of their neutrality (which turns out to be BF, FD, and SV with the option of a few extended stages such as YI, LC, CS, and PS1).
: .
Therefore BF, FD, and SV are toggled "ON".
For further evaluations of any "gray areas" see the collapsed text below. Note
I stress the point that these stages are not the only stages available. Many stages are available to be played on, but first round is a strictly competitive round and will most likely land the players on one of those three stages only (after their characters are chosen), however LC and YI are always allowed for first round (and a few others like PS1 and CS) with the Agreement Clause.
Subsequent rounds allow for a larger selection of stages to be used (and more still are opened with Agreement).
As long as a TO has not banned a stage (so it can't be used even with an Agreement), any stage can be a competitively viable stage as long as all players are in agreement. This is done so no complaints about a "limited" stagelist is used against a TO who will find they cannot satisfy the entire spectrum of stage list complaints.
It can be argued that there is enough gray area for TO's to have the options of a 3-stage starter (BF, SV, FD), 5-stage starter (BF, SV, FD, LC, YI), or 7-stage starter (BF, SV, FD, LC, YI, CS, PS1) depending on their attendee preference. Anything beyond the 7-stage starter is generally seen as outside the gray area of a competitive standard.
But a 3-stage starter is the most competitive, strictly speaking, and the option I choose since I run competitive events.
___
I mean Smashville has a moving platform that gets in the way and the balloon can refresh moves changing gameplay.
These mechanics have been thoroughly analyzed over the past 5 years to considerable debate, yet the stage remains as one of the most well accepted stage in the competitive community.
Why?
After my studies into Competitive Philosophy I found the principle elements of competition to be Fairness, Skillful, and a non-impediment.
Are they fair? Yes, they do not favor one player over the other (however, fairness toward character is discussed below). Are they skillful? Yes, these features are predictable and move slow enough to invalidate a "random" event, yet open a deeper gameplay with Platform Snapping and Refresh strategy. Do they impede competition? For some characters (like Ness due to his unique recovery) it could be seen as a impediment, however it is up to the player to not agree to Smashville if they want to play these specific characters, otherwise they will either have to change character or contend with the obstacle (which may be argued as being more skill than luck anyway).
The competitive strength of Smashville is why the stage is so prominently played in competition. We all seem to understand that it is competitive, but has unique qualities.
What we should conclude is that Smashville has "dynamic" qualities which differ from the "static" design of Battlefield and Final Destination.
But the verdict still holds: Smashville gets an OK when aligned with the Competitive Standard.
Further musing:
Maybe it's not the argument you like, it may not be a perfect argument, but it is the strongest argument and thereby displaces any weaker argument. So if one want to convince any TO to get rid of Smashville they will have to provide a stronger argument to replace this one with.
Assuming the argument that states the balloon/platform mechanics violate the Competitive Standard, we would be left with only two competitive stages (which doesn't work well with a Stage Strike Method needing an odd number of stages and minimum of three), or worse we would have a slippery slope and would be left with no Stage to even have a competition at all.
Why is Smashville competitive and not Lylat? Or PS1? etc.
It is the result of Smashville being accepted as aligned with the Competitive Standard (and therefore is simply toggled "ON").
That is not to say no other stage is competitive.
Far from it!
For some special circumstances TO's raise issue with over otherwise viable stages, please see the collapsed text below:
Lylat is usually used in competitive play, however, due to it's dynamic mechanics (tilting stage) and exceptionally vibrant background, the stage has been toggled "OFF" for players who have photosensitivity problems (like seizures and such).
Pokemon Stadium is usually only allowed if agreed to in my events due to violation of Impediment (transformations) and Luck (players glitch through the stage, as their opponent scores a lucky KO).
PS1 is just one of those "almost" viable stages.
And btw FD/SV/BF are not neutral, they often heavily favour certain characters in certain matchups, idk what definition of neutral you're trying to use but it's not one that anyone else uses.
There are two pieces of evidence which dismisses this statement:
1) Character matchups is not part of a definitive neutral stage.
There are a multitude of reasons, but the most prominent being that it is so subjective that it can never be practically employed (probably another slipper slope, however, we'll just leave the matchup argument to a nirvana fallacy).
Your statement that nobody else is using the definition of "neutral" that I am using is unswaying for a couple reasons:
Standard Definition
I derive my definition from the standard definition of "neutral" found in the english language, a standard which nearly every native english speaker is (or should) be using.
