Proposed Ruleset for Smash 4 Tournaments

[Grim Tuesday]

Very few people have reasonable ban criteria, even if they end up with the same stage list as someone who does.

Call it arrogant, but my thread on the subject does a pretty good job of covering every stage.

http://www.smashboards.com/threads/grims-views-on-stage-legality-the-competitive-criteria.315529/

 

[LiteralGrill]

When the 'basic' stages are diverse enough in and of themselves to allow notable counterpick choices, then I don't mind a smaller stage list. "Fountain of Dreams", "Battlefield", "Pokemon Stadium", "Yoshi's Story", "Dreamland", and "Final Destination" are diverse enough to sustain a healthy metagame in my opinion. The stage list could be expanded some past that and probably should; but it being there isn't a bad thing for the metagame.

Hm... What would you say to the idea that having more stages raises the skill ceiling, thus creating more depth, and adding more for us to explore. That sounds like something healthy, and unless some stage does 100% ruin the game it should be added. Ban as little as possible and do not ban until game breaking are fighting game staples. If it could be expanded, yeah it probably should!

 

[MopedOfJustice]

When the 'basic' stages are diverse enough in and of themselves to allow notable counterpick choices, then I don't mind a smaller stage list. "Fountain of Dreams", "Battlefield", "Pokemon Stadium", "Yoshi's Story", "Dreamland", and "Final Destination" are diverse enough to sustain a healthy metagame in my opinion. The stage list could be expanded some past that and probably should; but it being there isn't a bad thing for the metagame.



Woah now:

You don't have enough banners, n00b.

 

[HugS™]

Hm... What would you say to the idea that having more stages raises the skill ceiling, thus creating more depth, and adding more for us to explore. That sounds like something healthy, and unless some stage does 100% ruin the game it should be added. Ban as little as possible and do not ban until game breaking are fighting game staples. If it could be expanded, yeah it probably should!

More stages could raise the skill ceiling, sure, but it may add more layers than are necessary. It just depends on what skills you want to develop in the metagame. You can have the ultimate, do-all game if you wanted to, and it would be skillful of you to succeed. Likewise, I could create a game like Jeopardy, but I'll throw in rounds of boxing, contestants must shoot at their buzzers from a distance, while balancing on a boogie board. There'd be so much depth involved in this game, you wouldn't believe it. But, you have to choose what you wish to develop here. Obviously my analogy isn't quite on the same level as keeping a few more stages on the stagelist, but my point stands.

As people have said many times on this thread, keeping the stages as plain and balanced as possible promotes the development of a skillset that is more fundamental to the genre. I define the term "Fundamental" as those acts that help you win in the most situations. For example, fundamentals that include refined spacing, timing, and making tough decisions through dilemmas of risk and reward. That last part being the key, making tough decisions in light of huge dilemmas. It's an art that is lost when a waterfall may kill you, or a laser beam cannon shoots in your direction. There's little dilemma here. You move, or you die. You stay in the center, or face the consequence of a walk-off deaths.

The most ridiculous part about all this is that when you decide to fight, when you choose to attack a player with the fundamentals of the genre, rather than respecting the hazards, you die, and you're called an idiot/scrub for not knowing how to deal with the hazards. That's how the fundamentals of fighting start to vanish when you throw in hazards, walk off stages, and side scrolling stages. Which is why I brought up my point earlier, where I could not find a proponent of such a mindset that continued to find success when the more fundamental aspects of fighting became a priority in order to win.

I mean, off the top of my head, I believe the most powerful regions tend to be those that favor conservative stagelists early on. You develop something on Battlefield that you can't quite get out of practicing a car dodge on Onett.

And It's not about a stage being broken, though all broken stages should be banned. It's about what you want to develop in the metagame. I don't think counting clocks, memorizing hazards, or rushing to the high ground are the skills we should be developing, especially not in lieu of the more vital skills. I hope no one suggests that you can learn it all just as well. You can't. Time and energy are resources. If you put a it in one place, you'll lose it in another.

Alright, I have a proposal.

I will create a thriving scene around a larger stagelist. You must agree to a few things however, in an effort of fairness.

You will not constantly bash my side of the argument. A lot of supporters are long gone because they were basically abused by the other side, treated horribly about having this opinion. None of that. If I'm to take your bet we do it on fair grounds, I won't go bashing you either.

Sounds fair? Then accept and we'll see what happens. A large social experiment where we see if a community can hold strong and coexist. Do you accept?

And yeah, I wholeheartedly accept. Seeing as how you're from the Midwest, I don't think you'll have much of a problem developing a scene where people are okay with a large variety of stages. The best way to thrive is to develop star players. Since my theory is that you can't develop these superstar players off of overly specialized skillsets, it'll prove my point two-fold if that scene can't survive the long haul.

 

[LiteralGrill]

More stages could raise the skill ceiling, sure, but it may add more layers than are necessary. It just depends on what skills you want to develop in the metagame. You can have the ultimate, do-all game if you wanted to, and it would be skillful of you to succeed. Likewise, I could create a game like Jeopardy, but I'll throw in rounds of boxing, contestants must shoot at their buzzers from a distance, while balancing on a boogie board. There'd be so much depth involved in this game, you wouldn't believe it. But, you have to choose what you wish to develop here. Obviously my analogy isn't quite on the same level as keeping a few more stages on the stagelist, but my point stands.

You really might need a better analogy for me to 100% understand the point, but I'll work with what I believe you are saying. To start: more layers than are necessary, how can you decide how many layers "are necessary" objectively?

As people have said many times on this thread, keeping the stages as plain and balanced as possible promotes the development of a skillset that is more fundamental to the genre. I define the term "Fundamental" as those acts that help you win in the most situations. For example, fundamentals that include refined spacing, timing, and making tough decisions through dilemmas of risk and reward. That last part being the key, making tough decisions in light of huge dilemmas. It's an art that is lost when a waterfall may kill you, or a laser beam cannon shoots in your direction. There's little dilemma here. You move, or you die. You stay in the center, or face the consequence of a walk-off deaths.

This isn't like all other fighters in the genre, sure there are similarities but why do you go into this game expecting it to need to function like other fighters? If this were the case, do not ban until gamebreaking and ban as little as possible should be followed very closely as it is supposed to be like other fighters. And following that closely MANY more stages would be legal, some I don't even want.

And your dilemma isn't a dilemma for me. I see even more options and things needing thought when making these decisions. More depth.

I mean, off the top of my head, I believe the most powerful regions tend to be those that favor conservative stagelists early on. You develop something on Battlefield that you can't quite get out of practicing a car dodge on Onett.

