Legality Tentative: MBR Official Ruleset for 2012

[Fortress | Sveet]

Yeah, I've been agreeing with the anti-stage interaction side for the most part, but this sudden bashing of Falcon mains when it comes to FoD almost comes off as hypocritical.

(not saying that some Falcon mains don't complain too much, because they do, but in this case 0room brought up a legitimate point)

Oh sorry, when I say "falcon mains are dumb whiny *****es" i really just mean reneblade

 

[Acryte]

Right but what about the one he proposed first?

Scenario B
1. You choose a character
2. They choose a character
3. You ban a stage
4. They counterpick a stage

 

[ShroudedOne]

I actually mistyped something in there, but I think you caught it anyway ^.^'

The point is that the CP system should be set up to give the Loser another chance to exhibit his true skill. What Bones's system does is essentially allow the Winner to CP the Loser.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no combination of character and stage that has no weakness. This means that, no matter how much thought the Loser puts into trying to engineer a MU + stage that he is more comfortable with so that he may fully demonstrate his skill, as long as he is forced to pick his character and stage simultaneously the Winner always has the potential to pick a character that does well against the Loser's chosen character on the Loser's chosen stage. If you don't think Marth beats Falcon on YS, then substitute in some character who does.

Okay, I see what your saying, but my overarching point is: why should the rules cater to either the winner or loser? I mean, if someone wins, we shouldn't go, "Okay, now you can't counter your opponent's choice with another character because it wouldn't be fair to them," when the better player should win anyways.

This is a very hard opinion for me to put into words, but hopefully you see what I'm getting at?

 

[FerrishTheFish]

Right but what about the one he proposed first?

Choosing a character is more committing than choosing a stage. There are more characters that are good on any given neutral stage than there are good neutral stages for any given character. Again, he who chooses character first comes off with a disadvantage.

 

[Bones0]

My issue with this system is that it seems to give the winner of a DITTO a big advantage.

Example:
Falcon A beats Falcon B in a close match on, say, FD. Falcon B stays Falcon because the game was close--he's not going to change if he knows Falcon A will **** all his secondaries. Falcon B also chooses YS because he thinks he is Scar he thinks he will be better able to show his skill in the Falcon MU on a smaller stage and FoD is gay to Falcon. Falcon A switches to Marth and ***** Falcon B.

See, while I admit that your system seems just as fair or even more fair than the current system in other examples, in this situation it puts the guessing game on the LOSER. In fact, the loser of a #insert main# ditto better start praying: he can't switch to a secondary himself (or the winner will **** him with #insert main#) and he can't stop the winner from switching to a secondary that is good on whatever stage he picks/good in the #insert main# MU. If the CP system is really set up to allow both players to fully exhibit their skills, then the loser needs the slight edge that the current system gives him. Otherwise, the winner is essentially CPing the loser (which is kinda messed up).

Yeah, I'm glad someone pointed that out. Right after I posted I was like, "wait, I'm pretty sure I screwed over one of the players." lol Looking back, I definitely think I gave too much of an advantage to the winning player... It's frustrating because no matter what we're going to have the possibility of players switching to secondaries to surprise people on cps, but that isn't exactly a common thing with the current rule set anyway.

I guess the next best alternative would be Method 4:
Loser picks char. Winner picks char. Loser picks stage.

I think this does the best job of covering all the bases. Let's say you have Fox dittos game 1. The loser can't switch to Marth expecting to go FD because the winner will KNOW they want to go FD as soon as they pick Marth. However, the winner also can't just cp the loser's character choice because even in bad matchups, the control over stage choice is pretty powerful. Like if you go from Peach dittos to the winner switching to Falcon, Peach can still cp FoD and do work.

