Event - MLG Anaheim 2014 So now that we know MLG hosts ridiculous smash tournaments...

[ADHD]

^^^

I've also been accused of being changed and RUDE. UGH I'M SO BLATANTLY RUDE, SUCH A NAUGHTY CHILD.

Lmao, sl I've only talked to you once, jeez.

 

[ShadowLink84]

wait wat

so people ask ADHD to name specific people who placed higher because of the lag, he makes various points about how the lag affected people and got them off their game, people tell him again to name specific people because that's not good enough, he names specific people, you say he's a bad person because he named specific people

Many of the people who had gone to the event were at the event prir to Columbus.
The same TV's were also used.
So this isn't a case where one can say "lag resulted in a higher placing" when we know for a fact that these people were there.
So no, you really can't say all those upsets are the result of lag.

Also, to say that ICs are the only characters affected by lag seems ignorant. I'm assuming you mean their infinite CGs, and really all they have to do is input the buttons slightly earlier than the visual cues.

Not as easy as it sounds.
I know how to do the IC CG and it becomes rather difficult when I switch to an HDTV.
The visual cues are very important for performing the infinite, and the 1-2 frame image delay really messes with the timing.
Some are used to the delay, hence why they can pull it off, but when you arne't used to it, you lose a very powerful tool.

Technically it is the same timing, you just can't rely on what you're seeing on the screen or you adjust yourself to be slightly earlier, and back in early 09 I heard stories of Lain being able to infinite people with his eyes closed.

I would want to see that happen XD

Lag affects other things greater, like anything that has to do with reaction time, such as punishing certain moves or spacing.

The infinite IS very important for IC's.
Not because of its power, but because of the threat.
I have a 0-death weapon in hand.
You really want to make an error? You really want to use this move int his situation?

Le alone that reaction time, punishing moves and spacing is something BOTH opponents have to deal with, it isn't as if one is hit with a 5 frame delay and another, a 1 frame delay.

I've also been accused of being changed and RUDE. UGH I'M SO BLATANTLY RUDE, SUCH A NAUGHTY CHILD.

Yes, unfortunatey because of the sarcasm its obvious you do not notice the way you present yourself.

Lmao, sl I've only talked to you once, jeez.

We've never spoke dude.
You've seen me yes. We never spoke, and I really had no interest to do so since I wanted to do friendlies with Ninjalink and the others to improve Sonic.
While he is a worse character than Marth, I rather like playing him, hence why I often use him more in tournament than Marth.

I swear though if you say I am related to Malcolm I may shiv you. -_-
By the way, what you read isn't actual the tone intended.

 

[Eddie G]

The infinite IS very important for IC's.
Not because of its power, but because of the threat.
I have a 0-death weapon in hand.
You really want to make an error? You really want to use this move int his situation?

This is true. No other character, to any comparable degree, forces me to change the way I play. Even though Peach has a relatively easy time against the ICs compared to other characters on the roster, what goes up must eventually come down (her) so the imminent threat of getting 0-death'd is still present a majority of the time. I literally spent over half of the time in my matches against Cheese on the SV platform tossing/farming turnips because of said threat, haha.

Case in point: Don't ever sleep on anyone's Ice Climbers no matter what, always play the MU as smart and safe as possible.

 

[AvaricePanda]

Many of the people who had gone to the event were at the event prir to Columbus.
The same TV's were also used.
So this isn't a case where one can say "lag resulted in a higher placing" when we know for a fact that these people were there.
So no, you really can't say all those upsets are the result of lag.

That wasn't the point I was trying to make lol. I was trying to say that many people were telling him to list the specific players that lag helped them place higher. When he didn't do that and kinda shifted his argument, people hounded him for not naming specifics, but when he named specifics, your hounding him for naming specifics and calling him rude and such.

tl;dr he couldn't do anything right

 

[ShadowLink84]

That wasn't the point I was trying to make lol. I was trying to say that many people were telling him to list the specific players that lag helped them place higher. When he didn't do that and kinda shifted his argument, people hounded him for not naming specifics, but when he named specifics, your hounding him for naming specifics and calling him rude and such.

tl;dr he couldn't do anything right

He shifted from what was asked of him Avarice Panda.

Q: Ask player's and see who felt that their placement was because of lag.

ADHD goes and asks: Did lag affect you?