Argument ad populum
it doesn't matter if "everyone else" is doing it - that would be a fallacy of popularity (e.g. a majority of people saying the world is flat does not mean it is true), thus this claim defeats its own argument.
The definition I have adhered to illustrates how a stage does not give an advantage to one side or the other (see definition 1 & 2). You may be thinking "ah ha, see, you are WRONG because stages give advantages to the side playing a certain character over the other!"
Well, that is correct in that the stage plays a role in competition, but still wrong due to a limited view of the entire competitive process which includes choosing characters.
For an example, please expand the following "spoiler" section.
Rules state that characters are chosen after a stage has been set. Now let us assume a stage has features that give a certain character an immense advantage over another... an easy example is King Dedede vs Ganondorf on a stage with a "wall". Dedede gets a huge advantage on Ganondorf because a single Grab would lead into a chain of walking Grabs ultimately pinning Ganondorf against the wall no matter where the point of location of the Grab attack; this chain of walking Grabs is then an "infinite" standing chain of Grabs ("infinite chain-grab"). I am sure you are familiar with this technique and how great of an advantage it provides the Dedede player, so obviously the Stage is not "neutral" (giving one player an advantage over the other) due to character matchup. However, this is dead WRONG.
Why?
Because the players choose their characters AFTER the stage has been determined. If one player chooses Ganondorf, they are making that choice knowing the consequences. The choice of characters was 100% completely and totally fair play for both the players at that point, no amount of crying changes this fact - they are fighting it out in the Competitive Arena, then they are expected to take advantage of everything they can to win, to do any less is to illustrate the "disadvantage" is actually internally conceived (the internal decision to choose to play Ganondorf on that stage).
Like your arguments make no sense and I feel the need to point that out.
In order to illustrate an argument which is illogical you would need to do more than just make a groundless claim that it "makes no sense". A groundless accusation is seen as mere rhetorical opinion and is forgotten swiftly.
Please try again with premises that support a valid conclusion.
When you have done so you will provide a stronger argument that will displace mine and should be well embraced, by myself included.
Wait, people dont understand that a neutral stage is one that allows you full control and reliability of your characters use disregarding your opponent?
A stage is generally not neutral because its an even matchup for all characters, its because the characters can all function on the stage without uncontrollable or game changing things changing control schemes throughout the match.
Its like how Fourside is tall enough for Ganondorf to require the use of his up b to get over it. Simple movement is restricted to the point of uselessness.
Wait, people dont understand that a neutral stage is one that allows you full control and reliability of your characters use disregarding your opponent?
A stage is generally not neutral because its an even matchup for all characters, its because the characters can all function on the stage without uncontrollable or game changing things changing control schemes throughout the match.
The problem with this definition is that it makes the "counterpick" pool of stages incorrectly named, if "neutral" stages are fine being strong counterpick options. This seems unlikely.
The ideal is that the neutral stage not only doesn't screw with your ability to play by having unavoidable hazards (Which is a criteria for any stage), but doesn't skew matchups badly through its layout either -- you vs your opponent should have pretty similar results on any one neutral stage compared to all the others in that set, otherwise it's not neutral.
The problem with this definition is that it makes the "counterpick" pool of stages incorrectly named, if "neutral" stages are fine being strong counterpick options. This seems unlikely.
The ideal is that the neutral stage not only doesn't screw with your ability to play by having unavoidable hazards (Which is a criteria for any stage), but doesn't skew matchups badly through its layout either -- you vs your opponent should have pretty similar results on any one neutral stage compared to all the others in that set, otherwise it's not neutral.
Its impossible for any stage to not screw around with matchups. (Screwing with control/play as in removal of ledges/solid floor, scrolling/transitions, hazards, walkoffs, effects like PK2, or general randomness like warioware) Thats an unreasonable expectation of any character as well.
Wait, people dont understand that a neutral stage is one that allows you full control and reliability of your characters use disregarding your opponent?
A stage is generally not neutral because its an even matchup for all characters, its because the characters can all function on the stage without uncontrollable or game changing things changing control schemes throughout the match.
Its like how Fourside is tall enough for Ganondorf to require the use of his up b to get over it. Simple movement is restricted to the point of uselessness.
