Standardized Ruleset Development Idea

[T0MMY]

I disagree with that definition.
To emphasize why I'd disagree: The stage does affect play in Street Fighter!

My definition of a neutral stage was stated in a blog of mine, I believe. This was way back in the day when nobody really knew what "neutral" meant and used it interchangeably with "starter" (well... confused it MORE than people do today).
If I remember what it is, it was defined by a stage that did not have environmental damage nor transformations/movements which "impede" the competition.
Thus by using "impede" to describe the stage the "random" platform on Smashville was not an issue (it can even be argued to enhance gameplay) and could be included in a 3-stage starter.
A 5-stage starter became an option with Lylat and Yoshi's, but ultimately the background on Lylat's is more of an issue to some people who have sensitivity to that and Yoshi's has well too many environmental interactions (Support Ghost being the most obvious) and many events opted for the 3-stage starter.

 

[LiteralGrill]

I disagree with that definition.
To emphasize why I'd disagree: The stage does affect play in Street Fighter!

My definition of a neutral stage was stated in a blog of mine, I believe. This was way back in the day when nobody really knew what "neutral" meant and used it interchangeably with "starter" (well... confused it MORE than people do today).
If I remember what it is, it was defined by a stage that did not have environmental damage nor transformations/movements "impede" the competition. By thus using "impede" to describe the stage the "random" platform on Smashville was not an issue and could be included in a 3-stage starter. A 5-stage starter became an option with Lylat and Yoshi's, but ultimately the background on Lylat's is more of an issue to some people who have sensitivity to that and Yoshi's has well too many environmental interactions (Support Ghost being the most obvious).

Well, I still don't find neutral to be the correct word. Neutral: Not helping or supporting either of two opposing sides.

There must be something better.

 

[mimgrim]

Sorry! Had a rough day at the end of the day yesterday and it just slipped my mind, let me respond now!

Alright.

A lot of this is related, so I'll try to tackle this all together.

I never knew ICs were striking BF with YI, PS1, and/or CS as starters. Where is this going on?

If you take a list of all legal stages and strike them down, well, here's an elequent explanation:

Even in one of the threads you linked me to on the first page even showed that they like to strik BF over some other stages out there. YI isn't really that bad of a stage for them and is arguably better then BF for them, because at times that big platform will sit even, and for a good amount of time at that, meaning it only helps the opponenent when it slants, which doesn't last long enough compared to when it is even most of the time, and aside from the ends the ground is even enough without it hampering them. PS1 neutral phase is much better then BF as only 2 platforms compared to 3 and it is much easier to get people off of those 2 platforms then in BF, and aside from the rock transformation they can get around the transformations easy enough and sometime suse them to their advantadge. CS first parts is like BF basically, not the best for them but definatly doable, the second transformation has walk off and is allot more flat, and depending on what character they are going against they can just break the platforms so they aren't a problem, and the final transformation is like FD, except that it likes to slants but like the YI platform it seems to stay even more thn slant. BF isn't a bad stage for them at all, but it isn't one of their bests either.

My biggest grips with the full on LSS system is that there are certain stages that just should be on a starter list. Stages such as Delfino Plaza, RC (in my region allowed as a CP, but MK ain't allowed on there, Brinstar (again allowed as a CP in my region and again MK ain't allowed on there), ect... just don't fit in a starter list imo. I feel like a full LSS would end up with even smaller list of stages. I think if a starter/CP style was handled better it would be viewed better by lamost everyone.

inb4 what?

A lot of things you mentioned are somewhat similar to things that happen on PS1 yet it is legal. Certain stallish points, possible wall infinites, and various advantages.

And I can't argue that much against it being a CP, it's not unreasonable (it's a GREAT stage for Ganon. I know, insane as it sounds). The major reason I always though it'd be worth looking at as a starter because it was rarely chosen as a CP. You want to pick a stage that gives you a major advantage if you can as a CP, and PS2 not being picked for that reason makes it look as a starter to me.

I wasn't arguing for PS2 to be banned or anythin, I never understood why it is banned in region anyway. The reason PS1 is chosen more as a CP is because arguably it gives advatadges better then PS2 for allot of characters, and doesn't have a useless transformation on it like PS2 has (that ice transformation), but certain character should be able to benefit more from PS2, Snake, Deded, and Peach come to mind. But the Snakes and Dededes are more comfortable with PS1 probably, and PS1 is pretty much allowed universally while PS2 isn't, and Peach probably has better CPs to chose from. Just because a stage doesn't get picked often as a CP doesn't mean it should be a starter.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Even in one of the threads you linked me to on the first page even showed that they like to strik BF over some other stages out there. YI isn't really that bad of a stage for them and is arguably better then BF for them, because at times that big platform will sit even, and for a good amount of time at that, meaning it only helps the opponenent when it slants, which doesn't last long enough compared to when it is even most of the time, and aside from the ends the ground is even enough without it hampering them. PS1 neutral phase is much better then BF as only 2 platforms compared to 3 and it is much easier to get people off of those 2 platforms then in BF, and aside from the rock transformation they can get around the transformations easy enough and sometime suse them to their advantadge. CS first parts is like BF basically, not the best for them but definatly doable, the second transformation has walk off and is allot more flat, and depending on what character they are going against they can just break the platforms so they aren't a problem, and the final transformation is like FD, except that it likes to slants but like the YI platform it seems to stay even more thn slant. BF isn't a bad stage for them at all, but it isn't one of their bests either.

My biggest grips with the full on LSS system is that there are certain stages that just should be on a starter list. Stages such as Delfino Plaza, RC (in my region allowed as a CP, but MK ain't allowed on there, Brinstar (again allowed as a CP in my region and again MK ain't allowed on there), ect... just don't fit in a starter list imo. I feel like a full LSS would end up with even smaller list of stages. I think if a starter/CP style was handled better it would be viewed better by lamost everyone.

Your gripe is not uncommon. But, what if for some reason the "most fair" stage for the first match between two characters WAS Brinstar, or RC or some other unexpected stage? Should be deny players this option?

Also, there is something to be said for personal preference. Maybe RC isn't a "great" stage for first match, but I might leave it anyways because I LOVE the stage, and that Mk who's just heard the rumors on how good it is but doesn't really know it like I do may be dumb enough to take me there and have my superior knowledge beat them. Mindgames....

[/quote]
I wasn't arguing for PS2 to be banned or anythin, I never understood why it is banned in region anyway. The reason PS1 is chosen more as a CP is because arguably it gives advatadges better then PS2 for allot of characters, and doesn't have a useless transformation on it like PS2 has (that ice transformation), but certain character should be able to benefit more from PS2, Snake, Deded, and Peach come to mind. But the Snakes and Dededes are more comfortable with PS1 probably, and PS1 is pretty much allowed universally while PS2 isn't, and Peach probably has better CPs to chose from. Just because a stage doesn't get picked often as a CP doesn't mean it should be a starter.[/quote]


You are absolutely correct on the last point, it's a subjective opinion I can't argue against. I'm also not surprised you didn't think it should be banned.

