Fortress | Sveet
▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀
I don't think puff players opinions on stages matter 
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Legality Tentative: MBR Official Ruleset for 2012
- Thread starter Cactuar
- Start date
Again, you are entitled to take pride in your wins in scenarios that were heavily in your favor. There has never been an argument against you doing so.
Divinokage
Smash Legend
Taj mentioned i was a little ***** to CP him to Brinstar against his M2. No johns?
Marth is terrible on all CPs.
Spacies are a dice roll on Brinstar.
Mewtwo is epic.
Why would he go anything else?
Spacies are a dice roll on Brinstar.
Mewtwo is epic.
Why would he go anything else?
Your lack of familiarity with competitive players is obvious. I would have been more surprised if he didn't call him a *****. Regardless of CP. Mewtwo is heavy.
KirbyKaze
Smash Legend
Wait, it's not?
Frame Perfect
Smash Journeyman
right before you said that swordsmen analogy, i was thinking about the scene in Troy where Achilles tells Hector to get up before shouting 'I will not let a rock steal my glory'
hey kal, if you do like vodka alot u should definitely try monopolowa
hey kal, if you do like vodka alot u should definitely try monopolowa
Fortress | Sveet
▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀
I'm glad you said it hahahah
Divinokage
Smash Legend
Well there's stages and stuff too.. lol.
Except when he gets punched on the sides of Yoshi's and Brinstar.
That sounds pretty epic, I would encourage this train of thought for anyone wanting to achieve a tough dream. =P
Warhawk
Smash Lord
This is why I like you Kage. I think more people should have this attitude (and its an attitude I'm trying more to take on). It sucks when you beat someone and they john away your win. Losing doesn't even necessarily make you worse than them, it just means for that particular set they outplayed you and for that their win should be respected.
Yes, but WHY are the scenarios heavily in my favor? Under our current counterpicking system, it is because I made good decisions and the other player did not.
So yeah, I will take plenty of pride in beating down stubbon and scrubbish players on Brinstar, especially in those matchups that aren't all that bad for them but that they refuse to learn. During the first few years when I actually practiced some, I fielded multiple mains on a regular basis, and I used my Falco/Marth to take rounds off of players like Drephen/Dope/Azen when the stages were unfavorable toward Puff. When I lost all my practice buddies, I just stuck to Puff, but I still pulled out the Falco occasionally and it even helped me win a tournament against Tink, so I practice what I preach.
So back to the original point, I think multiple mains should be encouraged, and that ruleset design should keep to that as the ideal. Rules should never be justified on behalf of players who are too stubborn to switch their character.
Didn't realize this became a fap station, Kish. You are being mighty defensive considering I've done nothing but support you in having pride in your wins. Using all the tools at one's disposal isn't something to apologize for.
Under the counterpick system of that time, you did make good decisions. We are moving away from the use of stages as a heavy influence on matchups, and toning it down to being a light one. That is the direction the community has been going for a while now. If there is enough support for it, we will change it back next time around.
As for your point on multiple mains: It is not really our position to encourage people to use multiple characters or not. There is an argument around that point, as general familiarity with the game and achieving top level play has been seen far more often by players who have a disproportionate amount of time in one character before moving on to other characters.
Under the counterpick system of that time, you did make good decisions. We are moving away from the use of stages as a heavy influence on matchups, and toning it down to being a light one. That is the direction the community has been going for a while now. If there is enough support for it, we will change it back next time around.
As for your point on multiple mains: It is not really our position to encourage people to use multiple characters or not. There is an argument around that point, as general familiarity with the game and achieving top level play has been seen far more often by players who have a disproportionate amount of time in one character before moving on to other characters.
No, I switch to Game and Watch.
The actual answer is, if I do switch characters, it isn't so I feel better about beating them. It is so that the matches are not incredibly one-sided and discouraging to the other player. My low tiers are fantastic at punishing things very obviously, and as such are good for helping people see their bad habits. My goals for playing this game are different than most people's goals though, so it isn't a good point for relevance.
Think of it in terms of sitting at a friendly TV playing against a low tier. You are sitting there, only playing this one dude, and you are using Fox. Do you use Fox the entire time?
The actual answer is, if I do switch characters, it isn't so I feel better about beating them. It is so that the matches are not incredibly one-sided and discouraging to the other player. My low tiers are fantastic at punishing things very obviously, and as such are good for helping people see their bad habits. My goals for playing this game are different than most people's goals though, so it isn't a good point for relevance.
Think of it in terms of sitting at a friendly TV playing against a low tier. You are sitting there, only playing this one dude, and you are using Fox. Do you use Fox the entire time?
There's nothing defensive about my posting. My confidence is certainly secure enough to make it through an internet forum debate unscathed.