"Neutral" was a misnomer used long ago. We changed it to "Starter" to better represent what it was. The idea was supposed to be "neutral" stages gave the most even matchup across the most number of matchups. We now know this to not be the case and call them "starters" instead and have increased the style of stages that can be used in Brawl as a result.
Your confusion stems from overlooking what the Rules of Agreement actually details: The Stage Strike Method is agreement.
If players are not using the SSM to agree to a stage your same argument can be used against practically any set of rules!
Whether it's the SSM, random stage, or whoever can best tapdance to the tune of Good Ship Lollipop - it doesn't matter, players MUST agree to stage or competition cannot proceed!
Players don't agree to use stage striking, the tournament forces them to if they want to enter.
In your ruleset, one player can simply decide they don't want to strike, they'd rather go for a random stage advantage.
Want to hear some first-hand experience? Please read the following collapsed text.
Now you wanna hear something outstanding? In all my time hosting, I have NEVER had players not agree to a stage. I have not once as a referee had to push that start button to use a random stage. Most people are happy to play on Battlefield or Smashville. And it takes almost no time at all getting the round of play going, which, as a TO under stress of time when the venue kicks people out, is very helpful.
"Players agree not to use my terrible selection method, so it must be ok!"
That's what you're saying here.
Stages which are labeled "Neutral" are toggled ON (all other stages are toggled OFF). Neutral Stages have definitive design which is to align with competitive values (skill, fairness, and non-impeding).
Starting stages should be determined by way of their neutrality (which turns out to be BF, FD, and SV with the option of a few extended stages such as YI, LC, CS, and PS1).
Define all these things.
I'm sure someone could claim the platforms on Battlefield impede their movement, can you really claim they don't?
FD is certainly unfair is certain matchups, like Ice Climbers vs Olimar, can you really claim it doesn't heavily favour Ice Climbers? (thus being unfair)
I could claim playing on Temple takes skill, results are consistent there, there's no random factors.
But a 3-stage starter is the most competitive, strictly speaking, and the option I choose since I run competitive events.
By your logic, wouldn't a 1 stage starter be the most competitive, since clearly Smashville and Battlefield impede competition with their platforms?
These mechanics have been thoroughly analyzed over the past 5 years to considerable debate, yet the stage remains as one of the most well accepted stage in the competitive community.
Why?
After my studies into Competitive Philosophy I found the principle elements of competition to be Fairness, Skillful, and a non-impediment.
Are they fair? Yes, they do not favor one player over the other (however, fairness toward character is discussed below). Are they skillful? Yes, these features are predictable and move slow enough to invalidate a "random" event, yet open a deeper gameplay with Platform Snapping and Refresh strategy. Do they impede competition? For some characters (like Ness due to his unique recovery) it could be seen as a impediment, however it is up to the player to not agree to Smashville if they want to play these specific characters, otherwise they will either have to change character or contend with the obstacle (which may be argued as being more skill than luck anyway).
Holy **** wtf definition of fair are you using.
Players have to pick characters, when a stage favours one player's character over another, that's the definition of unfair rofl.
Your definition of "impeding competition" seems to boil down to randomness, yet stages like RC and Temple aren't random, how do they impede competition then?
The competitive strength of Smashville is why the stage is so prominently played in competition. We all seem to understand that it is competitive, but has unique qualities.
What we should conclude is that Smashville has "dynamic" qualities which differ from the "static" design of Battlefield and Final Destination.
But the verdict still holds: Smashville gets an OK when aligned with the Competitive Standard.
Smashville has an arbitrary rule (the scrooging rule) just to keep it legal, in that sense it's far from a purely competitive stage.
Maybe it's not the argument you like, it may not be a perfect argument, but it is the strongest argument and thereby displaces any weaker argument. So if one want to convince any TO to get rid of Smashville they will have to provide a stronger argument to replace this one with.
Can you try and be more narcissistic, rofl.
You're just throwing words around and claiming you're right, without supporting it and while having huge double standards. It's not a strong argument at all.
Lylat is usually used in competitive play, however, due to it's dynamic mechanics (tilting stage) and exceptionally vibrant background, the stage has been toggled "OFF" for players who have photosensitivity problems (like seizures and such).
Pokemon Stadium is usually only allowed if agreed to in my events due to violation of Impediment (transformations) and Luck (players glitch through the stage, as their opponent scores a lucky KO).
PS1 is just one of those "almost" viable stages.