But don't call the ice useless, sliding smashes, special spacing to help characters that are easily punished normally, it could be a great transformation. Each transformation seems to give certain types of characters advantages. I could easily see it as a CP, I'd at least like it to not be banned.

 

[T0MMY]

Well, I still don't find neutral to be the correct word. Neutral: Not helping or supporting either of two opposing sides.

There must be something better.

After all these years I still find my definition of neutral to be very useful. Even in it's literal sense of not helping or supporting either side (as the 3 neutrals are thought to possess this quality).
I'll stick with my understanding of it then. What are you going with?

My biggest grips with the full on LSS system is that there are certain stages that just should be on a starter list... I feel like a full LSS would end up with even smaller list of stages. I think if a starter/CP style was handled better it would be viewed better by lamost everyone.

I see what you're saying, when given the opportunity certain stages are nearly always struck and the exception shouldn't be precedent. So why not just cut to the chase and give a smaller list of stages, right?
Well, what do you think of the process I've been using:
Nearly all stages are available to be played on (obvious bans are obvious).
A majority of stages require a stage agreement to be used (most "counter picks")
A minority of stages do not require an agreement (the usual 5 stages "starters").

I think this can be a happy meeting point between those who want to rely on stage exploits as well as those who prefer a more neutral environment for competition.

 

[mimgrim]

Your gripe is not uncommon. But, what if for some reason the "most fair" stage for the first match between two characters WAS Brinstar, or RC or some other unexpected stage? Should be deny players this option?

Also, there is something to be said for personal preference. Maybe RC isn't a "great" stage for first match, but I might leave it anyways because I LOVE the stage, and that Mk who's just heard the rumors on how good it is but doesn't really know it like I do may be dumb enough to take me there and have my superior knowledge beat them. Mindgames....

Well if both players want to play on that stage as a starter and tell a judge or TO that, then they should be allowed to play on that stage for the first round. But only if they both agree and told a judge first. In fact I think a rule like this should be made for banned stages to. "If both players agree to play on a banned stage and ntell a judge or TO accordingly, no complaints will be made." This can continue into a starter list as well. In fact my region actually does this rule, not that it gets used that much but still.... It's a good way to try and reach a middle ground, and can also lead into your example of mind games to.

You are absolutely correct on the last point, it's a subjective opinion I can't argue against. I'm also not surprised you didn't think it should be banned.

But don't call the ice useless, sliding smashes, special spacing to help characters that are easily punished normally, it could be a great transformation. Each transformation seems to give certain types of characters advantages. I could easily see it as a CP, I'd at least like it to not be banned.

From what I saw the sliding Smashes aren't that big of a deal, it is helpful, but it doesn't really give an advantadge to specific characters. And from battles I have seen on it it doesn't really seemed to be used to all the much potiental. But were are kinda getting off-topic here lol.

I see what you're saying, when given the opportunity certain stages are nearly always struck and the exception shouldn't be precedent. So why not just cut to the chase and give a smaller list of stages, right?
Well, what do you think of the process I've been using:
Nearly all stages are available to be played on (obvious bans are obvious).
A majority of stages require a stage agreement to be used (most "counter picks")
A minority of stages do not require an agreement (the usual 5 stages "starters").

I think this can be a happy meeting point between those who want to rely on stage exploits as well as those who prefer a more neutral environment for competition.

It isn't bad and I could definatly live with that rule style. But I gotta say I prefer how my region seems to work and I feel like it hits the middle ground better.

Starter/CP system.
List of starters.
List of CPs.
A note of Banned stages can be played on if both players agree to it and tell a judge before hand.
A second note of character being unable to play on certain stages due to a ridiculos amount of advantadge on said stage. Obviously this applies to legal stages only.

 

[T0MMY]

Starter/CP system.
List of starters.
List of CPs.
A note of Banned stages can be played on if both players agree to it and tell a judge before hand.
A second note of character being unable to play on certain stages due to a ridiculos amount of advantadge on said stage. Obviously this applies to legal stages only.

How does your region handle the people who want kind of questionable stages like Norfair/Pirate Ship/etc. to be used, and other people who do not want to play on those stages because they are wonky?

And what is the reason behind banning a character from stages? Doesn't that violate competitive ethos?

 

[mimgrim]

How does your region handle the people who want kind of questionable stages like Norfair/Pirate Ship/etc. to be used, and other people who do not want to play on those stages because they are wonky?

And what is the reason behind banning a character from stages? Doesn't that violate competitive ethos?

If both players don't agree to play on said ban stage, then said ban stage does not get played on. But as long as I have been there there hasn't seem to have been a problem like this, yet, so I can't really answer untill it occurs to see how it is handled.

Well let's take a look at Rainbow Cruise. The biggest reason this stage is banned in many places is because of MK and his absurd advantadge on the stage. However there are other characters who have a fairer advantadge on that stage then MK. Now which seems more fair to you, Ban X stage and potientally "nerf" multiple characters because of this or ban X character from X stage and "nerf" just one character, but unlike the other said character this X character has a much greater advantadge on this, to the point to where it isn't even fair as a CP when said character picks that stage?

 

[T0MMY]

If both players don't agree to play on said ban stage, then said ban stage does not get played on. But as long as I have been there there hasn't seem to have been a problem like this, yet, so I can't really answer untill it occurs to see how it is handled.

Players agreeing to stages seem to work out similarly for my area as well.

Well let's take a look at Rainbow Cruise. The biggest reason this stage is banned in many places is because of MK and his absurd advantadge on the stage.

Most dynamic stages like that eventually get "banned" (that is, not used in competitive play). It's not because of Meta Knight, as it is not used in Melee either where Meta Knight is not a playable character.

Now which seems more fair to you, Ban X stage and potientally "nerf" multiple characters because of this or ban X character from X stage and "nerf" just one character, but unlike the other said character this X character has a much greater advantadge on this, to the point to where it isn't even fair as a CP when said character picks that stage?

I don't see it as a choice between which seems more fair. That leads to false dichotomy.
A stage in a competitive match should be aligned to a competitive standard, if it does not violate the chosen standard it may be used. Simple as that.

A weak point in your argument could be found by attacking the premise of "not fair". When thoroughly examined we see that any player can choose any character before Rainbow Cruise is chosen, so if Meta Knight has an advantage in matchups on that stage then any player can choose Meta Knight before the round begins, thus being fair.
What isn't fair is banning the character because someone doesn't want to take advantage of a stage being selected for competition. That is an out-of-game metarule and is displaced by a competitive standard... that is IF your region is adhering to a competitive standard?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I never said I was, as I do not work with absolutes.

Then there isn't a problem, you said that it's unfortunate that it's subjective, not me.

What makes it stronger?

I explain why it is stronger later in the post - randomness is bad. Reply to blocks of text, rather than single lines.

Not sure if this is a tangent or some kind of assertion.

You said "Even so, it seems the argument is of character, not stage."
I was pointing out that unless a seizure-inducing stage existed, arguments would always be "of character". That's all.