So far I really like Bones' char/stage cp swap. One of the best things to be brought up in the thread so far.
Also, a problem people have too is that they feel decisions about banning stages are too subjective. If we do ban them we need to have a concrete method used in determining what stays and goes. This isn't a hardened model by any means but an example based off Cactuar's general reasonings:


Cactuar's 2012 MBR RULESET MODEL (STAGE MUST PASS ALL THE DEFINED CRITERIA):

BANNABLE STAGE CRITERIA:

1) TOP 8-10 SKEW THRESHOLD:

2) KEY VALUE - PLAYER SKILL AND INTELLIGENCE SHOULD HOLD THE MOST SWAY IN WHO WINS (VS STAGE HAZARDS AND COUNTERPICKS)

3) KEY VALUE - CHARACTERS MOST VIABLE/EXPECTED TO WIN/ATTEND TOURNAMENTS (AND THEIR MATCH-UPS) SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WITH HIGHER PRIORITY IN REGULATIONS AND RULESETS REGARDING TOURNAMENTS.

4) KEY VALUE - COMPLETE LACK OF OUTSIDE VARIABLES = FAIREST FORM OF COMPETITION

5) UNFAIR STAGE HAZARD CRITERION: [/COLOR]

6) UNFAIR STAGE GEOGRAPHY CRITERION:[/COLOR]

7) PLATFORM NEUTRALITY: [/COLOR]
---------------------

STAGE STRIKE/BAN AND COUNTERPICKING SYSTEM:

(DISCUSS ESPECIALLY WITH BONES0'S IDEA)

---------------------

1. What's with the CAPS?
2. Entire Skew Threshold idea is dumb. Matchups should not influence which stages are legal, especially with Melee where matchups between the top 10 characters vary a bunch. Some people will swear Fox vs. Peach is 70-30 while others say it's 50-50, or even in Peach's favor. There is too much bias, opinion, and room for metagame development to base legal stages off of what our puny little brains perceive to be matchups at this point in time.
3. "Player skill and intelligence" is way too vague to mean anything. If you want to base stage bans on stage hazards, just say that.
4. Higher placing characters should be high priority? Completely disagree. Basically goes back to the skew threshold. Matchups should not affect which stages are banned, and even if they did, it certainly shouldn't just be limited to the characters WE have deemed viable at this point in time.
5. "Outside variables" is way too vague. I honestly have no idea what you're even talking about. Again, if you are referencing stage hazards, just say that...
6. Stage hazards point is fine, but I don't think anyone's ever debated that being a point of contention for being a trait that makes stages ban-worthy. The problem arises when you decide how much randomness you allow, and it's too subjective for any sort of objective scale to apply to it.
7. Platform neutrality line just seems pointless; if you have a list of criteria for a ban, you don't need to state that something outside the criteria is not ban-worthy.

Overall, I just don't think we need some uber-formal criteria for banning stages, especially since the 6 stages left have largely been accepted. If anyone ever wants to ban or un-ban a specific cp, we can just debate it on a case-by-case basis.

 

[ShroudedOne]

Some people will swear Fox vs. Peach is 70-30 while others say it's 50-50, or even in Peach's favor.

Looooool. Who are these people, Bones? I wish to meet them, and laugh at them.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

Okay, I see what your saying, but my overarching point is: why should the rules cater to either the winner or loser?

It's not about catering to the winner or the loser. It's about allowing both players to fully demonstrate their skill. Now, if the Loser of game 1 would only beat the Winner in some very specific character MU/stage situations, yes, that player deserves to lose the set. But if the Loser has a well-rounded skill set, the Winner shouldn't be able to manipulate game 2 away from a MU/stage that the Loser is more comfortable on.

Bones's CP system would allow that because it forces the Loser to choose a character and stage that come somehow cover all 26 of the Winner's character options.

I guess it all comes down to the fact that whoever picks first is at a disadvantage. But it's not fair for a player to lose a set 0-2 because the player who beat them was able to avoid any MU/stage that's "comfortable" for them.

 

[Bones0]

Right but what about the one he proposed first?

Cactuar doesn't like stage bans.

 

[Bones0]

Looooool. Who are these people, Bones? I wish to meet them, and laugh at them.