Two entirely different things.
Of course lag caused an effect.
It effected EVERYONE, the question was whom believed they would have placed much better.
He alluded that it was a large amount of individuals, hence why he was criticized.

 

[CR4SH]

Eh, I decided I dont like what I posted here.

I came home drunk, so sue me. Or infract me, that would make more sense.

 

[Sharky]

That post wasn't really to you, though (I try to be nice to everyone, tbqh). Some people jumping to conclusions off of 0 logic/sense, just confuses me. I don't feel like getting into specifics, because plenty other characters also have problems, given certain prerequisites. If someone can name 2 successful Ikes through online, then I'll be like "okay," yet people jumped to conclusions and hopped on the bandwagon purely due to speculation.

Believe me, I felt like I was playing like crap most of my MLG matches. I even had to test my powershielding with PikaPika one time because of what was going on. I felt a lot of my troubles early on with powershielding, teching, and buffering, made it harder for me to win. I complained a lot more than at Orlando, oddly.

I'm usually pretty consistent with my wins at large tourneys. MLG Orlando was my worst placing in tournament (partly due to having to play a really good player early in bracket).

san vs ook, perfect example. so many missed powershields against giant punches that set =/

 

[fkacyan]

Here's an easy way to determine if lag had an effect!

STEP 1: Find average reaction time (in ms)
STEP 2: Find average lag time of every TV
STEP 3: Add that lag time to every single move, spotdodge, roll, etc
STEP 4: Compare number of moves, etc reactable to before and after addition of TV's lag time.

I would bet a lot of money that it would be a much more significant change to a lot of characters than one would think, even with a small amount of lag.

Also, @OS: I don't really care what the BBR thinks. You guys are really no more infallible or unbiased than the rest of us. If you want to have an accurate stage list, find a way to accurately evaluate matchups between characters on a per-stage basis so as to determine which stages have the most "even" matchups, and so on. Until then, expect a lot of legitimate resistance to every ******** stagelist anybody ever comes up with (Mine and yours and MLG's included).

 

[Dark 3nergy]

how do you measure an individuals reaction time? you cannot simply go by off of their own visual assumptions

i do agree that lag does affect the roster to a degree. But when you throw in other smashers playing the roster the numbers get skewed

 

[fkacyan]

how do you measure an individuals reaction time? you cannot simply go by off of their own visual assumptions

i do agree that lag does affect the roster to a degree. But when you throw in other smashers playing the roster the numbers get skewed

There are objective ways to measure reaction time. It would actually be a really simple study.

 

[ADHD]

He shifted from what was asked of him Avarice Panda.

Q: Ask player's and see who felt that their placement was because of lag.

ADHD goes and asks: Did lag affect you?

Two entirely different things.
Of course lag caused an effect.
It effected EVERYONE, the question was whom believed they would have placed much better.
He alluded that it was a large amount of individuals, hence why he was criticized.

If it affected everyone, then there would OBVIOUSLY be very much varied results. Why is it wrong to say they placed higher when it's my opinion? Oh no, I hurt their feelings. They can shut me up by placing again at something large outside of mlg.

 

[Justblaze647]

Also, just another footnote.

Outside of players being affected, lag definitely has a profound effect on characters, some more than others. Like ADHD said before, Marth would be heavily affected, which maybe why there were no Marth's in the top 16 (@ Columbus, anyway)

 

[Dismojoe]

If it affected everyone, then there would OBVIOUSLY be very much varied results. Why is it wrong to say they placed higher when it's my opinion? Oh no, I hurt their feelings. They can shut me up by placing again at something large outside of mlg.

Even though I have only really played casual smash bros over the years, I have been playing competitive Halo 1 for years now at tournaments/LANs, and TV lag definitely skews results. In fact, the top H1 players only play on the best TVs at the LANs (we just had a huge LAN this past memorial day weekend) because they do not want to lose due to stupid TV lag when they shouldn't lose. The fact of the matter is, TV lags messes up precise shots (such as sniper or the pistol in Halo 1) or any other quick movement (which relates to SSBB with fast characters such as Metaknight). On the flip side, slow movement actions (such as nading, rockets, or shotgun in Halo 1) are essentially not affected by laggy TVs.