Simply relying on it being "common sense" is a double edged sword, as the complete opposite claim could be made based on "common sense".
So maybe stick with the logical deduction; from what argument was it deduced?

Actually, there is a default way to play. The game has a default setting initially for each mode of play (e.g. 2 minute timer with items on). Would you now suggest we simply use the default settings for competitions?

Given this buff/nerf assumption, what is your conclusion?

It is common sense, but I wasn't simply relying on it being common sense. The argument I deducted it from was written there, and you responded to it, and even (seemingly) accepted it in that last line, so I don't know what you're asking.

I wouldn't suggest we use the default versus mode settings, no. You're assuming that the default way to play is versus mode. If the game has one "default" state (versus, 2-minutes, items on), it has multiple (home-run contest, sse, etc...), and any decision we make from here (like choosing standard versus mode over Fast, Spicy Curry Brawl) is already arbitrary.

I have no conclusion to make. You had a problem with a small, unimportant by itself, part of my post that was just there to better explain my position.

Yes, you did, unfortunately hypothetical situations/theory crafting is not equivocal to practicality.
In practice, this process has been the most successful. If you have a stronger process, please tell.

In practice, the most successful process is the one that national tournaments use, actually. Your small, no-name tournaments are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, and contribute hardly any relevant data.

For competition:
Chance is "bad".
Random (chance) is not inherently "bad'.
The element of chance in any given thing is inherently "bad".

You've got a lot of explaining to do or else this looks like one major contradiction (Inherent? Element?). Until then, at its best it is just ambiguous/convoluted.

Random things can exist in competition that aren't bad.
However, they would always be better if whatever part of them is random, wasn't random.

Synonymous or not, I'm not the one making the claim it is "mine". I never said I "agree" with the ruleset, nor has it been shown I "use" it.
I request you please verify before making claims like this in the future, please.

Your blog post explicitly recommends checking out a blog post made by your brother to encourage the formation of a competitive community; the ruleset in said blog post has been referenced by you multiple times during this thread, and each time you have been explaining the benefits of it or defending it.
And you don't think it was reasonable to assume that you agree with it?

ad hominem blah blah

I see I'm not going to get through to you.

As I stated earlier, it mostly has to do with timeliness of the tournament itself. But has a lot to do with adhering to the philosophy of competition.
Keep in mind, the three stages that are set to ON, are not the only stages available to be played on through the entire set; the 3-stage ON rule in question is regarding starting stages. Many other stages may (and have been) used by the players.

Adhering to the philosophy of competition how?

 

[LiteralGrill]

Most dynamic stages like that eventually get "banned" (that is, not used in competitive play). It's not because of Meta Knight, as it is not used in Melee either where Meta Knight is not a playable character.

Some people really do only ban that stage for MK and no other reason. Not everyone uses good reasoning on stages.

Check out the BBR Stage Analysis Project, even they mention it: http://www.smashboards.com/threads/bbr-stage-analysis-project.307804/

 

[T0MMY]

Some people really do only ban that stage for MK and no other reason. Not everyone uses good reasoning on stages.

Check out the BBR Stage Analysis Project

Yes, and some people ban Snake's Forward Smash attack because it's too powerful.
These people are what I refer to as "Scrubs".
Thanks for the link, it's actually not that bad of a read. Also having met the author of the post at MLG I can say he seems to be a pretty good person.
But regarding the MK stage-ban, I think this example is a good illustration how basing stage selection on conceptual matchups leads to more headaches than the problem it seeks to address.

Then there isn't a problem, you said that it's unfortunate that it's subjective, not me.

Glad you could come to a pass with me then.
And still unfortunate.

I explain why it is stronger later in the post - randomness is bad. Reply to blocks of text, rather than single lines.

Your "random is bad" idea seems to be contradictory in nature (see my analysis). Relying on this means you are relying on what seems to be a contradiction.
And, no, I'll do as I please.

You said "Even so, it seems the argument is of character, not stage."
I was pointing out that unless a seizure-inducing stage existed, arguments would always be "of character". That's all.

Every stage can be claimed to be "seizure-inducing".
But I can disagree with the assertion that an argument would always be about characters. There's plenty of other argument formed on this site (and elsewhere) that illustrates why that can be disagreed with.
if you are confined to arguing within the scope of matchups, I would simply just call that short-sighted.

It is common sense, but I wasn't simply relying on it being common sense. The argument I deducted it from was written there, and you responded to it, and even (seemingly) accepted it in that last line, so I don't know what you're asking.

I'm sorry, "there" is ambiguous; again, I politely request a reference - please quote the argument (or at least provide a post #).
Otherwise we just rely on your common sense vs devil's advocate's common sense (which results in an "opinion" and goes nowhere).
Thank you kindly.

I wouldn't suggest we use the default versus mode settings, no. You're assuming that the default way to play is versus mode.

Ah, but I did not assume that, to say so would be presumptuous. The versus mode was, indeed, just an example.
Regardless, going by your "default" proposition, the point still stands.
Furthermore, the "default" argument is self defeating, as being able to change settings is a default feature.

I have no conclusion to make. You had a problem with a small, unimportant by itself, part of my post that was just there to better explain my position.

Fair enough, may it be forgotten then (no problem from me, btw).

In practice, the most successful process is the one that national tournaments use, actually. Your small, no-name tournaments are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, and contribute hardly any relevant data.

MLG disagrees.
Ad hominems, once again, ruin the argument.

Random things can exist in competition that aren't bad.
However, they would always be better if whatever part of them is random, wasn't random.

Again, this is contradictory, and about as confusing of a statement as I've ever seen.

And you don't think it was reasonable to assume that you agree with it?

The point you seemed to miss was that the statement was said the group was mine. That has now obviously been refuted.
And here's another "gotcha": There is a lot I don't agree with it.
That's why I linked to it X^D

I see I'm not going to get through to you.

As witnessed, fallacies such as ad hominems do NOT get through to me (they are astutely refuted and left to wither).
Since I am operating by reason, one may "get through" to me by just being reasonable.
I leave it to your choice at this point: Fallacy or reason?

Adhering to the philosophy of competition how?

Standards which adhere to such philosophy are consistently "aligned" to the principles of competition set forth. Rules of "fair play" and other basic principles are about as old as competitions themselves, whereas more modern principles adopted for electronic competitions have been set forth by people like David Sirlin.
A Standard by which a community may work from could be said to adhere to any kind of philosophy, but it is assumed that a competitive community would be looking to work from a competitive standard.
I am part of the competitive community, therefore I advocate adhering to a competitive standard.
Others may work towards establishing other standards, but that is outside the scope of my goals.

 

[mimgrim]

Most dynamic stages like that eventually get "banned" (that is, not used in competitive play). It's not because of Meta Knight, as it is not used in Melee either where Meta Knight is not a playable character.

Except that in most places for Brawl the reason it gets banned is because of Meta Knight and almost no other reason. I know there are actualy valid reasons for it to be banned, but very few people use those reasons and instead use "MK to gud on that stage. It needs ban ban" (yes, yes. I exxaggerated a bit here). If they could jsut use their brain a tiny bit they coul easily come up with better more valid reasons.