I think it's close enough to even that giving it a value other than 50-50 is just pointless. I've never heard of a top level Peach losing to a Fox as a direct result of Fox being somehow better. Player skill, even in the smallest amounts, virtually always trumps character selection, at least in the top 10 characters. Obviously it starts to get iffy past that point because the characters are less developed and their limitations are much more evident.

 

[Strong Badam]

armada says that fox-peach is like 60-40ish or 55-45

 

[ShroudedOne]

Armada has said that Fox Peach is like 65:35, actually.

Strife: Peach lose against fox with a big margin. 65:35 is maybe more correct but that MU is really bad to be honest.

I don't think it's that bad, to be honest (maybe an ultra campy Fox could be 70:30, but to be honest, no one camps THAT hard and that well yet). I don't agree that it's close to even either (60:40), but I take your point nonetheless. But yeah, we aren't at the point where anyone's character would be the only thing holding them back.

 

[Strong Badam]

not among the top 8 chars no

 

[leffen]

Peach vs Puff/Fox is bad enough to hold a player back, it just so happens that the player thats better in those matchups 99% of the time is Armada so ppl think its even >_>

 

[Strong Badam]

Armada can make any match-up look even or in Peach's favor.

 

[Get Low]

I swear, every thread I've looked at lately has become a Peach matchup discussion thread.

 

[ShroudedOne]

She has been coming up a lot lately...it's odd.

 

[leffen]

yeah its not like player who is results wise clearly the best player in the world is using her.



oh wait.

 

[ShroudedOne]

I thought Armada mained Young Link?

 

[Cactuar]

The top 8-10 skew threshold that I've mentioned has generally only been applied to provide both sides opportunity for an even set (1 even, 2 ad, 2 disad stages). It doesn't do any matchup balancing. It balances the set, not the stages.


I'm still reading over the posts from the last day. I'll post something if needed once I catch up.


@Acryte: Thanks for writing that whole thing up btw, really appreciate it.

 

[Acryte]

The top 8-10 skew threshold that I've mentioned has generally only been applied to provide both sides opportunity for an even set (1 even, 2 ad, 2 disad stages). It doesn't do any matchup balancing. It balances the set, not the stages.


I'm still reading over the posts from the last day. I'll post something if needed once I catch up.


@Acryte: Thanks for writing that whole thing up btw, really appreciate it.

No prob man. I don't mean that it actually attempts to balance matchups. What I meant was its basically judging how a stage skews the preexisting matchups in general. So if for example a a bunch of MUs get ****ed up on Pokefloats whereas normally on any neutral (and even cps) those character's matchups are actually viable then its obviously affecting a bunch of matchups. It's not intended to balance, moreso to recognize when stages are greatly influencing whatever balance would normally exist on stages deemed neutral.

I mean that's really one of the biggest factors in if a stage gets banned right? It just takes the match-ups in general for a neutral stage and compares it against the stage being evaluated for fairness, looking at the difference in the two shows how greatly the stage influences said matchups. (This would be where the stage has more effect than the actual player vs player). Instead of just banning it outright it still looks at whether those match-ups are still viable however.

For example in brawl (reason with me here ) if there was a stage that put metaknight at a solid disadvantage and skewed the matchups to where a lot of chars that weren't viable became viable, but meta was still viable as well, then the stage, although having effect on the matchups, made the game fairer in a sense. Both metaknight and opposing characters are still viable and so there is no reason to ban it. If it made other characters viable but metaknight and a couple others completely unviable then it is bannable simply because it is heavily disadvantageous to the point where he cannot win. This is regardless to how much people hate him (and thus would want to keep the stage cuz its brawl )

It doesn't look at matchups that are normally not viable on neutrals and then rule it fair because it somehow helps balance (make that character better in) the matchup. Instead it judges how much effect the stage has on matchups and whether it makes those matchups not viable simply due to the stage (unfair advantage gained through stage).