In short, faster characters rely more on twitch movements, so they are affected significantly more than slower characters. Therefore, it makes logical sense that Metaknight players would do worse than they usually place. To argue otherwise means that you probably do not have top tournament experience in a game that is affected by TV lag, or that you have something to lose if TV lag does indeed affect placing (aka, San would have not placed as high), or it shows that MLG needs to get their **** together (so AZ the MLG rep would try to defend MLG).

This is all from a third party who has a lot of experience with TV lag, so I don't care whatsoever who won or whatnot, so take it as you will.

 

[Judo777]

Even though I have only really played casual smash bros over the years, I have been playing competitive Halo 1 for years now at tournaments/LANs, and TV lag definitely skews results. In fact, the top H1 players only play on the best TVs at the LANs (we just had a huge LAN this past memorial day weekend) because they do not want to lose due to stupid TV lag when they shouldn't lose. The fact of the matter is, TV lags messes up precise shots (such as sniper or the pistol in Halo 1) or any other quick movement (which relates to SSBB with fast characters such as Metaknight). On the flip side, slow movement actions (such as nading, rockets, or shotgun in Halo 1) are essentially not affected by laggy TVs.

In short, faster characters rely more on twitch movements, so they are affected significantly more than slower characters. Therefore, it makes logical sense that Metaknight players would do worse than they usually place. To argue otherwise means that you probably do not have top tournament experience in a game that is affected by TV lag, or that you have something to lose if TV lag does indeed affect placing (aka, San would have not placed as high), or it shows that MLG needs to get their **** together (so AZ the MLG rep would try to defend MLG).

This is all from a third party who has a lot of experience with TV lag, so I don't care whatsoever who won or whatnot, so take it as you will.

I appreciate ur opinion on giving us and outside perspective however i do think that comparing a fighting game to a shooter and saying that faster characters would be more effected doesn't hold much water. While faster characters require higher reaction time because they are capable of acting at split second reaction times the slower characters require more precise and perfect spacing in order to not get punished. I don't think a line of who gets more effected and who doesn't can be drawn so easily.

Although i seriously don't think this matters that much I would honestly think that a majority of the high tiers would get one of the largest boosts from slight lag bar Marth and IC's because there options become even more insanely safe and characters who normally rely on perfect spacing and timing to get around all their garbage can no longer do that.

I can't imagine trying to get around snakes ftilt if i was a character who had to approach in that MU.

 

[Overswarm]

Also, @OS: I don't really care what the BBR thinks. You guys are really no more infallible or unbiased than the rest of us. If you want to have an accurate stage list, find a way to accurately evaluate matchups between characters on a per-stage basis so as to determine which stages have the most "even" matchups, and so on. Until then, expect a lot of legitimate resistance to every ******** stagelist anybody ever comes up with (Mine and yours and MLG's included).

I'm perfect and am never wrong. Also, we do evaulate matchups between characters on a per-stage basis. That's how we came up with the list of 9 stages. First we said "what's a list of 9 stages that would give varying advantages and disadvantages, fairly evenly spread?" and then we tested our list. It's still slightly skewed towards "flat+plat" characters, but it is pretty close.

We've even looked into custom stages to fix the starter issues. You complain about rulesets, we examine them.

 

[fkacyan]

I'm perfect and am never wrong. Also, we do evaulate matchups between characters on a per-stage basis. That's how we came up with the list of 9 stages. First we said "what's a list of 9 stages that would give varying advantages and disadvantages, fairly evenly spread?" and then we tested our list. It's still slightly skewed towards "flat+plat" characters, but it is pretty close.

We've even looked into custom stages to fix the starter issues. You complain about rulesets, we examine them.

You have a 100% objective way of determining matchups to an accurate, reportable extent on every stage?

So why isn't the tier list the final version then, broski?

And plenty of people examine rulesets. The BBR is not special or unique in that sense.

EDIT: Wait, what you just said is moronic. You started with the base assumption that 9 stages was a superior setup? Holy bias, Batman!

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

it's almost like making MK do better is favorable to his agenda on some issue or something, maybe just my imagination though!

The one where he plays the character or the one where he wants the character banned? V:

Basically, and the fact that MK gets like three more viable counterpicks with the new stage list.

Still does not matter at all; I could have 90 good counterpicks and my opponent could have 9 incredible ones, in a 7-game set, he has better stages.