I don't see it as a choice between which seems more fair. That leads to false dichotomy.
A stage in a competitive match should be aligned to a competitive standard, if it does not violate the chosen standard it may be used. Simple as that.

A weak point in your argument could be found by attacking the premise of "not fair". When thoroughly examined we see that any player can choose any character before Rainbow Cruise is chosen, so if Meta Knight has an advantage in matchups on that stage then any player can choose Meta Knight before the round begins, thus being fair.
What isn't fair is banning the character because someone doesn't want to take advantage of a stage being selected for competition. That is an out-of-game metarule and is displaced by a competitive standard... that is IF your region is adhering to a competitive standard?

All I'm going to say in response to this is. What about when each region has a different competitive standard? You can claim a region doesn't follow competitive standard since it doesn't do what your region does exactly on a competitive level but for that bregion it is their own competitive standard they use. Basically comeptitive standard will differ from place to place.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Every stage can be claimed to be "seizure-inducing".
But I can disagree with the assertion that an argument would always be about characters. There's plenty of other argument formed on this site (and elsewhere) that illustrates why that can be disagreed with.
if you are confined to arguing within the scope of matchups, I would simply just call that short-sighted.

Every stage can be claimed to be seizure-inducing, but the people making those claims would be wrong, as they are not seizure-inducing. I don't see your point.
How do you intend to judge a stage's worth outside of the influence of characters (seeing as it is impossible to play on a stage without them), and futhermore, why would you?

Ah, but I did not assume that, to say so would be presumptuous. The versus mode was, indeed, just an example.
Regardless, going by your "default" proposition, the point still stands.
Furthermore, the "default" argument is self defeating, as being able to change settings is a default feature.

The whole default thing isn't actually relevant to anything anyway, it was just something I mentioned as an aside that you had a problem with, so whatever.

MLG disagrees.
Ad hominems, once again, ruin the argument.

MLG didn't use "the process" that we're talking about though...? (That process being: players agree to a stage, otherwise; random out of FD/BF/SV)
And denouncing any tournaments you have run that use that "process" isn't ad hominem, but if it helps keep your replies smaller, you can pretend that it is and not respond to this sentence.

Again, this is contradictory, and about as confusing of a statement as I've ever seen.

It's not contradictory. Randomness is bad, but not everything that has some degree of randomness to it is bad, I don't know how many more ways I can explain it.
G&W's hammer is a move that adds depth to the game, so it's good, but it would be better if it wasn't random.

The point you seemed to miss was that the statement was said the group was mine. That has now obviously been refuted.
And here's another "gotcha": There is a lot I don't agree with it.
That's why I linked to it X^D

That first sentence didn't make sense.
Your posts in this thread have at least shown that you agree with the "players agree on a stage, otherwise FD/BF/SV on random" rule, which is my only real problem with it.

Standards which adhere to such philosophy are consistently "aligned" to the principles of competition set forth. Rules of "fair play" and other basic principles are about as old as competitions themselves, whereas more modern principles adopted for electronic competitions have been set forth by people like David Sirlin.
A Standard by which a community may work from could be said to adhere to any kind of philosophy, but it is assumed that a competitive community would be looking to work from a competitive standard.
I am part of the competitive community, therefore I advocate adhering to a competitive standard.
Others may work towards establishing other standards, but that is outside the scope of my goals.

This was a load of fluff that didn't tell me anything new, I'm afraid. I'm asking how the choice of leaving FD, BF and SV set to "ON" is adhering to the "philosophy of competition" - I'm not necessarily saying it isn't, but I want to know what line of reasoning you followed to arrive at that rule from the philosophy.

 

[LiteralGrill]

It's not contradictory. Randomness is bad, but not everything that has some degree of randomness to it is bad, I don't know how many more ways I can explain it.
G&W's hammer is a move that adds depth to the game, so it's good, but it would be better if it wasn't random.

Why not mention Settlers of Catan, the board game were some randomness is part of the discrete win condition yet is extremely competitive?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Because I've never heard of it, I know nothing about it, and it doesn't properly illustrate my point lol

 

[LiteralGrill]

I bet if you knew more about it it might properly illustrate your point. But your answer does make sense.

 

[T0MMY]

Every stage can be claimed to be seizure-inducing, but the people making those claims would be wrong, as they are not seizure-inducing. I don't see your point.

This is just outright saying "wrong".
With that mindset, you wouldn't see a point.

How do you intend to judge a stage's worth outside of the influence of characters (seeing as it is impossible to play on a stage without them), and futhermore, why would you?

Judging it's alignment with competitive values.
And it isn't impossible to play on a stage without characters, I've played with just the camera sans characters just fine. Regardless, that's a tangent.

The whole default thing isn't actually relevant to anything anyway, it was just something I mentioned as an aside that you had a problem with, so whatever.

Case in point then.
We can disregard what you brought to the table.

MLG didn't use "the process" that we're talking about though...? (That process being: players agree to a stage, otherwise; random out of FD/BF/SV)

Well, technically, players always have to agree to a stage. That's why I made it part of my standard.
But, like I asked before, if there's a better process, please present it.

And denouncing any tournaments you have run that use that "process" isn't ad hominem, but if it helps keep your replies smaller, you can pretend that it is and not respond to this sentence.

I'm responding to the sentence, as I am not prone to "pretending" things to be the way I want, I wish to evaluate them reasonably.

It's not contradictory. Randomness is bad, but not everything that has some degree of randomness to it is bad, I don't know how many more ways I can explain it.
G&W's hammer is a move that adds depth to the game, so it's good, but it would be better if it wasn't random.

Reasoning "P is bad, but only to a degree." seems to be inviting more issues than it seeks to solve - just who would be determining the degree? In the end it becomes subjective, we find opinion is left in an argument. So, Occum's razor (cut).
Just to put it out there: G&W's "Judgement" has no "OFF" to toggle, unlike random effects of stages. We can, however, toggle those random stages "OFF". This displaces any G&W (or Peach Forward Smash, et al) argument I've ever seen in regards to randomness in stages.

That first sentence didn't make sense.
Your posts in this thread have at least shown that you agree with the "players agree on a stage, otherwise FD/BF/SV on random" rule, which is my only real problem with it.

The first sentence needed quotes (I can fix that).
Case in point: You said the group was 'mine'. It is not mine.
Obvious fact is obvious.

Agreeing to a stage has nothing to do with that group (from memory), as that group proposed the Stage Strike Process, and Starter Stages/Extended Stages.

This was a load of fluff that didn't tell me anything new, I'm afraid. I'm asking how the choice of leaving FD, BF and SV set to "ON" is adhering to the "philosophy of competition" - I'm not necessarily saying it isn't, but I want to know what line of reasoning you followed to arrive at that rule from the philosophy.

Oh, I see, thanks for clarifying what you wanted.
Here:
Axiom: In which principles have been established (fairness, skill-based, et al) as Competitive Principles.
Competitive Standard is made up of the set of Competitive Principles.