This is just too subjective to really talk at. What is this "something"? Can you put it into better words? And "more powerful" comes from the fact that with less to learn, it's easier and faster to master. It is a pro to your side, though it does come at sacrificing depth and longevity, a con.

The most ridiculous part about all this is that when you decide to fight, when you choose to attack a player with the fundamentals of the genre, rather than respecting the hazards, you die, and you're called an idiot/scrub for not knowing how to deal with the hazards. That's how the fundamentals of fighting start to vanish when you throw in hazards, walk off stages, and side scrolling stages. Which is why I brought up my point earlier, where I could not find a proponent of such a mindset that continued to find success when the more fundamental aspects of fighting became a priority in order to win.


And It's not about a stage being broken, though all broken stages should be banned. It's about what you want to develop in the metagame. I don't think counting clocks, memorizing hazards, or rushing to the high ground are the skills we should be developing, especially not in lieu of the more vital skills. I hope no one suggests that you can learn it all just as well. You can't. Time and energy are resources. If you put a it in one place, you'll lose it in another.

Especially the last paragraph is a problem: Which things are you unable to learn in "it all"? If this is the case, and I CAN personally memorize everything I need to know, I'm on a higher level then you. I can comprehend the large depth when you cannot. Some stages with certain kinds of hazards, some walkoffs, and side scrolling stages that yes should probably be banned. But you CAN learn to handle many hazards, and if we again are trying to be like other fighters take a look at this chart:

Spoiler

Static (No Hazards) - 3
Static (With Hazards) - 5
Dynamic (No Hazards) - 17
Dynamic (With Hazards) - 18

Battlefield
Final Destination
Temple
Mario Circuit
Norfair
75m
Mario Bros
Jungle Japes
Delfino Plaza
Mushroomy Kingom
Mushroomy Kingom 2
Frigate Orpheon
Yoshi's Island (Brawl)
Lylat Cruise
Pokemon Stadium 2
Castle Siege
Smashville
Skyworld
Shadow Moses Island
Yoshi's Island (Melee)
Rainbow Cruise
Luigi's Mansion
Big Blue
Pokemon Stadium
Hanenbow
Rumble Falls
Bridge of Eldin
Halberd
Port Town Aero Dive
Wario Ware
Distant Planet
New Pork City
Summit
Pictochat
Onett
Corneria
Brinstar
Pirate Ship
Spear Pillar 1
Spear Pillar 2
Flat Zone 2
Green Hill Zone
Green Greens

Statistically at least, it's hard to prove this game should only be played on static non hazard stages, or even just static stages. This game involves the stage unlike any other game Unless you wanna bring in Injustice or PSASBR which have stage elements but not as drastic). This game has different fundamentals then any other fighting game that we have to learn.

Risk and reward? Hazards make the deciding process on that have to be even more thorough! It adds more to the game, increasing depth and longevity and to me those are two very important things. Some people even sat down to try and prove walk off camping would be high risk high reward even and had a great argument behind it only truly being dismantled by chaingrabs existing and even with them Onett was playable because of its layout and the cars. (One rare instance.)

Also, Sakurai actually finally mentioned how he balances characters recently. He starts on a stage like FD then slowly moves them to all other kinds of stages. Character balance to keep the game's integrity would include keeping any stages that are not game breaking or just too degenerate to play on. Kinda like we do in other fighters with other things. If we take out stages we don't absolutely have to, we are arbitrarily deciding balance, something we should not do. He may not be trying to make the game only competitive, but he even said he'll be trying to please that crowd more this time, if Sakurai the game's designer says I should do something, it's hard to argue against. It's the closest to them giving us official rules as we may ever get and I intend to follow them, as statistically they also are backed up.

Now, I did say your side has pros too. I understand why you advocate for them even, but did you have to do so as brazenly as in the OP? Something like your last post was succinct and reasonable, and I would have been more open from the beginning to something like this.

The truth is, both sides foster competition, both have goods and bads, and we need to stop being jerks to each other and just let people run one or the other, and attempt to compromise for our larger majors so both sides can agree. This should be the course we take.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

It's worth pointing out that difficult and depth aren't intrinsically good things.
Rolling a six-sided die is technically a skill-based affair, it just has far too many variables for humans to be able to reasonably compete in it.

 

[LiteralGrill]

It's worth pointing out that difficult and depth aren't intrinsically good things.
Rolling a six-sided die is technically a skill-based affair, it just has far too many variables for humans to be able to reasonably compete in it.

The question then may be: what amount of variables are too much for a person to reasonably handle? Some people I have seen were able to handle the entirety of the MLG stagelist in their heads knowing everything each stage held. If they can do it, can't we if we try enough?
And some of the most liberal smashers would even have the list reduced slightly from what MLG once was, we now are definitely in the realm of possibility for competition if we could manage to have all the knowledge with even more on our plates.

 

[Ghostbone]

The question then may be: what amount of variables are too much for a person to reasonably handle?

Any variables that don't have to do with directly fighting your opponent are arguably too much.

Some people I have seen were able to handle the entirety of the MLG stagelist in their heads knowing everything each stage held. If they can do it, can't we if we try enough?

There's a fair difference between just knowing everything about a stage, and fighting your opponent on the stage while having to deal with the stage at the same time.
Sure you can say that's a basic element of smash, then I'd argue it isn't, as it isn't present on the neutral/more balanced stages, randomness and constantly transforming stages tend to detract from the actual PvP interaction of the game.
Norfair forcing you to go into the air isn't adding depth to the game, it's limiting options for one player arbitrarily.

 

[Arteen]

You really might need a better analogy for me, to 100% understand the point, but I'll work with what I believe you are saying. To start: more layers than are necessary, how can you decide how many layers "are necessary" objectively?

To be clear, everything here is opinion. No settings are "objectively" better than any other. It's silly to throw around words like that in this discussion.

What it comes down to is shared wisdom, opinions and preferences. Competitive players are focused on the fundamentals and tend to not be interested in dealing with wacky hazards and silly items. That's not the aspect of Smash that appeals to them. Totally fine. Some players want to play tournaments with all stages and items on. That's fine too, but it's not going to appeal to the same people. It has much greater potential for randomness and "degenerative" gameplay, which doesn't appeal to the competitive folks.

Competitive players wish to "live and die by their own sword" so to speak, and have as much of the game be player-controlled as possible. It's a totally fine, fun, valid way to play.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Somebody give this guy a medal.

 

[BSP]

It really comes down to how the TO and his/her region want the game to be played. Smash gives players a lot of options, and all of them can be argued good or bad, making rule sets come down to preference.