*picks DDD*

Just make sure you ban GG; DK wrecks on that stage. :V

TBH, if we lower the stage list down to 7, you know what stage has to go? I'll give you a hint: it's easily the most polarizing, unbalanced stage in the 9-starter list (and arguably the 11-starter list!). Figured it out? It's also the very best stage for many top characters in almost any matchup they go to. How about now?
[collapse=the answer]
Final Destination[/collapse]
That stage doesn't even reasonably have a place in the 9-starter list. And in the 7-starter list? Especially not with similar stages like SV or BF around. It makes the list too polarizingly good for top chars who just absolutely love the stage for various reasons (CGs, super easy stage control, etc.). Look at it! Diddy's best stage, Falco's best stage, IC's best stage by a mile and a half, easily DDD's best stage... It's horribly polarizing. Make it a counterpick ffs.

 

[Overswarm]

You have a 100% objective way of determining matchups to an accurate, reportable extent on every stage?

So why isn't the tier list the final version then, broski?

And plenty of people examine rulesets. The BBR is not special or unique in that sense.

EDIT: Wait, what you just said is moronic. You started with the base assumption that 9 stages was a superior setup? Holy bias, Batman!

We first looked at the idea of "can we use all stages and strike" and this was a pretty fast "no". Then we looked at the stages currently on random and looked for stages that worked as starters and found ten of them. We then selected nine.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Well, we need an odd number mechanically, and to summarize politics briefly, 9 is really the most viable number. We could use fewer if people didn't mind "non-intuitive" starter lists (like remove FD + Halberd and 7 works, remove Halberd + Delfino and it doesn't work), but that's playing with fire. We could probably get away with more if our only concern were balance, but people seem to have assorted inhibitions about stages being starters that has nothing to do with objective character balance (if a stage is too interactive, they freak out about it being a starter). So, yeah, 9 is a pretty common-sense number, and it's also the number that was the original plan when stage striking was designed in the first place!

And to correct a really big mistake happening, no, the BBR is not infallible, and no, we don't have 100% accurate matchup knowledge in any way. This is also not a problem because no one is infallible, and perfect knowledge is impossible to obtain in a game deep enough to be worth playing.

The reason the BBR exists is to try to be a unifying factor in the community on rules and other divisive issues (such as tier lists), and it's really hard to deny stage policy is really divisive. If you go to one tournament with 5 starters and 13 total legal stages and another with 9 starters and 22 total legal stages, it's hard to deny the game is really different at that point which is basically toxic for the community and has been for years. Arguments have been unproductive, and I honestly feel that the side favoring fewer stages has been far less inclined to engage in meaningful discussion or compromise in the public sphere. Hypothetically, the BBR should be cooler heads convening and reaching those reasonable compromises that the greater community can follow so we can just all play the same game. One would further hope that the MLG being such prominent tournaments with consistent rules would help us form a template of sorts to converge on so this kind of compromising and rational policy can really sink into the community. We don't have to adopt MLG's rules exactly as a community, but adopting something reasonably close would be a good opportunity to settle this issue. We could refuse to of course, and then we only hope we can find something productive out of the status quo which seems unlikely at best.

As per perfect information, it doesn't exist and is fruitless to talk about. We do, however, know quite a bit about the game, and we can only work with what we do know with a generous assumption that anything we don't understand is probably not broken to give our knowledge a chance to correct itself. This is the natural process of making rules. You take what you do know, make charitable assumptions about what you don't, and rationally work out a sane policy from there. I don't see that there is any problem in this regard.

 

[Judo777]

You have a 100% objective way of determining matchups to an accurate, reportable extent on every stage?

So why isn't the tier list the final version then, broski?

And plenty of people examine rulesets. The BBR is not special or unique in that sense.

EDIT: Wait, what you just said is moronic. You started with the base assumption that 9 stages was a superior setup? Holy bias, Batman!

There is no way to ever be 100% objective on anything as complicated as matchup mechanics between 2 characters in a game. We can try to get close and analyze the best we can but to even act like we will ever be close to have an objective stance for a matchup is dumb. Of course they don't have that but lets be reasonable now. I'm sure they have a decent idea of how every matchup works on every stage its not hard to find out.

 

[Chuee]

Look at it! Diddy's best stage,
See Pierce's post from awhile ago.
Falco's best stage,
When Japes isn't legal
IC's best stage by a mile and a half, easily
DDD's best stage...
lol you just said that D3 wrecks on GG

10character

 

[sandwhale]

We first looked at the idea of "can we use all stages and strike" and this was a pretty fast "no". Then we looked at the stages currently on random and looked for stages that worked as starters and found ten of them. We then selected nine.