S = A competitive event adheres to Competitive Standard.
N = Neutral Stages do not impede competition.*
C = Competitive Standard makes use of Neutral Stages.
L = FD, BF, and SV are Neutral Stages.
T = FD, BF, and SV are competitively viable for competitive events aligned to this Competitive Standard.

* Where N is shown to hold a Competitive Principle (skill-based).

Argument:
If my tournaments align to Competitive Principles then it adheres to the Competitive Standard.
My tournaments make use of FD, BF, and SV*
FD, BF, and SV are competitively viable.**
My tournaments are competitive events.
_________________________________________ <= my line of reason
:. My tournaments adhere to Competitive Standard.

* Which follows from C > L
** Which follows as per Neutral Stage definition re: Competitive Principles

Again, this isn't to say that no other stages may be used in competition, but stages which may impede gameplay are not toggled "ON" and require players to agree to the stage before playing.
Any and all stage toggles are subject to TO evaluation based on their interpretation of the Competitive Standard - attendees are urged to give input in regards to this interpretation.

Edit: Settlers of Catan sux. lol

 

[BaPr]

Not sure if this thread is heading in the direction Capps planned. Here are my ideas:
Anything with a Walk off or random hazards is an obvious ban. Moving stages should be banned since they can be walk offs. Anything that allows for wall infinites should also be banned.

If a stage gives a huge unfair advantage for a character, the character shall be banned from the stage, but the stage is legal unless given a good reason for banned. If too many characters have an advantage at the stage (more than 3), the stage itself shall be banned.

I don't think large stages should be banned because it would be easier to ban stalling. To be sure, I believe camping is a defensive tactic where you avoid the opponent and attack from afar, and stalling is where you avoid all contact at all with the opponent. There are loopholes in this idea, so I'll get back to it later.

My ideas on rules
Stock: 3
Time: 8 min.
Team att: ON
Items: OFF

Did I miss anything? And, like I said before, I'm not familiar with tournaments, so some ideas might be weird (even though I am fine with it).

 

[Aidebit]

Walkoff camping isn't inherently bad, it's just that you either have waveshining or chaingrabs which make it overcentralizing.
I don't think that banning a stage because it favors characters is good, unless it has a really big and unfair advantage. Counterpicking is one of the most beautiful things for me about smash.
A stage being big doesn't mean it's ban worthy, FD is still legal for example. Circle camping and wall teching is the main reason for stages being banned, not because they're big (though it doesn't help to be big).

 

[BaPr]

Walkoff camping isn't inherently bad, it's just that you either have waveshining or chaingrabs which make it overcentralizing.
I don't think that banning a stage because it favors characters is good, unless it has a really big and unfair advantage. Counterpicking is one of the most beautiful things for me about smash.
A stage being big doesn't mean it's ban worthy, FD is still legal for example. Circle camping and wall teching is the main reason for stages being banned, not because they're big (though it doesn't help to be big).

Walk off camping wouldn't really be a problem IMO. It's un-escapable chain grabs that can easily kill you that I am worried about. Also, by big stages, I meant Temple and New Pork City. FD isn't really much a problem. And if a character is super good in a stage, I say keep it, but ban the char. If too many people have an advantage where it is too hard to keep track of, then ban the stage. Not sure if you were replying to my post though, but I am making this in case you are.

 

[Aidebit]

Walk off camping wouldn't really be a problem IMO. It's un-escapable chain grabs that can easily kill you that I am worried about. Also, by big stages, I meant Temple and New Pork City. FD isn't really much a problem. And if a character is super good in a stage, I say keep it, but ban the char. If too many people have an advantage where it is too hard to keep track of, then ban the stage. Not sure if you were replying to my post though, but I am making this in case you are.

Yeah, I was quoting you.
Yes, that's the root of the problem, walk-off camping isn't that bad, chaingrabs like D3s and ICs are the problem, since they're guaranteed kills. Also waveshining, which pretty much gives fox a stock out of any shine.
But the problem with those stages are the walls and the circle camping, as Sonic, one can get the lead and just run for the rest of the match.
Why would you ban a character if they have a good stage? Why would you ban a stage if it favors too many characters? If a character on a stage is too powerful, then try changing characters, and if they are too powerful against everything, then ban the stage, simple. If a stage is so good versus many characters, and bad versus only a few, then try changing characters, striking the stage, or banning it.

 

[BaPr]

But the problem with those stages are the walls and the circle camping, as Sonic, one can get the lead and just run for the rest of the match.

Instead of banning the stage for that, can't we just ban circle camping? It lets the stage be legal and gets rid of the problem. Sadly, circle camping isn't the only thing "wrong" with that stage, so that will only be a band aid.

Why would you ban a character if they have a good stage? Why would you ban a stage if it favors too many characters? If a character on a stage is too powerful, then try changing characters, and if they are too powerful against everything, then ban the stage, simple. If a stage is so good versus many characters, and bad versus only a few, then try changing characters, striking the stage, or banning it.

Not saying to ban a character just because they have a good stage. Just saying to ban a character from the stage. The reason for banning a stage because it favors too many is because it is too much work to remember which char is banned from what stage, and it limits the amount of playable chars. Some people are only good at one char, so switching could be risky for them.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

This is just outright saying "wrong".
With that mindset, you wouldn't see a point.

Anyone could see any stage as seizure-inducing, but they would be wrong, as none of the stages in smash induce seizures. It has nothing to do with my mindset, so explain your point better.

Judging it's alignment with competitive values.
And it isn't impossible to play on a stage without characters, I've played with just the camera sans characters just fine. Regardless, that's a tangent.

You can't judge a stage's alignment with competitive values when you're ignoring an influence on it's competitive values (the characters).
It's impossible to compete on a stage without characters, forgive my wording.

Well, technically, players always have to agree to a stage. That's why I made it part of my standard.
But, like I asked before, if there's a better process, please present it.

I did present a better one. The stage-striking process used by national tournaments is superior.
You told me that "MLG disagrees", and I explained that MLG didn't use the process that I have a problem with.
And now you are asking for a process again - see how your anal-retentive manner of responding to me is even confusing you?

Reasoning "P is bad, but only to a degree." seems to be inviting more issues than it seeks to solve - just who would be determining the degree? In the end it becomes subjective, we find opinion is left in an argument. So, Occum's razor (cut).
Just to put it out there: G&W's "Judgement" has no "OFF" to toggle, unlike random effects of stages. We can, however, toggle those random stages "OFF". This displaces any G&W (or Peach Forward Smash, et al) argument I've ever seen in regards to randomness in stages.

Did you just read that I used the word degree and then assumed that "P is bad, but only to a degree." was my line of reasoning? Disgusting, re-read my post. I was actually just explaining that something can be random without being uncompetitive, but randomness itself is in direct opposition to the essence of competition. I made no claims about subjectively banning things based on how random they are.
Furthermore, my sentence about G&W's Judgement has absolutely nothing to do with your response - I was just providing an example of a move that has an element of randomness but isn't uncompetitive.