 

[LiteralGrill]

To be clear, everything here is opinion. No settings are "objectively" better than any other. It's silly to throw around words like that in this discussion.

What it comes down to is shared wisdom, opinions and preferences. Competitive players are focused on the fundamentals and tend to not be interested in dealing with wacky hazards and silly items. That's not the aspect of Smash that appeals to them. Totally fine. Some players want to play tournaments with all stages and items on. That's fine too, but it's not going to appeal to the same people. It has much greater potential for randomness and "degenerative" gameplay, which doesn't appeal to the competitive folks.

Competitive players wish to "live and die by their own sword" so to speak, and have as much of the game be player-controlled as possible. It's a totally fine, fun, valid way to play.

See, I can completely understand this. But if this is the case why couldn't have people who thought this way respected those who didn't? Many were downright rude whenever possible (remember 3.0 to 3.1 BBR ruleset...) and many players instead of trying to actually debate with one side or the other literally used "it's stupid so we banned it" as an excuse. Maybe if there were some actual arguments and one side treated the other a bit better, we could coexist.

I mean look at the OP. Was that really necessary to write it that way? It's crap like that that can make the entire community look bad. I'm up for letting people play how they want to play, we have 2 Smash games even this time. I have a feeling the much more hard core may lean towards the Wii U. This could be an insanely perfect time to have an amazing social experiment, where the 3DS version is more liberal, and the wii u version is more conservative so both sides can play what they'd like more. Something like that could only happen if we are polite to each other though.

It really comes down to how the TO and his/her region want the game to be played. Smash gives players a lot of options, and all of them can be argued good or bad, making rule sets come down to preference.

Yes this is true, but if it is going to be based on preference people should defend why they hold that preference, both sides have their pros and cons, it just seems instead of arguing on those people prefer to just argue that one is right and one is wrong which isn't the case. See, we were getting into discussion on the skill ceiling that is created with both sets, there's real progress and both sides have great points. Why can't that happen more often?

 

[Fenrir VII]

Hugs not drugs, man. Good post. I agree with most of it.

Stagelist decisions and preferences are just that... this entire discussion is subjective, and is boiled down to "I want this" "no I want this!". I do think we can make some definitive, objective decisions on stages off the bat, based on experience with prior games.

1. Stages that completely decide match outcome are banned. By this I mean stages that have largely unavoidable hazards that can affect the matchup. Notable examples of this being Warioware and flatzone 2 in Brawl, and Brinstar Depths, Big blue in Melee, etc. I would also throw the Port town stage from Brawl in there, because of the invisible car hits that would kill at ~100% (controversial, I know)
Most of these stages are generally very obviously broken, and can be banned a few weeks into the game easily.

2. Stages that prohibit / extend tournament play are banned. By this I mean any stage that encourages running/hiding that can lead to timeouts or make the tournament go on obscenely long. Spear pillar, Hyrule Temple, new Pork City, 75m, etc etc etc are examples of this. Again, these are obvious from the start.

3. Stages that grant a few characters a huge advantage or disadvantage are banned. Basically, the game will inherently have a tier list, but let's try to avoid making that worse as much as possible by eliminating huge advantage/disadvantage stages. Notable examples are the water-effect stages from Brawl, aerial stages from both games, etc. This will take some time to determine advantages and matchups
Note: this rule applies to stages that affect a small group of characters. I don't think that we should allow 1 character to ban 1/2 the stages like we did with wall stages and DDD or MK's stages in Brawl... let's ban the character or the infinites first, imo... but that's subjective

Now we get into the more subjective areas that will inevitably be argued...

4. Stages with random hazards are banned. Set hazards like the Pikmin level in Brawl are a different story, but generally, I feel that randomness should be limited as much as possible for tournament play... so any random hazards should be gone. Examples include Port town again, Wario ware again, pictochat (love that stage, though), etc.

5. Stages with gameplay that is noticeably different from the rest of the stages are banned. by this I mean stages that suddenly encourage aerial fighting or side-scrolling or horizontal/vertical only kills. Again, when playing in a tournament, I think we should try to keep each match similar... Tennis is played on different types of courts but it's still the same game, you know? Notable examples are Mario Bros, Metal Gear, Hanenbow, and Mushroomy Kingdom in Brawl, Icicle Mountain in Melee, etc.

After that, I say the rest of the stages are legal, with neutrals and CP's determined by any small char advantages, etc.

Note that by these rules, I don't inherently have an issue with walk-off stages except maybe that they remove edgeguarding and violate rule 5. These would be up for discussion at least, imo.

I also don't have any issue with stages that present set hazards that affect everybody (Pikmin stage, Lylat Cruise, Brinstar, etc)

basically, I like a variety, but let's keep it as fair to all players as possible.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Hugs not drugs, man. Good post. I agree with most of it.

Stagelist decisions and preferences are just that... this entire discussion is subjective, and is boiled down to "I want this" "no I want this!". I do think we can make some definitive, objective decisions on stages off the bat, based on experience with prior games.

1. Stages that completely decide match outcome are banned. By this I mean stages that have largely unavoidable hazards that can affect the matchup. Notable examples of this being Warioware and flatzone 2 in Brawl, and Brinstar Depths, Big blue in Melee, etc. I would also throw the Port town stage from Brawl in there, because of the invisible car hits that would kill at ~100% (controversial, I know)
Most of these stages are generally very obviously broken, and can be banned a few weeks into the game easily.

2. Stages that prohibit / extend tournament play are banned. By this I mean any stage that encourages running/hiding that can lead to timeouts or make the tournament go on obscenely long. Spear pillar, Hyrule Temple, new Pork City, 75m, etc etc etc are examples of this. Again, these are obvious from the start.

3. Stages that grant a few characters a huge advantage or disadvantage are banned. Basically, the game will inherently have a tier list, but let's try to avoid making that worse as much as possible by eliminating huge advantage/disadvantage stages. Notable examples are the water-effect stages from Brawl, aerial stages from both games, etc. This will take some time to determine advantages and matchups
Note: this rule applies to stages that affect a small group of characters. I don't think that we should allow 1 character to ban 1/2 the stages like we did with wall stages and DDD or MK's stages in Brawl... let's ban the character or the infinites first, imo... but that's subjective

Now we get into the more subjective areas that will inevitably be argued...

4. Stages with random hazards are banned. Set hazards like the Pikmin level in Brawl are a different story, but generally, I feel that randomness should be limited as much as possible for tournament play... so any random hazards should be gone. Examples include Port town again, Wario ware again, pictochat (love that stage, though), etc.