That doesn't make it any less biased.

 

[T-block]

I'm pretty sure Thiocyanide was being sarcastic with that remark =P

TBH, if we lower the stage list down to 7, you know what stage has to go? I'll give you a hint: it's easily the most polarizing, unbalanced stage in the 9-starter list (and arguably the 11-starter list!).

I would definitely say FD is acceptable in an 11-starter list.

Anyways, AA brings up something interesting I was just thinking about. Final Destination + Rainbow Cruise on the same list would be good balance, and they have the advantage of being free of stage-induced random factors, which is nice in a starter.

 

[AlMoStLeGeNdArY]

We first looked at the idea of "can we use all stages and strike" and this was a pretty fast "no". Then we looked at the stages currently on random and looked for stages that worked as starters and found ten of them. We then selected nine.

What criteria are you guys using to determine what stages should and shouldn't be starters. I fail to see why stages like Delifino Halberd and Castle Seige should be considered a starter.

 

[Overswarm]

What criteria are you guys using to determine what stages should and shouldn't be starters. I fail to see why stages like Delifino Halberd and Castle Seige should be considered a starter.

Why should any stage be a starter?

You choose stages that can fit into a list that allow for the most balanced starting stage using the stage striking system. We could have rainbow cruise, brinstar, yoshi's island brawl, final destination, and pictochat as starters and if it resulted in the best starting stage 100% of the time it'd be the best list ever... even if individual stages didn't seem to fit.

tl;dr, just because a stage isn't flat with platforms doesn't mean it isn't a good starting stage.

 

[AlMoStLeGeNdArY]

Why should any stage be a starter?

You choose stages that can fit into a list that allow for the most balanced starting stage using the stage striking system. We could have rainbow cruise, brinstar, yoshi's island brawl, final destination, and pictochat as starters and if it resulted in the best starting stage 100% of the time it'd be the best list ever... even if individual stages didn't seem to fit.

tl;dr, just because a stage isn't flat with platforms doesn't mean it isn't a good starting stage.

So how is MK vs Diddy or Falco of IC on Delfinio or Halberd a good starter? Or d3 vs Ike or DK on Seige or Delfino ?

 

[T-block]

Balance is taken into account with stage striking taking into account.

The previous system was unfair not because it had FD, BF and SV per se. It was unfair because with only five stages, Diddy was guaranteed to get one of those stages as the first game of the set. With 9 stages we don't have that problem, and the system is more fair in general.

 

[Hanzhou]

Why is CS/Halberd counted as one stage? and wouldn't frigate make a better starter than delfino?

 

[AlMoStLeGeNdArY]

Balance is taken into account with stage striking taking into account.

The previous system was unfair not because it had FD, BF and SV per se. It was unfair because with only five stages, Diddy was guaranteed to get one of those stages as the first game of the set. With 9 stages we don't have that problem, and the system is more fair in general.

So as opposed to MK vs Diddy on BF. We have MK vs diddy on Halberd game one that's fair.... Anyways I think they whole notion of being fair is just simply subjective no matter how good Diddy is on BF there's characters better than him on it. Like honestly I don't think the diddy kong cares if he get's BF if he's going up against a falco ya know? The reaosn the 5 starter list is good and should be used because those stages do not put any character at a disadvantage them self however in turn the match up does. People need to realize this. It's not enough to say oh diddy is getting an advantage so let's raise the stages that way diddy will have less of an impact on tournies. That type of thinking is just wrong. IF you're playing in a compettive environment there shouldn't be rules changed to make things more fair for lesser characters. I'm sorry but if you're playing a character that can't handle diddy on BF or has a problem with diddy on BF you either need to quit or pick up a new character. IF we look at diddy's match ups I don't see how less say Diddy vs Ness on BF is more fair than Diddy vs Ness of Delfinio. Also if it doesn't make much sense to change the rules to cater to a character who doesn't represent a majority of the Metagame. Changing the rules so that diddy falco and IC makes no sense when the stage list cater to MK and makes it virtually impossible to take a set from him after he's take game 1.