 

[Bones0]

I mean that's really the biggest factor in if a stage gets banned right? It just takes the general match-ups for a neutral stage and compares it against the stage being evaluated for fairness, looking at the difference in the two shows how greatly the stage influences said matchups. (This would be where the stage has more effect than the actual player vs player). Instead of just banning it outright it still looks at whether those match-ups are still viable however. For example in brawl (reason with me here ) if there was a stage that put metaknight at a solid disadvantage and skewed the matchups to where a lot of chars that weren't viable became viable, but meta was still viable as well, then the stage, although having effect on the matchups, made the game fairer in a sense. Both metaknight and opposing characters are still viable and so there is no reason to ban it.

That's not my banning criteria. I base it entirely off of how a stage affects a fight regardless of characters. Even if every matchup in the game was 50-50 on Brinstar I would still consider in ban-worthy. Randomness and inconsistency is what's detrimental to competition, and I include walk-offs as another specific thing that impedes good gameplay.

 

[Acryte]

That's not my banning criteria. I base it entirely off of how a stage affects a fight regardless of characters. Even if every matchup in the game was 50-50 on Brinstar I would still consider in ban-worthy. Randomness and inconsistency is what's detrimental to competition, and I include walk-offs as another specific thing that impedes good gameplay.

Bones if a stage is neutral then it is determined that it doesn't have a large effect on the matchup between any character. If a stage is ban worthy it has too great an effect on a bunch of matchups. For example look at how many stages are banned due to fast char vs slow char with circle tactics. These are matchup specific instances that warrant bans.

It's not trying to balance, its just looking at neutrals and then how drastically the stage in question skews results (due to randomness, and stage layout and geography) in general. Obviously a stage that isn't banworthy might have some matchup skew but most characters that were already viable in a matchup will remain competetive.

Basically I'm saying we aren't looking at unviable matchups like shiek vs bowser to determine if it has bannable effects. We look at matchups for stages that dont heavily influence a winnable matchup (neutrals), and see in comparison how heavily the stage in question does. This is exactly what you are talking about when you say "randomized results" based on stage. Take Hyrule for example, normally competetive matchups can be completely unwinnable based solely off the stage. We aren't looking at matchups that are normally unwinnable, whether or not they improve is not noteworthy. What is noteworthy is whether or not the stage is detracting from the overall competetiveness of matchups that are viable on any neutral/cp... or if the stage is obviously providing too great an effect on the results.

(off to school be back later)

Bones, in the case where brinstar made everything 50-50 it would still be banned. Note that each criteria passes 2 things;
1) its overall effects combined being to0 influential (the first part)
2) top 8-10 matchup skew (also applied).

Failing either of these would result in a bannable stage, passing both would result obviously in a reasonably fair stage.

By these rules said stage would still be bannable regardless of making matchups more viable overall because the strength of the stages effects.

 

[Bones0]

Bones, in the case where brinstar made everything 50-50 it would still be banned. Note that each criteria passes 2 things;
1) its overall effects combined being to0 influential (the first part)
2) top 8-10 matchup skew (also applied).

Failing either of these would result in a bannable stage, passing both would result obviously in a reasonably fair stage.

By these rules said stage would still be bannable regardless of making matchups more viable overall because the strength of the stages effects.

It still just seems superfluous to even mention the top 10 matchups. Why can't we just stick with whether or not the stage has too great of a bearing on ANY match? It's not a particularly important issue anyway considering we've already banned what most people thought were intrusive stages. Trying to establish criteria for banning a stage now is almost pointless.

 

[0Room]

I believe the flaw with your entire argument is you are viewing the fact that FoD is bad for aerial characters as a stage flaw, not a character one. Fast fallers get destroyed way harder on FD than aerial-based characters do on FoD. The lack of platforms isn't some inherent flaw of the stage. Fast fallers just benefit from having platforms the same way aerial characters benefit from having platforms spaced further apart.

I DO understand your viewpoint that having to play FoD is an abuse of the rules. I urge you to take a look at my previous post outlining different methods of stage/character selection and see if that would make you more comfortable with a no-ban stage list. Obviously opponents will still be able to choose FoD, but because my suggested method makes the loser choose both the stage and character first, you can comfortably decide if you are better off trying to win as Falcon on FoD or with a secondary that does good on FoD, good vs. their character, or even both.