5. Stages with gameplay that is noticeably different from the rest of the stages are banned. by this I mean stages that suddenly encourage aerial fighting or side-scrolling or horizontal/vertical only kills. Again, when playing in a tournament, I think we should try to keep each match similar... Tennis is played on different types of courts but it's still the same game, you know? Notable examples are Mario Bros, Metal Gear, Hanenbow, and Mushroomy Kingdom in Brawl, Icicle Mountain in Melee, etc.

After that, I say the rest of the stages are legal, with neutrals and CP's determined by any small char advantages, etc.

Note that by these rules, I don't inherently have an issue with walk-off stages except maybe that they remove edgeguarding and violate rule 5. These would be up for discussion at least, imo.

I also don't have any issue with stages that present set hazards that affect everybody (Pikmin stage, Lylat Cruise, Brinstar, etc)

basically, I like a variety, but let's keep it as fair to all players as possible.

To note: PTAD's hazards are actually 100% predictable as they follow a set pattern, would this be considered fair then?

And the largest problem with 3 is if one character creates issues for the stage so we have to ban it for all those that don't, you may have just unfairly nerfed much of the cast. I personally think we should look at Smash 64 and see the provisions made with Ness. They kept a stage for everyone who it was reasonable without removing it as a whole for one problem. We have a precendent of this, I'm unsure why we don't use it. (I do remember some places have it so RC or Norfair couldn't be picked by MK but is that common any more?) I'm not one generally for out of game rules, but if we wont be like other fighters and "just deal" with horrifying matchups, we need a better solution.

I too like variety and want to keep it as fair as possible, it's not a bad mindset to have. It's definitely worth banning stages too if they truly need them. I advocate for when Sm4sh come out, players sits down in a team and write highly detailed guides explaining the basic mechanics of each stage. Then we can take a look at each stage, and categorize them into how likely they are on the surface to be competitive, and arrange them into groups. Then, we can heavily test the stages lower on the spectrum first, as these are the most likely to go, but we want to be sure not to have made too hasty a judgement, and work our way up. The list could keep changing so there is never a 100% ban unless necessary, and it would provide a perfect starting point for both sides of TOs to decide what stages their mindset works with to keep legal.

 

[HugS™]

You really might need a better analogy for me to 100% understand the point, but I'll work with what I believe you are saying. To start: more layers than are necessary, how can you decide how many layers "are necessary" objectively?

You can't, and that's the problem with this whole argument. There's no way to break through to any proponent of a larger stagelist because as long as there is subjectivity, the argument does not work for them. So that's why now, with 2 metagames of empirical data, I say these things hoping the subjectivity of an argument won't be the downfall of those who hold my opinion. But anyway, layers that begin to test the skills outside of the fundamentals of a genre are not necessary. Like playing smash while walking on tight ropes. Fighting opponents while dodging flame hazards.

This isn't like all other fighters in the genre, sure there are similarities but why do you go into this game expecting it to need to function like other fighters? If this were the case, do not ban until gamebreaking and ban as little as possible should be followed very closely as it is supposed to be like other fighters. And following that closely MANY more stages would be legal, some I don't even want.

I don't expect it to be like other fighters in the same way that one wouldn't expect boxing to function the same as MMA. They can still be part of the same genre of sports, where certain fundamentals exist throughout.

And your dilemma isn't a dilemma for me. I see even more options and things needing thought when making these decisions. More depth.

Throw in a rook at F4, a King at C3, a Queen at A7, and a knight at D5. You probably have yourself quite a few options, dilemmas if the risks and rewards aren't so clearly defined. Now, I'll throw in a new layer. I have a gun to your head, move your Queen to A8, and I shoot. More to think about, but it's not a dilemma. It's a much easier decision being decided by the hazard. Move your queen to A8 and you're ****ing dead, so you just don't do it. Less depth in terms of decision making.

This is just too subjective to really talk at. What is this "something"? Can you put it into better words? And "more powerful" comes from the fact that with less to learn, it's easier and faster to master. It is a pro to your side, though it does come at sacrificing depth and longevity, a con.

To put it plainly, at least in Melee, the Midwest has historically been the largest proponent of liberal rulesets under the same argument you're presenting. They have also been historically weaker than the East and West. Japan came to the US as a dominant force in Brawl, limiting the game to I think 3 stages? While we went through our whole experimental phase, they were sticking to what they knew, and developing fundamentals. We got our asses kicked.

Especially the last paragraph is a problem: Which things are you unable to learn in "it all"? If this is the case, and I CAN personally memorize everything I need to know, I'm on a higher level then you. I can comprehend the large depth when you cannot. Some stages with certain kinds of hazards, some walkoffs, and side scrolling stages that yes should probably be banned. But you CAN learn to handle many hazards, and if we again are trying to be like other fighters take a look at this chart:

Spoiler

Static (No Hazards) - 3
Static (With Hazards) - 5
Dynamic (No Hazards) - 17
Dynamic (With Hazards) - 18

Battlefield
Final Destination
Temple
Mario Circuit
Norfair
75m
Mario Bros
Jungle Japes
Delfino Plaza
Mushroomy Kingom
Mushroomy Kingom 2
Frigate Orpheon
Yoshi's Island (Brawl)
Lylat Cruise
Pokemon Stadium 2
Castle Siege
Smashville
Skyworld
Shadow Moses Island
Yoshi's Island (Melee)
Rainbow Cruise
Luigi's Mansion
Big Blue
Pokemon Stadium
Hanenbow
Rumble Falls
Bridge of Eldin
Halberd
Port Town Aero Dive
Wario Ware
Distant Planet
New Pork City
Summit
Pictochat
Onett
Corneria
Brinstar
Pirate Ship
Spear Pillar 1
Spear Pillar 2
Flat Zone 2
Green Hill Zone
Green Greens

Statistically at least, it's hard to prove this game should only be played on static non hazard stages, or even just static stages. This game involves the stage unlike any other game Unless you wanna bring in Injustice or PSASBR which have stage elements but not as drastic). This game has different fundamentals then any other fighting game that we have to learn.

The customizable nature of the game means there there is no set way that anyone should play it. My argument is that we should play it this way because it promotes the competitive nature of the tournament scene for reasons I mentioned above. I don't care about promoting the spirit of the game. I care about tournaments and the competitive community at large, that's it.

Risk and reward? Hazards make the deciding process on that have to be even more thorough! It adds more to the game, increasing depth and longevity and to me those are two very important things. Some people even sat down to try and prove walk off camping would be high risk high reward even and had a great argument behind it only truly being dismantled by chaingrabs existing and even with them Onett was playable because of its layout and the cars. (One rare instance.)

See my point above.