So my question to you is what MU's is Diddy on BF unfair to what characterS? Why is it unfair? Then you need to question how much does this character make up of the metagame? Then you aslo have to realize that just because a character CPs a neutral doesn't mean that stage gives them an advantage. It's just the stage is the less hinderance to their character and allows their character to fight to their fullest potential. Diddy on BF isn't the same as d3 on halberd MK or Cruise DK on Japes and G&W or Brinstar. I really wish people would realize this.

 

[T-block]

With this ruleset, the stance we take is that stage adaptability is an important part of Smash. There is another school of thought that says stages should "interfere" with the match as little as possible. If you subscribe to that thought process, then none of the justification for this system is going to make any sense, so we can stop the argument, since it just comes down to difference in ideals.

Now, operating under the paradigm of adapting to stages being a valid skill, it is safe to say that Diddy, Falco, Ice Climbers, etc. were artificially buffed by the previous stage striking system. The fact that such characters don't do well on more "radical" counterpicks is seen as a flaw of the character, not of the stages. The part that's unfair is that these characters get to play Game 1 on a stage that they would actually counterpick in a fair number of matchups. The more starters, the more likely we are to arrive at a stage that's the most "fair" for the matchup.

Now, taking that last sentence - what's wrong with having 9 starters anyways?

 

[Juushichi]

^- And this, gentlemen, is the argument that a lot of us have been making for 35+ pages of posts in this thread. Thank you, T-Block.

 

[fkacyan]

I really wish people would understand that the only character that would actually want to go to FD on the starter list is ICs. Every other character has a better option in a 7-stage list.

But then, most people don't actually understand how camping functions. Ah well.

@T-Block: It can be argued that the stages added in an extended list do that for other characters.

I think the main issue here is a broad lack of understanding of why people who play certain characters counterpick the way they do. Here's something that a lot of people probably wouldn't think of: Delfino would be a disgusting Diddy counterpick stage if Meta Knight couldn't shark him there.

There are a ton of cases like these, where characters have CPd in certain ways to avoid being gayed by one specific charcter.

 

[AlMoStLeGeNdArY]

With this ruleset, the stance we take is that stage adaptability is an important part of Smash. There is another school of thought that says stages should "interfere" with the match as little as possible. If you subscribe to that thought process, then none of the justification for this system is going to make any sense, so we can stop the argument, since it just comes down to difference in ideals.

Now, operating under the paradigm of adapting to stages being a valid skill, it is safe to say that Diddy, Falco, Ice Climbers, etc. were artificially buffed by the previous stage striking system. The fact that such characters don't do well on more "radical" counterpicks is seen as a flaw of the character, not of the stages. The part that's unfair is that these characters get to play Game 1 on a stage that they would actually counterpick in a fair number of matchups. The more starters, the more likely we are to arrive at a stage that's the most "fair" for the matchup.

Now, taking that last sentence - what's wrong with having 9 starters anyways?

I don't see how it's not okay for IC falco or Diddy to go BF. Yet it's okay at the notion of MK d3 or Delfinio and halberd game 1. You still have yet to tell me which Character is affected negatively by going BF against IC. I don't see how you can simply over look this and shrug it off. It's not just you yet it's a majority of the people. Who are arguing for this 9 stage list anyone. I'm pretty sure if I ask each character board what's there best neutral the majority will say Bf that includes characters like Ganon Yoshi Zelda and Link, then you'll have the projectile characters who'll enjoy Final D more like Tlink, Falco and Diddy then the Characters who don't give a **** where they start Like Mk Marth and Sheik. For you guys to say it's unfair to start at a stage like BF please tell me how BF buffs Falco or Diddy kong. I can write an essay on how MK get's buff from halberd and delfino and the same thing goes with d3. Stop the non sense please you know good **** and well no character gets a buff from BF SV or Final D. It's just those stages that allow for their character to play to their potential.

I think I need to put this in big letters however, I'll say this again and I'll keep saying it. There's a difference between being CP and being CP by a neutral please learn the difference. DK vs d3 on Final d is a perfect an example. While the stage is flat and allows for ridiculous damage from a CG it is by now way shape in form skews the MU in d3's favor as bad as Delifino does with the walk offs and walf infinities. Same with BF and same with sV however, a stage like Halberd and Seige drastically change this (ridiculously low ceiling on Halberd) . Another example of a CP would be the DK playing the d3 player to Japes or Brinstar. Each Character has their strengths and weakness however adding stages which influence a MU so drastically is ridiculous. Once again people there's a difference between be CP and being taken to a neutral because my character outperforms your character on said neutral.