What you said makes sense
And thanks for actually responding as opposed to just glossing over it and saying "Oh whatever, CF player complaining about it"

Basically I'm with Acryte here on this definition of neutral stages
[And I realize I'm doing two separate arguments right now so this is back to my first one of "Why is FoD a neutral?" just so you know.]

So to refresh

Bones if a stage is neutral then it is determined that it doesn't have a large effect on the matchup between any character.

And therefore we have an issue
I think it's pretty clear that the stage does have a large impact on match ups between aerial based characters
And so now that we have a criteria for basing neutrality
I don't believe that FoD should be neutral for the reason that it does affect match ups in a more serious condition.

Now 2 things:
1) I'm not really arguing for the aspect of change, I'm arguing because I want to prove a point. That point being that I don't believe that FoD should be a neutral for the reason that it does have a large effect on some match ups. And if the criteria is that it doesn't have an effect between any match ups, therefore it is unqualified for this position. However, the issue with this is that there really isn't a definition for neutral stages that I can tell, and therefore this is only a personal definition that is clearly shared by at least one other person.
2) What is the definition for neutrality in the MBR? I have been unable to find one in particular.

The second argument
The second argument being how FoD is going to become the only map that CF players are going to play on from now on.
And while having another system of character picks makes sense, unfortunately that doesn't benefit me personally.

Anywho as far as that was going
I don't really want anything particular done about it, I just wanted people to think about possible solutions.
Having one bad stage per character [such as now being unable to ban FD against ICs, or being unable to ban PS as Jiggs, as some European players have mentioned in the past] makes tournament life kind of frustrating.

So rather than punishing players for picking a particular character indirectly, I wanted to see what we can do about making it fair for both parties.
But without bans or character switches [since Bones0 already had an interesting solution], the solutions for that are going to have to be particularly creative.

 

[Bones0]

I don't think Falcon alone being bad on FoD is justification for moving it to CP. Like I've said, spacies do much worse on FD than Falcon does on FoD (at least relative to the other neutrals), but no one is trying to suggest that FD isn't fair game for the vast majority of matchups. This is why I disagree with the whole mentality of "neutrals should be the stages with the most even matchups." There is too much variance in opinions on matchups, and matchups change. What if everyone had agreed YS should be a cp back when Marth was known to dominate on it? It's still known as great for him, but plenty of other characters can compete with him on it, and many Marth players will try to stay away from it.

I think Falcon players need to just stop acting like Falcon on FoD is the worst stage combination. It isn't like EVERY set will go to FoD anyway. I know plenty of players (with varying mains) that are just bad on FoD in general and won't cp to it. I think it would also be false to assume all of Falcon's matchups are bad on FoD. I can't really speak from experience because I don't main Falcon, but as a Falco, I used to think FoD was horrible because lasering/SHFFLing on it is really difficult. I didn't want to become one of those players that auto-banned a stage regardless of matchup, so I practiced on it and now it is one of my favorite stages. I'm definitely stereotyping a little, but out of all of the Falcons I played, I don't see the same sort of attitude. I get a lot of "ugh"s as soon as it comes up on random in FRIENDLIES, and I can't help but think "it's not exactly an amazing stage for Falco either bro..." I've even had a few people even ask to just take it off random as we played friendlies because they auto-ban it in every matchup no matter what.

From what Cactuar has said, I think a large part of the no-ban ruleset is actually to ADDRESS and CORRECT these mentalities that are largely of the scrub variety. Is FD bad for spacies vs. chain grab characters? Sure, but it's better to force people to play it and develop the metagame then to give them a ban and basically amputate any hope of players getting better on the stage and swaying the stage in their character's favor through metagame development. That's how I see it, anyway, which is why I'm starting to like the idea of no bans, even as a spacie who will be getting taken to FD almost every set.

 

[ShroudedOne]

I thought FoD was good for Falco because of dumb drop-through dair things? But I don't make it a point to learn about that Falco on that stage.