Also, Sakurai actually finally mentioned how he balances characters recently. He starts on a stage like FD then slowly moves them to all other kinds of stages. Character balance to keep the game's integrity would include keeping any stages that are not game breaking or just too degenerate to play on. Kinda like we do in other fighters with other things. If we take out stages we don't absolutely have to, we are arbitrarily deciding balance, something we should not do. He may not be trying to make the game only competitive, but he even said he'll be trying to please that crowd more this time, if Sakurai the game's designer says I should do something, it's hard to argue against. It's the closest to them giving us official rules as we may ever get and I intend to follow them, as statistically they also are backed up.

I almost don't even know how to respond to someone suggesting that Sakurai knows what's best for the competitive community.
Whatever he does to balance characters, he does a horrible job of it.

Now, I did say your side has pros too. I understand why you advocate for them even, but did you have to do so as brazenly as in the OP? Something like your last post was succinct and reasonable, and I would have been more open from the beginning to something like this.

The truth is, both sides foster competition, both have goods and bads, and we need to stop being jerks to each other and just let people run one or the other, and attempt to compromise for our larger majors so both sides can agree. This should be the course we take.

Yeah you're right. But it stirs discussion more easily than presenting a wall of text initially.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Lots of things.

You are one of the first people to argue for your side using objective points, THANK YOU. If this was done more often the smash world would be a better place...

I want to run an idea by you. Remember my proposal earlier that I could create a scene that is strong "my way" alongside the scene that is "your way"?

We have two Smash games, many people say the Wii U will be the "tournament standard" though there are others who plan to foster the 3DS scene. We have a unique opportunity to actually have things BOTH ways. What if both sides could agree to allowing the Wii U to be more conservative in its lists, and the 3DS more liberal in an experiment to see how it effects gameplay? The lines are already kinda drawn to have that conclusion, what happens if we sit down and agree to test it as such? Do you think both sides would be capable of handling it without trying to bash one side or the other?

 

[MopedOfJustice]

For anyone who cares: I found that the stage swapping in FZ2 is random, but with a disproportionate amount of the Fire! stage between other stages. For each stage I found some things:
In Fire!, the Scuba Diver seems to take items, and the platforms spawn/despawn randomly.
In Chef, the Chef is surprisingly weak to smash attacks; I hit him once with a half-charged up smash using Luigi and he flew away.
In Oil Rush, the Patrons only attack if they get hit, making for great combos (I use the word liberally) if you have projectiles.
In Lion Tamer, the (randomly moving) Lion tamers don't harm you until maybe 2 seconds after they first spawn.
Also, there is an indicator at the top left or right corner before each change, giving ample opportunity to adjust accordingly (The warnings are scenario specific). I didn't see for sure if the timer for switching was random, but it appeared to be around 40 seconds.

You are one of the first people to argue for your side using objective points, THANK YOU. If this was done more often the smash world would be a better place...

I want to run an idea by you. Remember my proposal earlier that I could create a scene that is strong "my way" alongside the scene that is "your way"?

We have two Smash games, many people say the Wii U will be the "tournament standard" though there are others who plan to foster the 3DS scene. We have a unique opportunity to actually have things BOTH ways. What if both sides could agree to allowing the Wii U to be more conservative in its lists, and the 3DS more liberal in an experiment to see how it effects gameplay? The lines are already kinda drawn to have that conclusion, what happens if we sit down and agree to test it as such? Do you think both sides would be capable of handling it without trying to bash one side or the other?

I have an issue with your proposal. We know for sure that each platform gets separate stages, but we don't know which will be more appropriate for each side. I'm inclined to believe that WiiU will have more versatile stages, due to the fact that Pikmin gave the 3DS version issues. Also, stage hazards will almost certainly be easier to keep track of on the WiiU, as we have seen that the spike pillar that ripped Bowser in the trailer, which didn't have an outline, and appeared pretty suddenly. May I suggest we reverse who gets what if this ends up being accepted?

 

[Fenrir VII]

To note: PTAD's hazards are actually 100% predictable as they follow a set pattern, would this be considered fair then?

There are points in the stage where the cars hit you without ever being visible. Whether that's a bug or the cars are under the floating platform, I have no idea... Is it on a pattern? yes, but with that kind of thing, learning the pattern, and remembering it is ridiculously difficult (because you have no visual cues), and could change the match.
This argument is admittedly controversial, and unnecessary because we're talking about Smash 4, and here's hoping something like this isn't included in that game.

And the largest problem with 3 is if one character creates issues for the stage so we have to ban it for all those that don't, you may have just unfairly nerfed much of the cast. I personally think we should look at Smash 64 and see the provisions made with Ness. They kept a stage for everyone who it was reasonable without removing it as a whole for one problem. We have a precendent of this, I'm unsure why we don't use it. (I do remember some places have it so RC or Norfair couldn't be picked by MK but is that common any more?) I'm not one generally for out of game rules, but if we wont be like other fighters and "just deal" with horrifying matchups, we need a better solution.

I don't think we're disagreeing here... I don't think a stage should be banned for 1 character or tactic. I think the character or tactic should be banned, or something conditional like your 'MK can't pick RC' argument.
#3 is geared more toward stages that hurt or help several characters... typically the stages I mentioned hurt the slower/less mobile characters, who are generally the lower tiers anyway... so this is just an effort to balance the game a bit better.

To put it plainly, at least in Melee, the Midwest has historically been the largest proponent of liberal rulesets under the same argument you're presenting. They have also been historically weaker than the East and West. Japan came to the US as a dominant force in Brawl, limiting the game to I think 3 stages? While we went through our whole experimental phase, they were sticking to what they knew, and developing fundamentals. We got our ***** kicked.

Big shoutout to you for this. This is the first time I've seen this argument, and it's nearly airtight. Well done.

We have two Smash games, many people say the Wii U will be the "tournament standard" though there are others who plan to foster the 3DS scene. We have a unique opportunity to actually have things BOTH ways. What if both sides could agree to allowing the Wii U to be more conservative in its lists, and the 3DS more liberal in an experiment to see how it effects gameplay? The lines are already kinda drawn to have that conclusion, what happens if we sit down and agree to test it as such? Do you think both sides would be capable of handling it without trying to bash one side or the other?

The other way we could do this is through online tournaments (assuming the online play is decent).. just low-key ruleset testers, and then gather feedback through a poll or something from all participants.

Brawl online gets a lot of hate, but I used to have fairly good luck with it, and I'm assuming this game will be a lot better... Tekken on Wii U has pretty good online, actually...