 

[Raziek]

Stop the non sense please you know good **** and well no character gets a buff from BF SV or Final D. It's just those stages that allow for their character to play to their potential.

You are really awful at this.

 

[AlMoStLeGeNdArY]

You are really awful at this.

tell me how it's done then.

 

[Zero_Saber]

@Legendary - There is once again no exactly "neutral" stages they all give various characters advantages. It's nearly universally agreed upon that the favorite 3 starters of Falco IC's and Diddy are FD, SV, and BF meaning that these are going to be the stages that these characters perform the best on. When you add in counter picks these characters still often times pick FD over one of the many new stages available, the reason for this is that FD is an amazing if not the best stage for these characters. Going to one of there top 5 favorite stages game 1 just gives these already great characters an even bigger advantage.

And to reply to you saying "it's okay at the notion of MK d3 or Delfinio and halberd game 1" I have to say first that MK dislikes halberd (in case you were trying to say they both like both stages) and that these characters WON'T be going here on game 1. In a 9 stage system anyone playing an MK or D3 will strike the stages best for them (Delfino for MK and Halberd for D3) making the first stage one that's more balanced. Wheras in a 5 stage it will almost always go BF for a Diddy/Falco/I.C.'s player which is one of there best stages.

I kinda rushed this post and if you want to attempt to clarify/respond to anything else feel free to mention it.

 

[ADHD]

@Legendary - There is once again no exactly "neutral" stages they all give various characters advantages. It's nearly universally agreed upon that the favorite 3 starters of Falco IC's and Diddy are FD, SV, and BF meaning that these are going to be the stages that these characters perform the best on. When you add in counter picks these characters still often times pick FD over one of the many new stages available, the reason for this is that FD is an amazing if not the best stage for these characters. Going to one of there top 5 favorite stages game 1 just gives these already great characters an even bigger advantage.

And to reply to you saying "it's okay at the notion of MK d3 or Delfinio and halberd game 1" I have to say first that MK dislikes halberd (in case you were trying to say they both like both stages) and that these characters WON'T be going here on game 1. In a 9 stage system anyone playing an MK or D3 will strike the stages best for them (Delfino for MK and Halberd for D3) making the first stage one that's more balanced. Wheras in a 5 stage it will almost always go BF for a Diddy/Falco/I.C.'s player which is one of there best stages.

I kinda rushed this post and if you want to attempt to clarify/respond to anything else feel free to mention it.

But you see, while diddy kong, falco, and ice climbers are best on battlefield, sv, and fd, other characters are not hindered by it lol. They happen to just not suck on these stages. In the first place, if there is any matchup ratio change on smashville and fd then just start off on battlefield? It's REALLY HARD to argue that battlefield is not legit.

 

[Gnes]

Balance is taken into account with stage striking taking into account.

The previous system was unfair not because it had FD, BF and SV per se. It was unfair because with only five stages, Diddy was guaranteed to get one of those stages as the first game of the set. With 9 stages we don't have that problem, and the system is more fair in general.

This make it sound as if diddy's are overcentralizing the metagame...which is clearly not the case, because diddy only strives on one of these stages.

 

[ADHD]

This make it sound as if diddy's are overcentralizing the metagame...which is clearly not the case, because diddy only strives on one of these stages.

Oh snap gnes be educatin'.

 

[Zero_Saber]

But you see, while diddy kong, falco, and ice climbers are best on battlefield, sv, and fd, other characters are not hindered by it lol. They happen to just not suck on these stages. In the first place, if there is any matchup ratio change on smashville and fd then just start off on battlefield? It's REALLY HARD to argue that battlefield is not legit.

I'm not arguing that battlefield isn't "legit" (it's my favorite starter stage even in the list of 9 in all honesty) I am just trying to say that it is one of the more advantageous stages for certain characters (as is Halberd/Delfino/Siege for others). Also while other characters aren't hindered by the stage itself there hindered by the falco/ic/diddy who is also on the stage and straight up molests them. I do understand what your saying as some of the stages actually hinder characters (diddy and ic's in specific) but just because a stage doesn't artificially hinder the character doesn't mean the stage is a good one to have game one on. And I think if all match-ups were considered with BF being the permanent game 1 stage they would change as opposed to if they were considered with a 9 stage starter and 4 strikes a piece.