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!
Don't know whether to be happy or scared about that
If you're Greninja, happy, if you're the opponent, scared
PacMaze, NES stage, Gameboy Stage and possibly (haven't tested) Flatzone also don't have shadows.
Yes, always counterpick a shadowless form. There's not even any question about it.
Dont forget the numerous Omega forms that go for a straight on viewpoint than slightly angled from the top, like Golden Plains.
Yea, I don't know which of them do but that's what I meant by the last sentence. The 2 I know that do this are Tomodachi Life and Golden Plains.
Gameboy (dreamland) too.
Why wouldn't you let them? Other characters can pick stages that give them advantages... It's why the banning/striking system exists.
Eliminating an incredibly powerful attack's telegraph because some colors are different isn't the same as chosing to strike Yoshi's Island or Dream Land because of platform placement or small blast zones because one version of the MANY FDs is an instant win for Greninja. Burning through multiple FDs to avoid a dark stage for one character is broken. It's not a tactical decision because it's a direct upgrade and blatant counter picks (vs "I don't think my whatever is good enough for this) before a match aren't fun to face anyway. Any point during gameplay where another player might as well set their controller down is bad game design and sucks to experience. Might as well give the counter pick player the point and go to the next match.
The problem with this is that you believe that you not being able to tell that Greninja is Shadow Sneak is instant win for him. I am sorry to put it bluntly but you are not even close to being part of the competitive scene with that mentality and as someone who isn't part of it shouldn't comment on what should or should not be done by a community you're not in.
I'm not going to play the "I'm better at you at video games so my views are right" strawman game if that's your best argument to try and shut me down. I didn't attack you so don't you pull that garbage. I don't have to play Greninja well myself to know how he can operate, what a technique can do and that he's S tier. I haven't played a Pokemon game since Emerald so I'm never going to play him because I'm not interested. Critics don't need know how to make the thing they're reviewing themselves in order analyze them. The second paragraph and third sentence were the only things that in that post that weren't purile, egotistical ****e.
I don't see how it's not fun. It's not like Greninja is incredibly broken beyond extent. It provides a bit of a buff, but I wouldn't be surprised if perhaps it were banned.
Nicely worded rebuttal, you bring up some solid points there. I think the MK analogy pretty much summed up your argument. However, I'm sure he knows Greninja won't always win and that was probably just poor wording or a bad attempt at putting an effort forth to make a rebuttal, haha.
There's only 4 legal stages and you get 1 ban. Even if they divide FDs into 2 or 3 different stages, all the shadowless Omegas are the same type of FD. If someone truly hated to fight Greninja on shadowless stages they can just ban "Walled Omegas" and be done with it.
Nope, I've never seen this. Tried it out myself just now to be sure and nothing.
Indeed, actually. But a well seasoned player should know how to time Greninja's attacks, especially an attack like Shadow Sneak. But you have a good point, players who aren't as practiced in timing it and knowing how fast the shadow travels would significantly drop that buff to some extent and probably drop it from making certain stages banned.
To be honest, I highly doubt these stages will be banned. And if they aren't, this is very beneficial as a Greninja player, as it gives us more versatility for opportunities, especially with SS and wall-clinging shenanigans.
It takes practice, I believe Raykz described how to do the two different types of attacks associated with SS. As for timing, that takes practice of course, haha.
According to your logic Smashville in SSBB should be banned because of the free switches that Pokemon Trainer gets there. I think that your logic is flawed though and would not support banning Smashville.
I mean as I've said before, if you're really afraid of "shadowless" stages just strike/ban FD. You will obviously be left only with Yoshi's and Battlefield (and maybe Prism Tower depending on the person organizing the tournament) all of which have shadows and the problem is gone.
There are a lot of stages that are like that haha : ). It's his stage due to it being filled with "Ninja power" and maybe Naruto though.
Striking FD I could go to Omega Battlefield and it's essentially the same thing. Unless you mean not including the Omega forms.
"Omegas banned" without reason = scrubby.
3DS uses this as a default. So it's going to be a headache trying to enforce a competitively viable ruling against something this trite when the greater solution is there: Play the game.
Striking is the exact same thing as agreeing to play on a stage. Like literally the same exact concept. The difference is striking is taking away every stage you don't agree on while "agreeing" is just that.
I am not the one banning them, I play Greninja, I would rather have Omegas in order to wall jump and get free shadow sneaks.
It's much less of a headache enforcing actual procedural rules than enforcing rules which have no procedures or steps. While your "rules" might seem perfect, it requires both players to be in complete approval of each other's decisions and opinions and that is something that doesn't happen all the time.
If this was directed toward my post: Then it very much does. Many of my opponents will try to "soft cheat" for advantages, and if Pictochat is a good stage then I have to be prepared how to keep from being cheated out of it.