It seems, again, that you have become confused by your inconvenient, counter-productive manner of debating. You can call this ad hominem if you'd like, but it's no more a fallacy than your request for an apology earlier in the thread. If you don't want this to be about you and how frustrating it is to talk to you - don't respond to this.

The first sentence needed quotes (I can fix that).
Case in point: You said the group was 'mine'. It is not mine.
Obvious fact is obvious.

Agreeing to a stage has nothing to do with that group (from memory), as that group proposed the Stage Strike Process, and Starter Stages/Extended Stages.

Upon further investigation (i.e. clicking another link to view the full ruleset, rather than the condensed one), the ruleset you linked to suggests stage striking, and therefore, differs to your ruleset of agreeing to a stage. I was wrong, thank you for following this long-winded tangent to it's conclusion by being as vague and cagey as possible when you could've just said from the start "This is my ruleset opinion, that is a different one. They are different because x, y and z. I apologize for the confusion that linking to a condensed version of the ruleset in my blog about what I personally believe apparently caused."

Oh, I see, thanks for clarifying what you wanted.
Here:
Axiom: In which principles have been established (fairness, skill-based, et al) as Competitive Principles.
Competitive Standard is made up of the set of Competitive Principles.

S = A competitive event adheres to Competitive Standard.
N = Neutral Stages do not impede competition.*
C = Competitive Standard makes use of Neutral Stages.
L = FD, BF, and SV are Neutral Stages.
T = FD, BF, and SV are competitively viable for competitive events aligned to this Competitive Standard.

* Where N is shown to hold a Competitive Principle (skill-based).

Argument:
If my tournaments align to Competitive Principles then it adheres to the Competitive Standard.
My tournaments make use of FD, BF, and SV*
FD, BF, and SV are competitively viable.**
My tournaments are competitive events.
_________________________________________ <= my line of reason
:. My tournaments adhere to Competitive Standard.

* Which follows from C > L
** Which follows as per Neutral Stage definition re: Competitive Principles

Again, this isn't to say that no other stages may be used in competition, but stages which may impede gameplay are not toggled "ON" and require players to agree to the stage before playing.
Any and all stage toggles are subject to TO evaluation based on their interpretation of the Competitive Standard - attendees are urged to give input in regards to this interpretation.

Incredible reasoning, I actually laughed out loud reading this.
"The competitive principles say that neutral stages do not impede competition, and it also says that Smashville, Battlefield and Final Destination are neutral stages; therefore, Smashville, Battlefield and Final Destination are competitive".

Explain how SV/BF/FD hold a competitive principle, and how no other stage does, in your opinion.
As you said at the bottom, it's ultimately up to the TO's interpretation of what's competitive and what isn't, so I'm not looking for an objective answer here - just why you, personally, decided on those 3 stages.

 

[Aidebit]

Instead of banning the stage for that, can't we just ban circle camping? It lets the stage be legal and gets rid of the problem. Sadly, circle camping isn't the only thing "wrong" with that stage, so that will only be a band aid.

We can't because it's too difficult, first, we'd have to determine criteria for circle camping. And then, we'd have to have monitors for each match of a tournament to determine if circle camping is taking place, and what about people who didn't mean to circle camp? For stalling with grabs, it's easy to figure out the last one, but for circle camping, it's mostly based on opinion.

Not saying to ban a character just because they have a good stage. Just saying to ban a character from the stage. The reason for banning a stage because it favors too many is because it is too much work to remember which char is banned from what stage, and it limits the amount of playable chars. Some people are only good at one char, so switching could be risky for them.

Seems reasonable, but what criteria would we use? If a character benefits by X, will we ban them? Or is Y the proper criteria? It's a real hassle. Also, if a single character would be bad on that stage, would we ban it just for that character?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

We can't because it's too difficult, first, we'd have to determine criteria for circle camping. And then, we'd have to have monitors for each match of a tournament to determine if circle camping is taking place, and what about people who didn't mean to circle camp? For stalling with grabs, it's easy to figure out the last one, but for circle camping, it's mostly based on opinion.

You mentioned that the "chain-grab stalling rule" is legitimate, but then you claim that you would need monitors to determine whether someone is circle camping or not? Why is this not true for chain-grabs? (keeping in mind that most modern rulesets turn pause off).

It's actually very easy to ban circle camping, in fact, we already do it: Rules that prevent scrooging are commonplace and easily enforced - if you point out a specific stage, I can easily come up with a rule to prevent "problematic" camping, if you'd like.

 

[Aidebit]

You mentioned that the "chain-grab stalling rule" is legitimate, but then you claim that you would need monitors to determine whether someone is circle camping or not? Why is this not true for chain-grabs? (keeping in mind that most modern rulesets turn pause off).

It's actually very easy to ban circle camping, in fact, we already do it: Rules that prevent scrooging are commonplace and easily enforced - if you point out a specific stage, I can easily come up with a rule to prevent "problematic" camping, if you'd like.

While monitors can be avoided if the players can report and present proof, I think that the main problem is that you can 'accidentally' circle camp, make it look like you were circle camping by accident and while for chaingrabs you have raw numbers and scrooging you have the ledges, for circle camping, you can't be that precise.

But sure, I could be wrong. If he had example stage x and banned circle camping on it, I see that it could work now.

 

[BaPr]

We can't because it's too difficult, first, we'd have to determine criteria for circle camping. And then, we'd have to have monitors for each match of a tournament to determine if circle camping is taking place, and what about people who didn't mean to circle camp? For stalling with grabs, it's easy to figure out the last one, but for circle camping, it's mostly based on opinion.

Now I'm not so sure about that idea. Guess we can check that idea off and deal with the stage another way.

Seems reasonable, but what criteria would we use? If a character benefits by X, will we ban them? Or is Y the proper criteria? It's a real hassle. Also, if a single character would be bad on that stage, would we ban it just for that character?

It depends on how much the character benefits from it. Now, this is a little hard because it isn't really easy to put a line between doesn't benefit too much and benefits too much.
If a character benefits from something where beating them isn't a possibility, they should be banned from there. If a character benefits from something, but is still beatable, they aren't banned from there.

Now, your last question is a little difficult. Banning it for that char would make it more fair for them, wouldn't be that fair to others because it only affects one char.

Is there anything you guys wanna take away/add from these rules?

Spoiler

Anything with a Walk off or random hazards is an obvious ban. Moving stages should be banned since they can be walk offs. Anything that allows for wall infinites should also be banned.

If a stage gives a huge unfair advantage for a character where they are not beatable (using two players at the same skill level), the character shall be banned from the stage, but the stage is legal unless given a good reason for banned. If too many characters have an advantage at the stage (more than 5), the stage itself shall be banned.

I don't think large stages should be banned because it would be easier to ban stalling. To be sure, I believe camping is a defensive tactic where you avoid the opponent and attack from afar, and stalling is where you avoid all contact at all with the opponent. Accidental circle camping has been brought up, so there's still ideas about this rule.

My ideas on rules
Stock: 3
Time: 8 min.
Team att: ON
Items: OFF

I only changed some of this.