Sonic can camp under the stage on FD to impede competition, many characters can plank on the ledge to impede competition, MK (and like, Jiggs) can circle camp on Smashville to impede competition, yet you rate those stages as ok.
Realistically every stage has a way of "impeding competition", that has nothing to do with why we prefer mostly static stages, and your attempts to justify them make no sense.
1) Character matchups is not part of a definitive neutral stage.
There are a multitude of reasons, but the most prominent being that it is so subjective that it can never be practically employed (probably another slipper slope, however, we'll just leave the matchup argument to a nirvana fallacy).
Shall I define neutral for you
"Not helping or supporting either of two opposing sides, esp. countries at war; impartial."
Just because we can't measure the exact degree of which FD helps ICs against Olimar, doesn't mean it doesn't help them.
It's not a neutral stage because of that, no stage is neutral in smash, that's a fundamental property of the game.
Standard Definition
I derive my definition from the standard definition of "neutral" found in the english language, a standard which nearly every native english speaker is (or should) be using.
it doesn't matter if "everyone else" is doing it - that would be a fallacy of popularity (e.g. a majority of people saying the world is flat does not mean it is true), thus this claim defeats its own argument.
Do you not understand how language works, you really must not understand how language works for you to say this.
I guess I'll have to explain language to you.
Language is a form of communication based off of sounds which we have a mutual understanding of the meaning of. If everyone uses a word a certain way, and people understand it to mean a certain thing, then that's what it means. That's not argument ad populum, and when you try to apply fallacies to situations they don't apply to, it makes you look silly.
The definition I have adhered to illustrates how a stage does not give an advantage to one side or the other (see definition 1 & 2). You may be thinking "ah ha, see, you are WRONG because stages give advantages to the side playing a certain character over the other!" Well, that is correct in that the stage plays a role in competition, but still wrong due to a limited view of the entire competitive process which includes choosing characters.
This would be make sense, if we chose stages before characters, but we don't.
And by this logic, you'd still have to define every non-random stage as competitive.
Rules state that characters are chosen after a stage has been set. Now let us assume a stage has features that give a certain character an immense advantage over another... an easy example is King Dedede vs Ganondorf on a stage with a "wall". Dedede gets a huge advantage on Ganondorf because a single Grab would lead into a chain of walking Grabs ultimately pinning Ganondorf against the wall no matter where the point of location of the Grab attack; this chain of walking Grabs is then an "infinite" standing chain of Grabs ("infinite chain-grab"). I am sure you are familiar with this technique and how great of an advantage it provides the Dedede player, so obviously the Stage is not "neutral" (giving one player an advantage over the other) due to character matchup. However, this is dead WRONG.
Why?
Because the players choose their characters AFTER the stage has been determined.
.....do you even know what the set format is?
People double blind pick their characters, then people stage strike, in your system, they can refuse to stage strike and try to randomly get an advantaged stage.
The stage was determined after the characters, your sentence is just clearly wrong.
In order to illustrate an argument which is illogical you would need to do more than just make a groundless claim that it "makes no sense". A groundless accusation is seen as mere rhetorical opinion and is forgotten swiftly.
Please try again with premises that support a valid conclusion.
I've pointed out most of the major inconsistencies in your argument and your double standards, and it's been previously been pointed out to you why your selection method is inferior to the selection method used at every major tournament.
Sorry but your system isn't the status quo, you'll need to do a better job of supporting it than just shrugging off any criticism and saying "nah I'm right"
When you have done so you will provide a stronger argument that will displace mine and should be well embraced, by myself included.
"Neutral" was a misnomer used long ago. We changed it to "Starter" to better represent what it was. The idea was supposed to be "neutral" stages gave the most even matchup across the most number of matchups. We now know this to not be the case and call them "starters" instead and have increased the style of stages that can be used in Brawl as a result.
What's the distinction between starter and counterpick?
It seems like starters still strive for more neutrality in the MUs (Which could be measured by whether MUs change significantly between them -- ie, ideally a 5:5 should be a 5:5 on every starter, while it might change to a 4:6 on a counterpick, and that pattern holds across all MUs as close as is reasonable)
Final Destination fails that test, since IC MUs (Any other characters strongly benefit?) change on it in comparison to other starters.
What's the distinction? People like to play on "starters" more.
Starters are mostly flat, which makes sense coming from Melee, as in Melee all the mostly static/flat stages are the most balanced, so they saw the most play time and were what was played on in game 1 to avoid super polar advantages.