Again, like I said, I hate FoD, and I main Peach. That stage is supposedly awesome for her. But I play on all the neutrals + Stadium in friendlies because it's good to have those. I know a Falcon main that has turned the stage off in friendlies (granted, he seems to get that stage a lot, but that's beside the point). If I were turning off stages I wanted to, I'd never play another friendly on Stadium. True fact.

Not to say that all Falcons do this, because not all do. But all the neutrals + Stadium are manageable.

 

[Kal]

A good method is to play sets in friendlies. If we had done that from the beginning, I feel that the ubiquitous, overwhelmingly negative perception of stages like Brinstar and Rainbow Cruise would not exist.

 

[DD151]

I don't quite understand the value in stage diversity. Almost every other fighting game in existence has exactly one playable stage (with cosmetic variations), and we don't see those communities complaining about it.

I mean, yes, Smash is fundamentally different from other fighters, especially with regard to movement options (which is what allows for such stage diversity in the first place), but that's not an excuse for being forced to keep up with a stage or getting pigeonholed into one strip of non-damaging floor.

 

[Wake]

I'm sorry SillyOne. I'll try and behave myself

 

[Bones0]

I don't quite understand the value in stage diversity. Almost every other fighting game in existence has exactly one playable stage (with cosmetic variations), and we don't see those communities complaining about it.

I mean, yes, Smash is fundamentally different from other fighters, especially with regard to movement options (which is what allows for such stage diversity in the first place), but that's not an excuse for being forced to keep up with a stage or getting pigeonholed into one strip of non-damaging floor.

It takes more skill to be good on 6 stages than on 1.

 

[Kal]

That, and, as he said, controlling space and intelligent positioning are fundamental aspects of Smash. It's a bit silly to try and turn it into a traditional fighter.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Just because other fighters don't have other stages, why does that mean a game with multiple stages should be fine with only one? Other games aren't like melee, maybe they should be more like us.


Gah, sometimes i wish there was a way to play on the less gay CPs more often, cause they are really fun. Even brinstar is fun. Its just terribly not fun and semi-uncompetitive to play on them in tournament.

 

[Kal]

Well, I hope you would agree that "fun" is a non-issue with tournaments. The TO should not try to cater to arbitrary, subjective preferences of entertainment. I find it strange that you call the stages uncompetitive when no real difference exists between the "interference" on these stages and the "interference" on stages like Fountain of Dreams or Pokémon Stadium. Though I fear bringing this up will just result in a repeat of previous discussion.

 

[Battlecow]

yeah its not like player who is results wise clearly the best player in the world is using her.

oh wait.

And by "results wise clearly the best player in the world" you mean "won one tournament at which one of our 2 contenders was really playing."

Silly Europeans.

A good method is to play sets in friendlies. If we had done that from the beginning, I feel that the ubiquitous, overwhelmingly negative perception of stages like Brinstar and Rainbow Cruise would not exist.

Up until a month ago, I played like 6 hours a week with a guy who insisted on having Brinstar turned on for random stages, so we got it like a fifth of the time. I hated and still do hate the balls off of that stage, even though I play peach, because it's absolutely (and I know this is subjective) AWFUL trying to play on a stage that ham-handedly makes you hop around while trying to avoid it in the most gimmicky display of jankness ever when you could be doing cool, complex things to your opponent and playing off of the stage instead of rolling your eyes and watching it go to work.

 

[Deleted member]

And by "results wise clearly the best player in the world" you mean "won one tournament at which one of our 2 contenders was really playing."

no johns. not only did armada beat our best players at genesis 2 outright, he also got 2nd at the other nationals with varying players beating him way narrowly. armada is as good or better than the americans consistently all day, at least for now.

 

[Battlecow]

So the 4 or so times our players beat him at other nationals don't count? He won one tourney, man. It was the most recent one, so I'm willing to accept that he's a contender for the number one spot until Apex, but "clearly the best player in the world"? Bull. And PP was sick, you know it. "No johns" is well and good, but from a logical standpoint, it's absurd to say that Armada's victory over him counts for anything. Hell, by your logic, Taj, and not PP, is the second best in the US right now.