 

[BSP]

Yes this is true, but if it is going to be based on preference people should defend why they hold that preference, both sides have their pros and cons, it just seems instead of arguing on those people prefer to just argue that one is right and one is wrong which isn't the case. See, we were getting into discussion on the skill ceiling that is created with both sets, there's real progress and both sides have great points. Why can't that happen more often?[/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE]

It should happen more often, but then again, since everything comes down to preference, maybe there's no point?

 

[LiteralGrill]

For anyone who cares: I found that the stage swapping in FZ2 is random, but with a disproportionate amount of the Fire! stage between other stages. For each stage I found some things:
In Fire!, the Scuba Diver seems to take items, and the platforms spawn/despawn randomly.
In Chef, the Chef is surprisingly weak to smash attacks; I hit him once with a half-charged up smash using Luigi and he flew away.
In Oil Rush, the Patrons only attack if they get hit, making for great combos (I use the word liberally) if you have projectiles.
In Lion Tamer, the (randomly moving) Lion tamers don't harm you until maybe 2 seconds after they first spawn.
Also, there is an indicator at the top left or right corner before each change, giving ample opportunity to adjust accordingly (The warnings are scenario specific). I didn't see for sure if the timer for switching was random, but it appeared to be around 40 seconds.

Yes, it HAS to return to fire before it switches to its next transformation every time. That part is always a constant.

I have an issue with your proposal. We know for sure that each platform gets separate stages, but we don't know which will be more appropriate for each side. I'm inclined to believe that WiiU will have more versatile stages, due to the fact that Pikmin gave the 3DS version issues. Also, stage hazards will almost certainly be easier to keep track of on the WiiU, as we have seen that the spike pillar that ripped Bowser in the trailer, which didn't have an outline, and appeared pretty suddenly. May I suggest we reverse who gets what if this ends up being accepted?

I'm not saying it HAS to be done, but if you wanna worry about stage on the 3DS take a look at how many walkoff stages are in the 3DS trailer. And I saw the spike coming towards the platform for quite a bit, it seem predictable at the time. I'll talk more on this at the end of the post.

There are points in the stage where the cars hit you without ever being visible. Whether that's a bug or the cars are under the floating platform, I have no idea... Is it on a pattern? yes, but with that kind of thing, learning the pattern, and remembering it is ridiculously difficult (because you have no visual cues), and could change the match.
This argument is admittedly controversial, and unnecessary because we're talking about Smash 4, and here's hoping something like this isn't included in that game.

Sorry, I totally missed the invisible car part, I forgot about that one car that can randomly kill you out of nowhere, that'd be a problem.

I don't think we're disagreeing here... I don't think a stage should be banned for 1 character or tactic. I think the character or tactic should be banned, or something conditional like your 'MK can't pick RC' argument.
#3 is geared more toward stages that hurt or help several characters... typically the stages I mentioned hurt the slower/less mobile characters, who are generally the lower tiers anyway... so this is just an effort to balance the game a bit better.

Some stages banned hurt the adaptable high tiers though, ROB, and Mr G&W are lower on the tier list now a bit because of this as well as other characters. I do hate out of game rules, but if we want to keep in as much as possible something like conditions for Ness in 64 and some of what happened with MK in Brawl is an option, I'd take a better one if I had it like a List Striking System though.

Big shoutout to you for this. This is the first time I've seen this argument, and it's nearly airtight. Well done.

Yeah, I can't argue. As I said, you reach the skill ceiling faster without as much to learn and it allows you to focus on fundamentals faster. It is a serious pro. I like to have large depth, for me this allows players to really show off tons of skills from dedicated practice, and keeps the game fresh and explorable longer. This is a chance where you can objectively look at something subjective so it can actually be debated. Doesn't it feel better then the other way around? XD

The other way we could do this is through online tournaments (assuming the online play is decent).. just low-key ruleset testers, and then gather feedback through a poll or something from all participants.

Brawl online gets a lot of hate, but I used to have fairly good luck with it, and I'm assuming this game will be a lot better... Tekken on Wii U has pretty good online, actually...

Even if online is a bit better, people will always have a stigma with it. It might end up adding even more undeserved stigma to more liberal events.

3DS sadly already holds a "casual" stigma. it sucks because it has tons of advantages for holding tournament. But, if the more conservative players will be gravitating towards the Wii U anyways, (many of whom say 3DS tournaments wont even exist) why not take advantage of it? It's not the best idea admittedly but a cool idea.

It should happen more often, but then again, since everything comes down to preference, maybe there's no point?

I think there is a point. it brings the argument past preference only (something kinda scrubby) into the area of objective thinking. Much more intelligent.

 

[Jack Kieser]

I'm not going to multiquote people right now, but this whole page has made me because no one here is using subjective and objective correctly, as terms.

"Objective" does not mean "fact" in the way you people think it does. People generally understand that a "fact" is something that is 100% true in all circumstances in the world we live in, but that's not also what "objective" means. All "objective" means is "expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations". The italicized part is the operative part of the definition. Something can be objective as long as it can conform to some sort of standardization, even if it is inexact. Something can be objective without being truthful. Let me give you an example:

Here is a logical set of statements (meaning a statement formulated with a philosophically and mathematically logical structure) -

All birds have snouts.
All triceratops are birds.
Therefore, all triceratops have snouts.

Now, not a single one of the premises of that are true. But, if they were assumed to be true, then the structure of the set holds and it is considered objectively true, that is to say, it doesn't rely on your interpretation. We can quibble about the truth values of the premises, but (and this is the important part) the fact that the truth value of the premises is contested does not invalidate the fact that it is structurally objective.

At the end of the day, any statement is "subjective" insofar as words only have meaning because we humans give them meaning. If you operate on that level, all language is "subjective" and therefore all communication is meaningless. But, I have a feeling you all don't want to operate on that level. You want to discuss this. Which means you need to be using the same terms, and some of you are using the wrong definition of "objective".

Yes, we may arbitrarily decide the criteria for banning something, that's true. But, something can be arbitrary AND objective at the same time; there's nothing inconsistent, logically, with that. The timer is a perfect example. We arbitrarily set the timer at 8 minutes. It could have been 7, it could have been 9. We chose 8. But, that's objective, because 8 is 8; there's no way personal bias or interpretation could affect whether we chose 8 minutes on the clock when setting up a station for the day's matches. It's not like we have to look at the in game timer and interpret the timer as being correct; it just is.

So, for instance, let's say we have a ban criteria for stages that is simply:

1 - No walk-offs.
2 - No permanent walls.
3 - No damage-causing hazards.