I'm going to sleep, so I'll respond later today (it's almost five over here).

 

[LiteralGrill]

Now I'm not so sure about that idea. Guess we can check that idea off and deal with the stage another way.





It depends on how much the character benefits from it. Now, this is a little hard because it isn't really easy to put a line between doesn't benefit too much and benefits too much.
If a character benefits from something where beating them isn't a possibility, they should be banned from there. If a character benefits from something, but is still beatable, they aren't banned from there.

Now, your last question is a little difficult. Banning it for that char would make it more fair for them, wouldn't be that fair to others because it only affects one char.

Is there anything you guys wanna take away/add from these rules?

Spoiler

Anything with a Walk off or random hazards is an obvious ban. Moving stages should be banned since they can be walk offs. Anything that allows for wall infinites should also be banned.

If a stage gives a huge unfair advantage for a character where they are not beatable (using two players at the same skill level), the character shall be banned from the stage, but the stage is legal unless given a good reason for banned. If too many characters have an advantage at the stage (more than 5), the stage itself shall be banned.

I don't think large stages should be banned because it would be easier to ban stalling. To be sure, I believe camping is a defensive tactic where you avoid the opponent and attack from afar, and stalling is where you avoid all contact at all with the opponent. Accidental circle camping has been brought up, so there's still ideas about this rule.

My ideas on rules
Stock: 3
Time: 8 min.
Team att: ON
Items: OFF

I only changed some of this.

I'm going to sleep, so I'll respond later today (it's almost five over here).

I'd take away the auto ban on walkoffs. You never really know what you may run into there, Onett is an example, and if a player is careful even Flat Zone 2 could use the hazards to not be chaingrabbed to death (though it's much easier to do these things on Onett).

Also, be careful for sure on the definition of moving. PTAD, Delfion Plaza, Halberd, and Mute City technically move and once were legal and used VERY often in tournaments and lack a random hazard. I think you'd want to say scrolling stages, and even then I'd exercise caution as you never know what kind of stages we may get.

 

[T0MMY]

Anyone could see any stage as seizure-inducing

Exactly

but they would be wrong, as none of the stages in smash induce seizures.

That's the same dead assertion used before, that is the "you're wrong" counterpoint.
It doesn't go anywhere.

(I know Lylat causes minor seizures for at least one attendee at my tournament due to a neural infection they had, so it doubly goes nowhere for me.)

It has nothing to do with my mindset, so explain your point better.

No, it's not a good point for you to have brought up. Any further explanation would be on your end of the argument as I am not the one making any claims here.

You can't judge a stage's alignment with competitive values when you're ignoring an influence on it's competitive values (the characters).

I disagree.

It's impossible to compete on a stage without characters, forgive my wording.

Again with the absolutes (i.e. "impossible").
Working with absolutes is an extreme, so that gives a counterpoint the opportunity to take it to the extreme and we get ridiculous. As an example I say "Nuh-uh! We can each declare a stage and hit random until it randoms a declared stage and that chooses the winner - no characters needed."

Once a point is refuted there is no need to take it to extremes.

I did present a better one. The stage-striking process used by national tournaments is superior.
You told me that "MLG disagrees", and I explained that MLG didn't use the process that I have a problem with.

"MLG disagrees" was not regarding that. I know which process they used - I was there.
But, please show why that is better.

And now you are asking for a process again - see how your anal-retentive manner of responding to me is even confusing you?

Still relying on ad hominems?
If you aren't taking your posts seriously, what makes you think anyone else will?

Did you just read that I used the word degree and then assumed that "P is bad, but only to a degree." was my line of reasoning? Disgusting, re-read my post.

No.
"Disgusting" is opinion, it goes nowhere.

Here, let me help the argument:

I was actually just explaining that something can be random without being uncompetitive

Where "something" is understood to be "game mechanic".

1. A game mechanic can be both random and competitive

There's one of the argument's premises.
Here's the second:

but randomness itself is in direct opposition to the essence of competition.

2. Random is not competitive.

1. A game mechanic can be both random and competitive
2. Random is not competitive
__________________________
: .(insert conclusion here)

Now please come to a conclusion based on these two premises and we can proceed.

I made no claims about subjectively banning things based on how random they are.

Using the word "degree" qualifies "to what extent".
As you said:

"Randomness is bad, but not everything that has some degree of randomness to it is bad..."​

This is ambiguous; It would need to be clarified (see argument above that needs a conclusion) to continue.

Furthermore, my sentence about G&W's Judgement has absolutely nothing to do with your response

Please keep it on topic then.

I was just providing an example of a move that has an element of randomness but isn't uncompetitive.

Examples help illustrate when one asks, and cannot be formally used in place of a conclusion (see above).

It seems, again, that you have become confused by your inconvenient, counter-productive manner of debating.

Ad hominem, this weakens your argument.

You can call this ad hominem if you'd like, but it's no more a fallacy than your request for an apology earlier in the thread.

Obvious ad hominem is obvious.
Ad hominems weaken argument.
The request of apology was not part of an argument, therefore it could not be an ad hominem.
At best this is a tu quoque fallacy (to be tossed out with the other ad hominems), at worst it is simply a red herring combined with an ad hominem (and doubly tossed out).
Either way, this goes into the logical waste bin (someone needs to take this out to the dumpster, it's about full already!)

If you don't want this to be about you and how frustrating it is to talk to you - don't respond to this.

Thanks for offering a direction, but I make my own decisions for myself and simply request no further commands as to what I should or should not do be made (they will be snubbed).

Upon further investigation (i.e. clicking another link to view the full ruleset, rather than the condensed one), the ruleset you linked to suggests stage striking, and therefore, differs to your ruleset of agreeing to a stage. I was wrong, thank you

You're welcome.

Incredible reasoning

Thanks.

Explain how SV/BF/FD hold a competitive principle, and how no other stage does, in your opinion.

Already explained, as they do not impede competition.

As you said at the bottom, it's ultimately up to the TO's interpretation of what's competitive and what isn't, so I'm not looking for an objective answer here - just why you, personally, decided on those 3 stages.

Because they do not impede competition.
If I (as acting TO) have reason to toggle them off, I will do so (Smashville has been the one most thoroughly suspect, but has remained so).[/quote]

 

[T0MMY]

Note: This post is taken from a Competitive Standard perspective.

It depends on how much the character benefits from it. Now, this is a little hard because it isn't really easy to put a line between doesn't benefit too much and benefits too much.

First I would ask why it would depend how much a character benefits.

If a character benefits from something where beating them isn't a possibility, they should be banned from there. If a character benefits from something, but is still beatable, they aren't banned from there.

On what grounds?
Which standard are you adhering to?
If this is a ruleset for competitive play, that is NOT a reason to ban a character.

Now, your last question is a little difficult. Banning it for that char would make it more fair for them, wouldn't be that fair to others because it only affects one char.

"Fair" is not applied to characters, it is applied to competitors.
There's no need to ban stages/characters because your opponent is using a certain character - you have the same choice to play that character.
Is your opponent better with that character on that stage than you are? IS HE IS BETTER THAN YOU? LOSE TO HIM, SHAKE HANDS, GGPO.