And I don't really understand your response. I'm saying that you're making justifications for rules based on matchup theory that suggests a player never switches their character on a counterstage. That's why I said that multiple should be the standard, if anything, for a rules basis. Under a counterpick system where counterstages are selected before characters are selected, the stage choice has no bearing on matchups unless players decide to stubbornly cling to one character who is disadvantaged there. This is a clear philosophical tenet of your theory that some stages have too much influence on character matchups and thus should be banned, which fails anyway on "neutral" stages like FD and Stadium that skew some matchups/characters just as much as the newly banned stages.
That said, I think I will just withdraw from the conversation again. Just came out of an extremely rough patch at work, found myself with some spare time, and now it is quickly evaporating yet again. Ah well. An odd hobby to enjoy debating gaming theory.
And I don't really understand your response. I'm saying that you're making justifications for rules based on matchup theory that suggests a player never switches their character on a counterstage. That's why I said that multiple should be the standard, if anything, for a rules basis. Under a counterpick system where counterstages are selected before characters are selected, the stage choice has no bearing on matchups unless players decide to stubbornly cling to one character who is disadvantaged there. This is a clear philosophical tenet of your theory that some stages have too much influence on character matchups and thus should be banned, which fails anyway on "neutral" stages like FD and Stadium that skew some matchups/characters just as much as the newly banned stages.
That said, I think I will just withdraw from the conversation again. Just came out of an extremely rough patch at work, found myself with some spare time, and now it is quickly evaporating yet again. Ah well. An odd hobby to enjoy debating gaming theory.
Haha, sorry if my statements are vague or poorly organized. I probably should withdraw for today as well. 18 hour work day yesterday and I'm back at work now on 3 hours of sleep.
Fortress | Sveet
▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀
I wish i could beer o'clock, but alas I have to go to work myself.
If you spell beer with a w and d maybe.
Divinokage
Smash Legend
Only the true green can understand the green.
Life
Smash Hero
Wavedash-o'clock?
Green is my favorite color, ya know. 
Bones0
Smash Legend
Cactuar went Falcon vs. Mofo's Ness.
Also, KJ64 should replace PS as neutral in teams.
Also, KJ64 should replace PS as neutral in teams.
Geenareeno
Smash Lord
Kal
Smash Champion
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2004
- Messages
- 2,973
Geenareeno, I don't think it should be a starter because I don't think the distinction between starter and counterpick should even exist. The reason we differentiated between starter and counterpick stages in the past was because we used a different method of selecting the first stage in a set. The distinction, in my opinion, is just the remnant of the outdated slob-pick system.
With the new system (this "California stage strike"), the distinction is no longer necessary. Stages are either legal or banned. The distinction, as far as I'm concerned, is a way for players to emphasize their own preferences; calling a stage neutral just makes the other stages appear worse. If I were to choose the current six stages as the legal ones for singles, I would put Pokémon Stadium as a counterpick solely because you need an odd number of stages in order to properly use this new method of choosing the first stage.
However, I'm not arguing that Kongo Jungle 64 should be a starter stage even given some supposition that the MBR is going about making this ruleset correctly. All I want is an understanding why this stage is "neutral" (i.e., qualified as a starter) in teams, but not in singles. Frankly, since I feel the stage to be considered a counterpick is more-or-less chosen arbitrarily, and moreover only done by necessity as a result of needing an odd number of stages, I would really not care. All of the remaining stages the MBR has deemed "worthwhile" seem perfectly acceptable for both singles and doubles.
I would prefer instead a system where players agree on one stage to be struck for the first match, then to proceed with the current stage-strike system. However, such a system is probably too cumbersome and likely not even possible.
With the new system (this "California stage strike"), the distinction is no longer necessary. Stages are either legal or banned. The distinction, as far as I'm concerned, is a way for players to emphasize their own preferences; calling a stage neutral just makes the other stages appear worse. If I were to choose the current six stages as the legal ones for singles, I would put Pokémon Stadium as a counterpick solely because you need an odd number of stages in order to properly use this new method of choosing the first stage.
However, I'm not arguing that Kongo Jungle 64 should be a starter stage even given some supposition that the MBR is going about making this ruleset correctly. All I want is an understanding why this stage is "neutral" (i.e., qualified as a starter) in teams, but not in singles. Frankly, since I feel the stage to be considered a counterpick is more-or-less chosen arbitrarily, and moreover only done by necessity as a result of needing an odd number of stages, I would really not care. All of the remaining stages the MBR has deemed "worthwhile" seem perfectly acceptable for both singles and doubles.
I would prefer instead a system where players agree on one stage to be struck for the first match, then to proceed with the current stage-strike system. However, such a system is probably too cumbersome and likely not even possible.