We may quibble over whether those are the correct criteria to have, insofar as arguing that they are arbitrary, sure. But, not a single person can deny that the criteria is objective, because not a single criteria is open to interpretation or bias. Either a stage has a walk off or it doesn't. Either a stage has a wall or it doesn't. Either a stage has a damage-causing hazard or it doesn't.

It is actually incredibly easy to make an objective set of ban criteria. It is much harder to make one that isn't arbitrary, but then, ALL of our rules are arbitrary, to some degree; no set of any rules for any game is going to be perfectly methodical because games are made up.

So, stop it with the "objective" crap. You're bogging down the discussion. I hope this also explains why crying "Arbitrary!" isn't actually an argument against anything, either, so don't just shift the debate to calling things arbitrary as if that's a win-card to be played.

 

[MopedOfJustice]

3DS sadly already holds a "casual" stigma. it sucks because it has tons of advantages for holding tournament. But, if the more conservative players will be gravitating towards the Wii U anyways, (many of whom say 3DS tournaments wont even exist) why not take advantage of it? It's not the best idea admittedly but a cool idea.

Isn't the point of your exercise in bipartisanship to do what makes the most sense and helps the most people, rather than bowing to the people who caused the problem in the first place? I'm sure any reasonable competitive player would be willing to play on the 3DS if they found it to be more competitive-friendly in terms of stages, or even if each system was more-or-less equal in that regard, due to the potentially better tournaments as a result of it all being done on hand-helds.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Isn't the point of your exercise in bipartisanship to do what makes the most sense and helps the most people, rather than bowing to the people who caused the problem in the first place? I'm sure any reasonable competitive player would be willing to play on the 3DS if they found it to be more competitive-friendly in terms of stages, or even if each system was more-or-less equal in that regard, due to the potentially better tournaments as a result of it all being done on hand-helds.

Sometimes it worthwhile to compromise. I would think that that SHOULD be the case, but if you browse the 3DS boards a bit you can already see the permanent bias forming sadly, though a lot of them just don't want to handle the smaller screen, can't argue that one. And they may just not feel comfortable not playing on a "real console". It's a fallacy of tradition, but good luck convincing people on what they are used to.

 

[ぱみゅ]

One can only hope for some people to understand that learning stages is easy and you can learn fundamentals and translate them to stages wonderfully.

Do you remember Brood at APEX2010 and that he NEVER got gimped on Rainbow Cruise?

 

[Mr.Showtime]

I'm not going to multiquote people right now, but this whole page has made me because no one here is using subjective and objective correctly, as terms.

"Objective" does not mean "fact" in the way you people think it does. People generally understand that a "fact" is something that is 100% true in all circumstances in the world we live in, but that's not also what "objective" means. All "objective" means is "expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations". The italicized part is the operative part of the definition. Something can be objective as long as it can conform to some sort of standardization, even if it is inexact. Something can be objective without being truthful. Let me give you an example:

Here is a logical set of statements (meaning a statement formulated with a philosophically and mathematically logical structure) -

All birds have snouts.
All triceratops are birds.
Therefore, all triceratops have snouts.

Now, not a single one of the premises of that are true. But, if they were assumed to be true, then the structure of the set holds and it is considered objectively true, that is to say, it doesn't rely on your interpretation. We can quibble about the truth values of the premises, but (and this is the important part) the fact that the truth value of the premises is contested does not invalidate the fact that it is structurally objective.

At the end of the day, any statement is "subjective" insofar as words only have meaning because we humans give them meaning. If you operate on that level, all language is "subjective" and therefore all communication is meaningless. But, I have a feeling you all don't want to operate on that level. You want to discuss this. Which means you need to be using the same terms, and some of you are using the wrong definition of "objective".

Yes, we may arbitrarily decide the criteria for banning something, that's true. But, something can be arbitrary AND objective at the same time; there's nothing inconsistent, logically, with that. The timer is a perfect example. We arbitrarily set the timer at 8 minutes. It could have been 7, it could have been 9. We chose 8. But, that's objective, because 8 is 8; there's no way personal bias or interpretation could affect whether we chose 8 minutes on the clock when setting up a station for the day's matches. It's not like we have to look at the in game timer and interpret the timer as being correct; it just is.

So, for instance, let's say we have a ban criteria for stages that is simply:

1 - No walk-offs.
2 - No permanent walls.
3 - No damage-causing hazards.

We may quibble over whether those are the correct criteria to have, insofar as arguing that they are arbitrary, sure. But, not a single person can deny that the criteria is objective, because not a single criteria is open to interpretation or bias. Either a stage has a walk off or it doesn't. Either a stage has a wall or it doesn't. Either a stage has a damage-causing hazard or it doesn't.

It is actually incredibly easy to make an objective set of ban criteria. It is much harder to make one that isn't arbitrary, but then, ALL of our rules are arbitrary, to some degree; no set of any rules for any game is going to be perfectly methodical because games are made up.

So, stop it with the "objective" crap. You're bogging down the discussion. I hope this also explains why crying "Arbitrary!" isn't actually an argument against anything, either, so don't just shift the debate to calling things arbitrary as if that's a win-card to be played.

No one is arguing subjective and objective. Stop bringing this discussion repeatedly to other posts. You have done this at least three to four times now. Stop trying to troll, getting old...

 

[nat pagle]

One can only hope for some people to understand that learning stages is easy and you can learn fundamentals and translate them to stages wonderfully.

Do you remember Brood at APEX2010 and that he NEVER got gimped on Rainbow Cruise?

It's not about how well a certain person can do on a stage, it's about the potential for gimps, advantages, disadvantages, etc. created by the stage itself.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

Somebody give this guy a medal.

One can only hope for some people to understand that learning stages is easy and you can learn fundamentals and translate them to stages wonderfully.

It's not about how well a certain person can do on a stage, it's about the potential for gimps, advantages, disadvantages, etc. created by the stage itself.

No one is arguing subjective and objective. Stop bringing this discussion repeatedly to other posts. You have done this at least three to four times now.

Too long, didn't read.

 

[MopedOfJustice]

People here always complain about how X stage hurts Y character because he can't Z. Rainbow Cruise aside, I think it's ok to keep those stages for the following reason:
I checked the tiers again, (and was shocked that Olimar is 3) and saw many of the more Vertically inclined characters on the bottom, like Luigi (28) and Jiggs (36), not to mention other characters on the next tier up, like ROB, Kirby and Sonic (who is more horizontal, but still). It seems like stages were decided based on needs of less mobile characters, rather than just considering that lack of mobility a disadvantage to playing as that character. It seems to me that the latter mindset makes more sense, as it makes mobile characters more viable.
I realize MK is probably #2 after Pit in terms of distance that can be covered in the air, but still. No character is at such a disadvantage that self-destruction is inevitable (save for RC).
This isn't as much about stages like BoE, so much as Mushroomy Kingdom 1-1 and Hanebow (a stage I dislike, but only because of the fake water).

