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.
First you'll have to prove how a 0.2 - 0.33 chance (depending on starters) is going to give someone an "advantage".
Then you'll have to demonstrate how this is much worse than your preferred method of Stage Striking which creates a definitive advantage for
one player who makes the choice of stage.
That's going to be quite a difficult task to accomplish when you're looking at my tournament data that shows ZERO disagreement in stage selection. For years worth of data, not one of your theoretical instances has occurred, and even if it were to occur I am still left with a stronger solution (I do not allow just ONE player to decide the stage).
When you can demonstrate this, you have a better model and I'll use it.
Good luck.
"Players agree not to use my terrible selection method, so it must be ok!"
That's what you're saying here.
No, that is what YOU said.
The ruse to make me believe that it was myself who said that is just being silly now, c'mon.
Define all these things.
I'm sure someone could claim the platforms on Battlefield impede their movement, can you really claim they don't?
I wouldn't venture into such a red herring trap. Impeding movement is not the same as impeding competition, it's a tangent that is cut off from this discussion.
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)
Maybe you missed my post about "unfair" not being applicable to matchups in competitive play.
The reason for this is ANY PLAYER MAY CHOOSE ICE CLIMBERS AFTER THEIR OPPONENT CHOOSES FINAL DESTINATION.
It is not "unfair" that you chose a bad character on the announced stage, that is part of competition and you would be making the choice of taking that disadvantage, any whining about losing because of a matchup you had a part in choosing would simply label you a scrub.
I could claim playing on Temple takes skill, results are consistent there, there's no random factors.
Yes, you could. But that results not in an argument of "skill" but an argument of (design) "impediment". Once it becomes apparent that a stage designed for four-player free-for-alls is the cause of impeding competition in a 1v1 match we have the in-game option to toggle that stage off and for the sake of tournaments running in a timely manner a metarule can outright disallow that stage from even an Agreement Clause.
By your logic, wouldn't a 1 stage starter be the most competitive, since clearly Smashville and Battlefield impede competition with their platforms?
The number of stages does not make a competition more competitive or less competitive, the quality of those stages determine the quality of compeition.
(and as I clarified earlier, platforms would not impede competition despite arguing a strawman of impeding movement)
You're throwing those words around again.
You'd better Dodge then?
Because you are trying to drag me down with your ad ridiculum word games - you really quoted definitions asking them to be defined?
Is that how you read a dictionary?
Ridiculous post was ridiculous. I'll leave you to your circular vernacular circus.
Holy **** wtf definition of fair are you using.
The one right out of a standard of English dictionary. I know, it's astounding that someone actually looks at fundamentals like definitions
BEFORE they use these words.
Players have to pick characters, when a stage favours one player's character over another, that's the definition of unfair rofl.
How is that unfair when players choose characters AFTER they choose stage?
I'd like to see you argue your way out of that even with both hands and a flahslight.
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?
One would find a successful argument in STAGE DESIGN impeding the gameplay (as mentioned earlier).
Smashville has an arbitrary rule (the scrooging rule) just to keep it legal, in that sense it's far from a purely competitive stage.
Arbitrary means it is judged, there is nothing at odds with the argument if the judgement is fair.
Do you wish to make a case that it is in conflict with the argument?
You can fill that tall order when you can and get back to me on it.
Can you try and be more narcissistic, rofl.
I don't prescribe by your notions, sir.
Please don't embarrass our conversation with such implicit accusations.
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.
When you can come up with a reasonable argument I'll listen to you.
Until then, opinion is just going to be ignored.
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.
Indeed.
Are you going to fall for the slippery slope that others do? If so you are going to have exactly ZERO stages to compete on. And THAT is more of an impediment than a planking Meta Knight.
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.
I believe the statement would be more accurate saying "THEORETICALLY every stage has a way of "impeding competition".
Because there's a difference between conceptual hypotheses which you are supporting on and a practical application which overrules it.
If I were to assume your statement to be true I would fall way of the slippery slope and simply determine the game to be not worthy of competition and play another game.
I have more faith in a series I've played competitively for a decade.
Shall I define neutral for you
No, I already did that for everyone, no objection has been issued.
Just because we can't measure the exact degree of which FD helps ICs against Olimar, doesn't mean it doesn't help them.
The stronger argument already defeats this position.
Stages don't decide your character; you do.
It's not a neutral stage because of that, no stage is neutral in smash, that's a fundamental property of the game.
Have fun (not) competing on exactly zero stages.
Clearly you don't, as shown above
A "no, you're wrong" argument defeats itself, but yours has been doubly defeated as illustrated above.
Do you not understand how language works, you really must not understand how language works for you to say this.
That, sir, is an ad hominem, and not even a very good one at that :^\
I guess I'll have to explain language to you.
Not to offend your intellect, but my English professors' explanations are the stronger explanations, I'll go with their explanations over yours... you know, PhD's and years of experience are probably better suited for that kind of thing than your ad hominem experience on a Smash Bros. online forum.
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.
It's even sillier to deny the obvious offhand, either back up your claim or let it stand a fallacy.
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.
"We"?
Do you have a mouse in your pocket?
I will speak for myself.
And if you have missed it, the Competitive Standard does state players agree to Stages first and then Characters.
There is nothing entailing the second premise that I would "have to" define non-random stages as "competitive".
That Standard which I use seems to be stronger than the Standard you are speaking of.
By the by, Which Standard supports your events?
.....do you even know what the set format is?
Enough of these rhetorical questions which only seem to belittle me to put you in a false sense of authority. Please either stand by statements or say nothing at all.
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.
Do you mean the "random" stage?
Again, you'll have to show how a 0.2 - 0.33 chance is any kind of "advantage". If you choose Ice Climbers and refuse to agree to anything except a referee decision then again you'll have to show a BETTER method, otherwise you have a nirvana fallacy (a stronger model will displace a weaker one).
Get back to me on that.
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.
You have done little more than hold to previous (unfounded) suppositions and bent to ad hominems and other fallacies.
We can disregard your fallacies for now, but from now on if you choose to hold a stronger argument then you will abide by rules of engagement - insults will instantly end conversation and you will be left alone with your opinion.
Do you understand?
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"
I do not seek for it to be "status quo", I only seek to adhere to a stronger model/argument.
I am perfectly happy being right when everyone else is wrong.
"Until I agree with you, I must be right"
What kind of logic is that.
You tell me, those are your words.
You aren't trying to pull that paltry ruse again, are you, sir? ;^]
![[Corn]](/data/avatars/l/219/219175.jpg?1363907352){kind=avatar}
