Overcentralization. It's logical to assume everyone will try to win and thus on a stage like Shadow Moses, you would have to pick someone who can CG or someone who isn't CGabble.
I'm not sure what you mean by "it's logical to assume" as though the statement has been validated already.
Of course it's logical to assume that, as logic has a lot to do with assuming (to derive/validate), but the kind of logic we're dealing here is more about forming a stronger assumption.
First, not everyone is playing to win, I know this through experience (I mained Pichu/R.O.B. after all).
But, assuming that everyone will hypothetically play to win, there is still the fact that Shadow Moses Island is the assumed stage. In the process I use the TO would determine Shadow Moses Island to only be played on through the Agreement Clause.
Now, assuming that both players have agreed to play on Shadow Moses Island AND both players are going to play to win. Then, yes, it looks like we can be certain they will choose to either play a chaingrabbing character and/or a character that does not get chaingrabbed.
The real question is: Does this violate competitive values?
From what I see, no, it does not.
Not unless you can validate "overcentralization" as a principle element for a competitive standard. First, define it, then demonstrate that it either falls under one of the established guidelines from competitive play or clearly show that it is another case.
I'll be waiting for this, it's an interesting concept.
Right off the bat, we've eliminated every character that can be CG'd by Dedede. If your opponent CPs you and says "Shadow Moses", you can't pick those characters lest Dedede appear because it will result in a loss.
I see you have a fundamental grasp of the game's character strategies.
From an entirely neutral standpoint, "so what"? Why NOT allow that? It's still competitive!
Good question, what's your answer to that?
Well, people don't play smash brothers to play as Dedede (or characters he can't CG) on Shadow Moses. They just don't. So forcing everyone to play D3 and characters that are good against D3 pushes us down a bottleneck that results in D3 being unplayable on the stage and everyone laying Olimar or some crap, all decided at the start. Not a "disadvantage" reason, mind you. This is due to the game revolving around single concepts that lessen the game's depth on its own.
It may be assumed that "everyone" will play Olimar or "some crap". But in practicality does this happen? Does the stage even get picked? It's a pretty big MAYBE, and even more suspicious is this "some crap" idea.
First it's Dedede "overcentralizing" the game, but then we find that it will be Olimar, and finally you admit there is "some crap" that you have yet to examine. What we find is the stage is not overcentralized and the argument clearly isn't yet fully formed.
Now, admittedly, I am agreeing with you that (as a competitive player) I would not want my opponent choosing this stage, just as reasonable as it may be that any one of us could object to any stage that has some kind of shenanigans to it (no matter how minor), so this is why I support the Agreement Clause in rules where stages outside the Standard Stages MUST be agreed to be played on.
If you and I both want to play King Dedede on Shadow Moses Island and see who is king penguin chaingrab ***** master, than all the much more freedom to the two of us, GL&HF, may best penguin win - MWAHAHAHAHA
There is also a rule in place that prevents characters like D3 to continuously chain grab, I think the rule is "Any infinite that goes past 200% is considered stalling."
I am originally familiar with the rule ending at 300%, not 200%.
But is this justified under a competitive ruleset?
Guess what? I would say it is not as there has been no hard evidence supporting a ban.
Too vague! What if you are an extreme heavyweight character at 290% and I am playing a character that may not KO you with a throw at that percent, but I have the option of throwing into another grab and guaranteeing a KO?
Guess what? That THREE SECONDS it takes to grab & throw for a guaranteed KO just DQ'd me from the entire competition for "stalling" even though it essentially ended the match immediately.
Now, how silly is this rule?
There's a few areas to look at in it, but the Competitive Standard is NO BANS unless absolutely necessary, lest we succumb to scrubbery! So, ban now without giving it anything than a herd mentality thought and risk being a scrub community or actually thoroughly examine it before implementing an extra ludo clause establishing the ban? I think the answer is obvious.
However, this stage will most likely end in timeouts for how long it takes to kill someone. Having to destroy a wall to kill a character in Shadow Moses is almost just as obnoxious as it is in Luigi's Mansion.
Unfortunately "obnoxious" is not a definitive principle for competitive play (or else I could say all characters are "obnoxious" and guarantee a win).
What we can say is that the design impedes competition and would thus leave it up to the TO to toggle the stages OFF, require an Agreement, and/or remove them from play altogether. That seems sufficient enough, yes?
Sakurai said:
I am Sakurai, let's play the "interpret the Sakurai quote game!"
Years ago just saying "Sakurai said this" may have tricked some people into believing it (e.g. "Smash isn't competitive" BS), but it doesn't work anymore.
I am happy.
Why test me on something so trivial?
![[Corn]](/data/avatars/l/219/219175.jpg?1363907352){kind=avatar}