That said, I love Armada and wouldn't be at all surprised if he won Apex and nabbed himself the unquestioned 1st place spot.

 

[JPOBS]

Before winning Genisis 2, Armada had lost 4 previous tournaments in america to 3 different players who went on to win the tournament, and he placed 2nd three times, and 4th once. (and at pound 4, he lost to SS and Amsash)

Mango is the only one of the players who beat armada at any of the nationals he lost, who went on to win another national that he attended, which essentially means that all the "top" players only have ONE tournament win under their belt counting tournies armada has attended (except mango at 2). Also, none of the players that beat armada have cumulatively placed as well as he has across the 5 tournaments. Furthermore, Armada has returned and outright beat everyone who previously beat him.

There is absolutely NO argument that can be made against Armada being the best player in the world right now. Either Armada is the best player in the world currently, or no one is.

 

[DD151]

It takes more skill to be good on 6 stages than on 1.

Clearly, it takes more skill to be good on 12 stages than on 6, and it takes even more skill to be good on 18 stages than on 12. I don't think this is a very good argument in favor of stage variety because it increases the importance of knowing the intricacies of each individual stage as opposed to just knowing character matchups.

I hope you don't get me wrong; my original intention wasn't to imply that we should narrow our stagelist down to a Japan-esque ruleset. I just wanted to point out that stage variety by itself doesn't have any intrinsic value. Good characters will still be good, worse characters will still be worse, and there is really nothing that we can do about it.

Above all, I just find it amusing that certain individuals are lamenting the loss of neutral and counterpick stages as if the Melee community were trapped in an irreversible downward spiral, or something. It's not that big of a deal.

That, and, as he said, controlling space and intelligent positioning are fundamental aspects of Smash. It's a bit silly to try and turn it into a traditional fighter.

I sincerely hope you don't mean to imply that controlling space and intelligent positioning are not fundamental aspects of other fighters.

 

[Acryte]

I sincerely hope you don't mean to imply that controlling space and intelligent positioning are not fundamental aspects of other fighters.

I'm sure he meant that stage variety highlights those aspects more because there is a variance regarding those aspects from level to level... whereas in traditional fighters it doesn't make any difference what stage you are on, those things will not change.

For a traditional fighter the stage positioning (aside from positioning due to matchup) only accounts for wall/close to wall/ no wall. There really isn't variation dependant on stage position outside where you can take your combos to corner the opponent and/or apply pressure to force them into a corner... whereas smash has various platform arrangements, platform types, hazards, boundaries, ledge types, and geographical layouts that change positioning and tactics all over the place.

 

[Battlecow]

Before winning Genisis 2, Armada had lost 4 previous tournaments in america to 3 different players who went on to win the tournament, and he placed 2nd three times, and 4th once. (and at pound 4, he lost to SS and Amsash)

Mango is the only one of the players who beat armada at any of the nationals he lost, who went on to win another national that he attended, which essentially means that all the "top" players only have ONE tournament win under their belt counting tournies armada has attended (except mango at 2). Also, none of the players that beat armada have cumulatively placed as well as he has across the 5 tournaments. Furthermore, Armada has returned and outright beat everyone who previously beat him.

There is absolutely NO argument that can be made against Armada being the best player in the world right now. Either Armada is the best player in the world currently, or no one is.

Saying there's no argument doesn't make it true. There absolutely is an argument.

Picking the 5 tourneys that Armada attended, huh? PP hadn't yet gone super saiyan at some of those. Mango didn't try at all of those. Armada has yet to beat a healthy PP (this smacks of johns, I'll admit, but come on; PP is the last person who'd make untrue excuses).

It's all baloney. There is no clear best player in the world at this moment. If you want to say that Genesis 2 makes armada better than PP, I'd like to remind you once again that by your logic, Taj is better than PP too. After all, he's been placing well in tourneys longer, and he beat him at Genesis 2.

Once again: shut it until Apex. There's absolutely no reason to say that any one of the top three is conclusively the best.