It's also advantageous from a TO's perspective to have players strike from a limited pool of stages for game 1 rather than every legal stage, saves time. (and everyone's just going to end up on Smashville anyway )
What's the distinction between starter and counterpick?
It seems like starters still strive for more neutrality in the MUs (Which could be measured by whether MUs change significantly between them -- ie, ideally a 5:5 should be a 5:5 on every starter, while it might change to a 4:6 on a counterpick, and that pattern holds across all MUs as close as is reasonable)
Final Destination fails that test, since IC MUs (Any other characters strongly benefit?) change on it in comparison to other starters.
Starters are any stage from the starter stage list. That's about it. No other qualifications really necessary.
A good starter stage list should look crazy to anyone that would use it for random stage selection. The idea is not for every stage to be acceptable for every matchup, but for the stage striking process to ultimately whittle down to a stage that is acceptable. The only stage that matters is the one that people start on.
A GOOD starter list should have more than one stage that could ultimately be chosen; if you find the same stage being chosen over and over again, the starter list is bad. This is typically the case with 3 or 5 stage starter lists and, for a few matchups, 7. 9 typically doesn't have this problem and has a "three stage rotation" thing going on in a lot of matchups.
Wait, people dont understand that a neutral stage is one that allows you full control and reliability of your characters use disregarding your opponent?
Wait, people dont understand that a neutral stage is one that allows you full control and reliability of your characters use disregarding your opponent?
I also don't think it's any coincidence that we see more characters viable in tournaments with a smaller and more neutral stage list, like HugS illustrated previously. Character balance has been decided mostly on a flat or neutral stage. Deviating from this kind of stage list not surprisingly creates elements where the character may have a significant disadvantage attributed entirely to the stage and not the other player. I think this causes part of the stage to become a glorified obstacle course; In the light of player vs. player combat, there isn't enough distinction between playing on a few non-neutral stages and playing on a neutral stage while simultaneously playing a different video game where you are dodging obstacles. It may be an extreme suggestion, but you have to ask yourself, "Am I playing against the game, or am I playing against the player?" If you want the players to test both, you can't entirely attribute glory or a win to the player.
EDIT: I guess you can for the sake of naming a winner, but a lot of people are still going to want more narrow stage list afterwards
I dont know if you are disagreeing with me, but I may have voiced my point incorrectly.
When people generally mean stages by stating that SV/BF/FD are neutral then they mean that the stage itself does not effect the fundamentals of the game/character just by choosing it, usually negatively. Of course characters can do better then other on this stage, but then this arises:
Im not just quoting this because of the interview.
We have made that the default standard, even if it isn't truly a fair chance for all characters, and we apply the logic to all the other types of stages and character interactions. You cannot have a truly neutral stage within a large stage list and 35 character roster that wasn't exactly balanced perfectly. Smash isnt Street Fighter, due to the nature of multiple character and stages that actually effect gameplay we designed a counterpick system, it isnt just a one stage fits all type thing.
Basically, we consider stuff like FD neutral because it is static at all times and doesn't directly interfere with your character in any way. Of course your opponent can make the stage worse for your character with a better character though.
I dont know if you are disagreeing with me, but I may have voiced my point incorrectly.
When people generally mean stages by stating that SV/BF/FD are neutral then they mean that the stage itself does not effect the fundamentals of the game/character just by choosing it, usually negatively. Of course characters can do better then other on this stage, but then this arises:
This has not, nor has it ever at any point in history, been the case. I cannot reiterate how far from "true" this is. No one ever called them "neturals" for this reason and their name was changed to Starter (which doesn't much sense given your explanation).
I was part of both the Melee BR and the Brawl BR and discussed the stage list at length for both games, including the idea of "neutral" stages. The reason they were called neutral is because people back then thought they were fair. We've since moved on.
Where do you get this stuff? Do you just think to yourself "Yes, this would be good" and try to propose it as some sort of communal thing to give it weight? It is literally just you that has ever thought this.
This is what people would call "pulling something out of your ass".
...and you wonder why the folks at SRK laugh at you.
FFS, this game is most likely an entire year from being released, and yet, here you all are, having an actual discussion about turning off 95% of the game's defining characteristics from day one.