Is there anything you guys wanna take away/add from these rules?

I am going to examine the points of ban:

Walk off or random hazards

First off, they are NOT the same thing.
Walk-offs are NOT random hazards.
So let's look at them separately:

Walk-offs
What competitive principle does this feature violate?
Is it fair to both players? Yes (both players have choice in character selection)
Is it based on skill over luck? Yes (takes spacing skill to not run off the side like a doofus).
Verdict: Toggle: ON

Random Hazards
Fair?: Yes, it affects both players equally.
Luck?: No - These game elements are outside player control.
Impedes?: Yes - some hazards will be an impediment.
Verdict: Toggle: OFF

Moving stages
Fair?: Yes, movement affects both players equally.
Luck?: No necessarily (depending on quality of movement)
Verdict: Stage-dependent evaluation (looking at qualities of movement and how it affects gameplay.

Walls
Fair?: Yes - walls affect both players equally.
Luck?: - No. though skills are often employed with walls ("wall techs" and "infinites")
Impedes?: Dependent on layout.
Verdict: Stage-dependent evaluation (if the stage layout impedes gameplay or not)

Character Advantage
Fair?: Yes (any player may choose any character after stage is chosen).
Luck?: - No, character-based skill
Impedes?: No, unless character-specific (which is fair)
Verdict?: Toggle: ON

Large Stages
Fair?: Yes
Luck?: No
Impedes?: Yes (circle camping. No if it's just something "large" like Final Destination.
Verdict: If circle-camping is a problem Toggle: Off

 

[Grim Tuesday]

You're irreconcilable. Thankfully, the rest of the players on this board are somewhat level-headed and will side with my points. Ta-ta.

 

[BaPr]

Guys! This thread was the most popular thing on the 3DS forum, and now it is abandoned because you all flocked over to the Wii U discussion forum, "Proposed rules" or whatever it is called. Capps, didn't you want more people to use the 3DS forum? After everyone left, I barely got any alerts about this thread.

Anyways, T0MMY, I agree with what most of what you said, and now I am wondering why I thought of banning characters from places, just because it seemed unfair. I am just wondering, If random hazards affect both players, why would you want it off? Places like Eldin Bridge have a hazard, but it gives a warning (you hear the animal running) and the bomb is an easy thing to stay away from.

 

[Aidebit]

Anyways, T0MMY, I agree with what most of what you said, and now I am wondering why I thought of banning characters from places, just because it seemed unfair. I am just wondering, If random hazards affect both players, why would you want it off? Places like Eldin Bridge have a hazard, but it gives a warning (you hear the animal running) and the bomb is an easy thing to stay away from.

Bridge of Eldin isn't bad due to the hazard. It's bad because of it's walkoffs, and the fact that you can only get a downwards KO when the bridge is down.

 

[BaPr]

Bridge of Eldin isn't bad due to the hazard. It's bad because of it's walkoffs, and the fact that you can only get a downwards KO when the bridge is down.

Anyone can use a chaingrabbing character, and also, you can kill from any side, its just that sideways and downwards are the best for KO-ing

 

[Aidebit]

Anyone can use a chaingrabbing character, and also, you can kill from any side, its just that sideways and downwards are the best for KO-ing

Yes, anyone can use them, that's exactly my point, it devolves into who can get the grab first, rather than who can knock their opponent out first, it basically centralizes the game on one point.

 

[BaPr]

Yes, anyone can use them, that's exactly my point, it devolves into who can get the grab first, rather than who can knock their opponent out first, it basically centralizes the game on one point.

You forgot the fact that the stage is a large stage. Some characters can shoot from afar and not have to physically deal with them. Some characters even have physical spacing attacks (any attack with a sword) that don't resort to camping. Also, characters can attack from above and not have to worry about getting grabbed, preferably characters with multiple jumps. There are many techniques to survive getting chain grabbed.

 

[Aidebit]

You forgot the fact that the stage is a large stage. Some characters can shoot from afar and not have to physically deal with them.

What if IC's use desynched blizzard walls? Or alternating ice blocks? What if Falco decides to laser as well, remember that his lasers cause stun and hit far away.

Some characters even have physical spacing attacks (any attack with a sword) that don't resort to camping.

Sure, you can rush in, but then you have to have really precise spacing, and you'll essentially be doing a hit and run, over and over again.

Also, characters can attack from above and not have to worry about getting grabbed, preferably characters with multiple jumps. There are many techniques to survive getting chain grabbed.

You want MK to dair camp even more? Point is, not everyone can play a specific character at a high enough level. Eldin also encourages running away, even without chaingrabs, moreso with them.

 

[BaPr]

What if IC's use desynched blizzard walls? Or alternating ice blocks? What if Falco decides to laser as well, remember that his lasers cause stun and hit far away.

I have no idea what the blizzard walls are, if they are the Down B attack, then your best option is to attack from above. Also, Falco's attacks can be reflected easily, and they move slow enough to dodge/shield.

Sure, you can rush in, but then you have to have really precise spacing, and you'll essentially be doing a hit and run, over and over again.

Nothing iswrong with a hit and run (that sounds messed up), because you can easily attack and move just far enough to not be grabbed. You don't have to actually run away all the way to the opposite side of the stage. Also, attacks like ZZS's side smash is good enough from spacing. Sonic has moves fast enough where he can easily attack and space himself away from being grabbed without actually having to run away.

You want MK to dair camp even more? Point is, not everyone can play a specific character at a high enough level. Eldin also encourages running away, even without chaingrabs, moreso with them.

All characters can attack from above, it's just that flying characters have a better advantage. Metaknight isn't the only one. Also, you can run away on any stage.

 

[Aidebit]

I have no idea what the blizzard walls are, if they are the Down B attack, then your best option is to attack from above. Also, Falco's attacks can be reflected easily, and they move slow enough to dodge/shield.

If we could attack from above, we would, but IC's can grab you out of your attack. If you hit the one that's jumping, the one on the ground will grab you. Also, you do realize that Falco can get grabs off of lasers, right? Of course, this only matters if you're close, but the point is to get close.

Nothing iswrong with a hit and run (that sounds messed up), because you can easily attack and move just far enough to not be grabbed. You don't have to actually run away all the way to the opposite side of the stage. Also, attacks like ZZS's side smash is good enough from spacing. Sonic has moves fast enough where he can easily attack and space himself away from being grabbed without actually having to run away.

ZSS' Side Smash is a horrible example because it's bad move to attack with. Also, if you do that, you're poking, and you have to do it perfectly, and if you get grabbed once, it's over. Sonic would also never try to attack IC's, he'd do much better if he ran away the whole game, which is again, degenerative gameplay.

All characters can attack from above, it's just that flying characters have a better advantage. Metaknight isn't the only one. Also, you can run away on any stage.

But MK has the least laggy aerial move that can be used to poke, other characters don't have a quick downwards hitting move.
Of course you can runaway on any stage, it's just that it's more effective here.