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!
nah, I don't think there is a suicide KO rule here(which I feel is kinda eh in Brawl, btw)
the reason is that an odd number of stages is required for stage striking, and Pokémon Stadium is the most polarizing of the legal stages. one of 'em had to go to CP.
(especially when we consider that it is generally the worse characters that have FD as a good stage, and if the stage striking slightly benefits lower tiers, then it is just a positive imo)
That is an interesting stance. I think there plenty of matchups that work fine on FD (for example, when I play Doc vs. Peach w/ my friend, we sometimes end up on FD as the first stage). While there are lots of notable matchups where FD is terrible, there are also enough matchups where FD is relatively unbiased to justify keeping it, at least as a counter-pick.
Using "chance of winning against my opponent" as a metric, stage striking is inherently a zero-sum process in the sense that, since stage bias can be seen as distributed along one dimension, players take turns striking the stage that most favors their opponent until only the median stage remains. Setting the median stage's bias as "zero" (as in, what the MU ratio ought to be), the process can be seen as converging towards the "zero".
It's not a stance reflecting my opinions. I just think the community as a whole, and particularly the MBR, is heading this way. There is a tendency to only focus on the top eight when defining balance: Brinstar isn't really unbalanced when you consider that the overwhelming majority of matchups remain unchanged there. But when you focus on the top eight, you realize that Brinstar favors Peach and Jigglypuff "too much." The same justification can lead to a ban of FD, I think, by observing that Marth and Peach have powerful chaingrabs there, and that Falcon and Sheik have powerful tech chases.
A ruleset is not the extension of the game. You have no game sans ruleset. In a very real sense, the ruleset is the game.
Some choices are arbitrary and must be made. Banning a stage does not fall under this. You also keep referring to bias, which is peculiar since it's not something I've mentioned. I have no problem with bias in a ruleset, it just needs to be justified. I don't expect objectivity per se, but that doesn't mean all decisions are equally justifiable.
We're not "changing the game as we see fit" from the beginning. At the most, we are making the arbitrary decisions where they need to be made: what game should we play? Should we play stock or time? How many stock should we use?
If you mean to say that all rules are justified subjectively, then I might agree. But this mean it's ok to make arbitrary decisions.
Consider the following argument:
Deal with what, exactly?
Cactuar has actually said things are banned in the interest of balance (not necessarily only balance). My guess is that things are done democratically, so every individual in the MBR thinks that things are banned for a different reason.