Geenareeno
Smash Lord
Ah, very interesting. Good points. But yeah, I would say the reason for it not being a starter in singles but being a starter in doubles is because the reason the stage is 'broken' (if that's your opinion) in singles is completely eliminated when playing doubles. **** that was a long sentence. What I am saying is: you can't camp in doubles, so the stage is fine.
Bones0
Smash Legend
The ONLY issue I've EVER taken with KJ is stalling, hence the ban in singles. (I've even counterpicked and won on KJ in tournament before, but to ignore the stalling issue is really just naive to me). Obviously it isn't relevant in teams, and the only uncompetitive portion of the stage is the barrel, due to it's slight randomness, but that is an insignificant interference compared to PS's entire stage morphing to a random layout.
Kal
Smash Champion
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2004
- Messages
- 2,973
If you think the stalling issue alone warrants a ban, then the stage should be legal in teams, sure. I just don't see why you want it as a neutral over Pokémon Stadium in teams. The randomness on both stages is negligible (the layout change on Pokémon Stadium is very easily adapted to, possibly more so in teams), and one ceiling is very high while the other is very low. One doesn't seem any more "neutral" than the other, even given this poorly defined notion of neutral that's been thrown around.
Also, I'm finding it difficult to take seriously posts that use the term "uncompetitive." This term is just a loaded way to make differing view points appear worse.
Also, I'm finding it difficult to take seriously posts that use the term "uncompetitive." This term is just a loaded way to make differing view points appear worse.
The MC Clusky
Smash Lord
Geenareeno
Smash Lord
Yeah Kal, you bring up a good point. KJ should switch with PS. It's way more neutral.
Kal
Smash Champion
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2004
- Messages
- 2,973
I think you may have misunderstood my point. I'm saying that neither stage seems more neutral than the other. Moreover, as far as I can tell, there is only one way to call this subset of six stages "neutral:" you explicitly define this subset of six stages as neutral. In other words, it's absolutely contrived.
People really can't tell that they're setting themselves up to look right on these issues through terminology. It's great having people come in and shout "the stages are ****ing called neutral." I could just as easily call the stages "bad." They're not actually bad until I've come up with an agreed upon definition of "bad," and have proven that they fall under this definition. Alas, the best I've seen for neutral is either some circular nonsense about how high-tiers do worse on other stages against other high-tiers, or some claim that the stages significantly reduce the "spread" of matchups away from 50-50. Of course, the latter notion is unlikely to pay off. There are 351 matchups, 26 of which are always even, and so you must expect some significant change in some large subset of the remaining 325 matchups. The majority of matchups, though, will remain unchanged; low-tiers will get ***** by the high-tiers just as badly, and most good characters will do equally well against each other. In other words, any stage that isn't broken is probably neutral under this definition.
King Mosquito, people are closed-minded. When it comes down to it, people want what they want. Even the alleged authority, who is supposed to be dispassionate when making these sorts of decisions, has made it clear that it's just going to be "this is the game we like the most." When you point out that they're being scrubby and explain why it's scrubby, you won't get much more than a misunderstanding of the term. In fact, the misunderstanding has almost developed a canon of its own here on SWF; people will present some nonsensical argument that trying to eliminate randomness and "legitimate johns" is in fact less scrubby. It's absolutely absurd.
This would be like banning throws in Super Turbo in a misguided attempt to make results more consistent.
People really can't tell that they're setting themselves up to look right on these issues through terminology. It's great having people come in and shout "the stages are ****ing called neutral." I could just as easily call the stages "bad." They're not actually bad until I've come up with an agreed upon definition of "bad," and have proven that they fall under this definition. Alas, the best I've seen for neutral is either some circular nonsense about how high-tiers do worse on other stages against other high-tiers, or some claim that the stages significantly reduce the "spread" of matchups away from 50-50. Of course, the latter notion is unlikely to pay off. There are 351 matchups, 26 of which are always even, and so you must expect some significant change in some large subset of the remaining 325 matchups. The majority of matchups, though, will remain unchanged; low-tiers will get ***** by the high-tiers just as badly, and most good characters will do equally well against each other. In other words, any stage that isn't broken is probably neutral under this definition.
King Mosquito, people are closed-minded. When it comes down to it, people want what they want. Even the alleged authority, who is supposed to be dispassionate when making these sorts of decisions, has made it clear that it's just going to be "this is the game we like the most." When you point out that they're being scrubby and explain why it's scrubby, you won't get much more than a misunderstanding of the term. In fact, the misunderstanding has almost developed a canon of its own here on SWF; people will present some nonsensical argument that trying to eliminate randomness and "legitimate johns" is in fact less scrubby. It's absolutely absurd.
This would be like banning throws in Super Turbo in a misguided attempt to make results more consistent.
Fortress | Sveet
▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀
It'd be like banning throws if the throws activated on their own randomly for either player.