Items:
Brawl made items too powerful (sorry, but the bumper had no reason to be nearly an insta-kill on hit), but yet the ones that people ***** about the most could be turned off individually. Smash 4 can easily solve this by making the items that (can) explode on hit simply not have a receiving bubble until they hit the ground. If you can't live without sticking attacks out that have 30 or more active frames all the time, given the time it takes for an item to drop to whatever platform it hits, then you deserve to get nailed by that Bob-omb that fell by you. You had more than half a second's warning not to put limbs in that space, and failed to heed it.
One thing that Brawl did well was making it very easy to pick up items without disrupting the flow of a fight, something I hope they bring back in Smash 4. The only time grabbing an item didn't result in an attack also coming out was during standing or walking. Any other time, you got an attack as well as grabbing the item.
In short, as long as Smash 4 addresses the two shortcomings items had in Brawl (power and ability to screw a player over at the moment of spawn), turning them off day one will forever mark the Smash community as scrubs, and rightfully so.
Stages:
Again, Brawl had its offenders, where the stage did change the gameplay to something totally alien (yes, Mario Bros. and 75M, I'm looking at you), and its ones that were just BAD (WarioWare: free starmen is never acceptable, and it can be argued that New Pork and Hyrule Temple were just too large), but for pretty much all the others, you can (*gasp*) adapt to them. It's pretty easy to tell when the screen is flipped in Spear Pillar, especially when you have a character whose front is visible only when facing one direction. If you can't see that hint, you deserve to be confused. Similarly, should it happen in that marginal situation where the reaction time is enough to screw your recovery, well, it sucks, but why were you even in that situation to begin with?
All Smash 4 has to do in order to keep the highest number of stages usable is avoid the infinite run-away, and avoid making stages where it tries to force play that isn't Smash. By this, I don't mean stages that make you move, or keep you moving. I mean stages like the worst of the offenders, Mario Bros., where your only goal is to chuck the enemies at your opponent, and not fight them normally.
Should they learn from Brawl and avoid those kinds of stages with Smash 4, it's (again) the height of scrubbery to just ban them without thinking.
...and you wonder why the folks at SRK laugh at you.
FFS, this game is most likely an entire year from being released, and yet, here you all are, having an actual discussion about turning off 95% of the game's defining characteristics from day one.
Items:
Brawl made items too powerful (sorry, but the bumper had no reason to be nearly an insta-kill on hit), but yet the ones that people ***** about the most could be turned off individually. Smash 4 can easily solve this by making the items that (can) explode on hit simply not have a receiving bubble until they hit the ground. If you can't live without sticking attacks out that have 30 or more active frames all the time, given the time it takes for an item to drop to whatever platform it hits, then you deserve to get nailed by that Bob-omb that fell by you. You had more than half a second's warning not to put limbs in that space, and failed to heed it.
One thing that Brawl did well was making it very easy to pick up items without disrupting the flow of a fight, something I hope they bring back in Smash 4. The only time grabbing an item didn't result in an attack also coming out was during standing or walking. Any other time, you got an attack as well as grabbing the item.
In short, as long as Smash 4 addresses the two shortcomings items had in Brawl (power and ability to screw a player over at the moment of spawn), turning them off day one will forever mark the Smash community as scrubs, and rightfully so.
Stages:
Again, Brawl had its offenders, where the stage did change the gameplay to something totally alien (yes, Mario Bros. and 75M, I'm looking at you), and its ones that were just BAD (WarioWare: free starmen is never acceptable, and it can be argued that New Pork and Hyrule Temple were just too large), but for pretty much all the others, you can (*gasp*) adapt to them. It's pretty easy to tell when the screen is flipped in Spear Pillar, especially when you have a character whose front is visible only when facing one direction. If you can't see that hint, you deserve to be confused. Similarly, should it happen in that marginal situation where the reaction time is enough to screw your recovery, well, it sucks, but why were you even in that situation to begin with?
All Smash 4 has to do in order to keep the highest number of stages usable is avoid the infinite run-away, and avoid making stages where it tries to force play that isn't Smash. By this, I don't mean stages that make you move, or keep you moving. I mean stages like the worst of the offenders, Mario Bros., where your only goal is to chuck the enemies at your opponent, and not fight them normally.
Should they learn from Brawl and avoid those kinds of stages with Smash 4, it's (again) the height of scrubbery to just ban them without thinking.
![[Corn]](/data/avatars/l/219/219175.jpg?1363907352){kind=avatar}
)