 

[ぱみゅ]

It's not about how well a certain person can do on a stage, it's about the potential for gimps, advantages, disadvantages, etc. created by the stage itself.

So you DON'T remember it. I'll refresh your memory.
Brood uses Olimar, the character with the worst recovery at least among Top Tier characters, and even though in Japan they don't use many stages, Brood went to APEX 2010 and played on stages he wasn't familiar with, and did great on them, avoiding those disadvantaged positions you are referring to, just like people are expected to avoid ICs on FD.
Heck, he even was about to get gimped, threw the Pikmin he had left to the blast zone, used his second Jump and then his pikminless Up+B (to get more height) to a plat form that was just appearing amazing everyone watching. Point being he ADAPTED to RC's distances and heights, avoided bad positions and got SECOND place with an "unfavourable" stagelist.

Rainbow Cruise still could put you on a bad spot, that's what a disadvantage is. But then again, there is NO STAGE that can completely eliminate advantages or disadvantages. Not even the ones people often refer as "Neutrals"

 

[MopedOfJustice]

So you DON'T remember it. I'll refresh your memory.
Brood uses Olimar, the character with the worst recovery at least among Top Tier characters, and even though in Japan they don't use many stages, Brood went to APEX 2010 and played on stages he wasn't familiar with, and did great on them, avoiding those disadvantaged positions you are referring to, just like people are expected to avoid ICs on FD.
Heck, he even was about to get gimped, threw the Pikmin he had left to the blast zone, used his second Jump and then his pikminless Up+B (to get more height) to a plat form that was just appearing amazing everyone watching. Point being he ADAPTED to RC's distances and heights, avoided bad positions and got SECOND place with an "unfavourable" stagelist.

Rainbow Cruise still could put you on a bad spot, that's what a disadvantage is. But then again, there is NO STAGE that can completely eliminate advantages or disadvantages. Not even the ones people often refer as "Neutrals"

...Because they give advantages to characters like Ganon.
What you described is exactly what competitive Brawl should be, so can I get a link?

 

[LiteralGrill]

...Because they give advantages to characters like Ganon.
What you described is exactly what competitive Brawl should be, so can I get a link?

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4077C2F1D9BA127B

Go there, click Control F, and type in Brood. You can see all his matches.

 

[Jack Kieser]

No one is arguing subjective and objective. Stop bringing this discussion repeatedly to other posts. You have done this at least three to four times now. Stop trying to troll, getting old...

I'm not a troll, and you have no reading comprehension. I keep bringing this up because it's a ****ing problem. I'm sure you'd be bringing something up if you were in a thread that had everyone in it saying that MK's 'nado put him in a glide afterwards, because it was wrong. Well, same difference.

If people want to argue about this subject, they're going to have to stop screwing up the basics of the subject. Hugs obviously thinks that his position is justified expressly because he doesn't even understand what the word "objective" means. That's a problem. Now, if you have nothing constructive to say or if you don't want to refute me, close your mouth and leave me be.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Now, if you have nothing constructive to say or if you don't want to refute me, STFU and get out of my face.

Didn't this thread already go through the fact that people need to be reasonable and polite to be listened to? Come on Jack, people won't listen to you if you talk like this. I have some respect for you and the work you have done, and I'll even stop listening.

 

[nat pagle]

So you DON'T remember it. I'll refresh your memory.
Brood uses Olimar, the character with the worst recovery at least among Top Tier characters, and even though in Japan they don't use many stages, Brood went to APEX 2010 and played on stages he wasn't familiar with, and did great on them, avoiding those disadvantaged positions you are referring to, just like people are expected to avoid ICs on FD.
Heck, he even was about to get gimped, threw the Pikmin he had left to the blast zone, used his second Jump and then his pikminless Up+B (to get more height) to a plat form that was just appearing amazing everyone watching. Point being he ADAPTED to RC's distances and heights, avoided bad positions and got SECOND place with an "unfavourable" stagelist.

Rainbow Cruise still could put you on a bad spot, that's what a disadvantage is. But then again, there is NO STAGE that can completely eliminate advantages or disadvantages. Not even the ones people often refer as "Neutrals"

So because one guy is able to perform amazingly on it, it means that kind of performance is the standard now for everyone else?

Just because Spud Webb could dunk doesn't mean every other 5'5" guy has no excuse for not doing it.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Didn't this thread already go through the fact that people need to be reasonable and polite to be listened to? Come on Jack, people won't listen to you if you talk like this. I have some respect for you and the work you have done, and I'll even stop listening.

Sorry. I'll edit it out. I really don't feel well right now, and that kind of bull**** is not helping matters any.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Sorry. I'll edit it out. I really don't feel well right now, and that kind of bull**** is not helping matters any.

Thank you, come back when you feel better to talk. Don't hurt your reputation on a bad day.

 

[MopedOfJustice]

So because one guy is able to perform amazingly on it, it means that kind of performance is the standard now for everyone else?

Just because Spud Webb could dunk doesn't mean every other 5'5" guy has no excuse for not doing it.

It shows an example of a player being able to compensate for a character's weakness using skill. It proves that characters who don't have the best recovery can still out preform a character who has an advantage on that stage.
More over, it shows that it's within the characters potential to preform like that, it's just a matter of the skill of the player to use that potential.
Perhaps if the stage was more widely accepted, people would develop ways of dealing with these issues. As it is, RC has been banned for years, and we don't do anything to work on strategies for dealing with it, so of course we are impressed watching someone actually deal with it rather than what people like the OP do:
"It scrolls, do not want."
I say we get the most creative players of low-mobility characters and try to convince them to investigate what can be done on the new stages once SSB4 comes out, so we don't end up with a tiny stage list due to laziness followed by inertia.

 

[Arteen]

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4077C2F1D9BA127B

Go there, click Control F, and type in Brood. You can see all his matches.

Oh wow, this match was awful to watch. Metaknight spends the whole match running away waiting for a timeout.

 

[PikaJew]

I wonder how many tournament vets would shy away from a random stage/character match.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Oh wow, this match was awful to watch. Metaknight spends the whole match running away waiting for a timeout.

It is a bit nasty. Brood must be given MUCH credit for how amazing he did having never really played on the stage before. To think if he practiced it as much as others, he may have won.

I wonder how many tournament vets would shy away from a random stage/character match.

I think we'd have mutiny

Why do you ask though?