Means to the same end maybe, but striking is not "literally the same" as agreeing, imo.
Ok, so not literally the same.
This problem is still present with striking or virtually any other Stage Selection method: a player refusing to play (for any reason) - There would already be Tardiness Rules in place, any competitor who is not playing their match whether present to do so or not will be DQ'd. They must agree to strike, random, or pray to a god to come down on a cloud of fire to determine a stage - however they agree to do it they have a grace period to do it in.
"Correct manner" is all kind of gray area since it is rather just thrown into the mix without proper definition, doing so can only cause an ambiguous subjectivity. I'll explain by showing how such a jump to conclusion can cause some difficulties here:
The question of how or why a player could possibly be "***'d over" by a stage pick could happen in a competitive tournament would be my first question. If competitively sound stages are being used and no violation of fairness principles is being violated then it isn't the stage being horrible, it's the player, at which point real competitors would suggest "get better".
Was there someone who said you were banning them? I don't believe I said this.
They'll learn with time, I've been hosting Smash tourneys for about a decade and learned a lot how to keep a competition competitive without scaring away too many of the scrubs.
I'd rather play on FD than Yoshi's, 'cuz for glory.
Last time I need to repeat: Agreement is not exclusive, it is inclusive of striking - you can have your cake and eat it too.
How are you going to Yoshi's, your preferred stage, so often in a competitive matches? Some kind of black magic to get an advantage there? Tell me your secrets *ribbit*
I'd like to see some evidence for these claims, until then I'll remain skeptical.
This is exactly how it goes down in tournaments.
No, you don't get it. If I have a rule that says you strike a stage then you do just that strike, you don't need to agree on a stage. After each player strikes a stage there's only 1 stage left, if he does not want to play on that stage he is instantly DQ. On a rule where you have to agree there is no way to enforce which player should be DQed. How do you decide which player isn't agreeing to play on which stage? The Bowser player wants BF and the LM player wants to play FD, the ONLY step is agreeing, they aren't there's 0 ways to regulate. This is why every single procedure is done in steps and why the word procedural means just that.
I will agree that there is a huge problem with who strikes first or who picks a character first, but the "agreement method" doesn't make it more efficient, on the other hand it makes it worse. Sure MOST people will just agree to a stage and play on it, it's how it works in the "real world", but setting agreements as a "rule" is not a correct step, it isn't even a step at all.
Bowser can kill with Side-B around 50-60% in BF while he can't do that in FD. It gives Bowser a very early, easy KO (unlike landing a smash which isn't as easy as landing a side-B). It doesn't automatically win the fight for him but it gives him a big advantage.
You're the one who'se not getting it. There's a difference between the rules you have in place in order to enforce players and what actually goes on in the tournie. Agreements happen all the time, it's the most common way of picking the stage but IT'S NOT ENFORCEABLE. As such it can't be placed as an actual "rule", it can only be placed as a suggestion.
I ban either FD or BF depending on which one my opponent is best at, normally people pick the closest stage to FD or BF depending on which I banned and in both cases that's Yoshi's (Yoshi's is closer to BF than FD and is closer to FD than BF).
At first it looked like you were disagreeing with me. So, not sure what the discussion was there for.
No, you.
It appears to me that there would be a need to agree on a stage: The agreement would be done with striking.
Well, if you are supporting this method and also the one claiming it has a huge problem then I don't think I'll be using methods with 'huge problems' at my events.
If you are making an accusation of "worse" you'll have to provide reason. Otherwise anyone could just use your own logic against you: Nuh-uh, your way is "worse".
Again, reasons for accusations, otherwise:
Bowser can KO at 0% on any Stage. Your point?
I agree, why give someone an advantage? That's unfair.
Please reread what I posted, let me know when you figured it out.
No, you.
My attendees come to compete and have fun, I don't need to enforce that, they seem to have plenty of fun competing as it is.
I not only see it as enforceable (through DQ as with any reason someone is not playing) but also inevitable. There must be an agreement and always has been in every round ever.
Sorry, that would be backwards. No part can be greater than the whole, this is axiomatic.
Agreement is inclusive of striking (or any method). One doesn't need a specific rule of striking to allow for it when any method is allowed with Agreement method.
I need a little more info to digest this.
So you outright get to choose the next stage if you lose?
Oh, that is very interesting you are using Agreement for first round, at this point it is apparent striking is not necessary... so I guess you've seen my point this whole time.
Again, have you seen my point this whole time? Having an Agreement Method allows for efficiency and does not exclude striking nor any other method. It's less of a question of "how" and more of a question of "which".
Well, are you asking me to play it out?
I'm sorry, are you saying the Agreement Method is not actual, procedural, a rule, or none of those?
